From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 1 00:07:25 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:07:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <005301c84bce$b39260c0$a4c8403e@Mildred> References: <002001c84b84$d83e31a0$b3cd403e@Mildred> <000001c84b8c$7e27eeb0$7a77cc10$@com> <05A69EDC-285B-424E-87B6-898FBAD7FF57@starpower.net> <005301c84bce$b39260c0$a4c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <09E16EB3-3377-4DC5-BB72-577E0823B744@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 31, 2007, at 11:58 AM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ There are evidently differing opinions as to why the > Drafting Subcommittee (not the WBFLC) did what it did, > and what was the intention. I gather from your following comments that you consider the DSC's intentions irrelevant, now that the 2007 laws have been published. > No individual can interpret the law with authority Um. Careful, Grattan. You are undermining the authority of the TD on site. 1997 Law 81C5: "The Director?s duties and powers normally include the following: to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." 2007 Law 81C2: "The Director (not the players) has the sole responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director?s duties and powers normally include also the following: to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." No significant change there, AFAICS. > 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. There's doubt in my mind, at least, as to whether they will actually *do* that. And until they or the WBFLC do provide interpretation, it devolves on the TD on site to interpret the laws. I would also submit that readers should remember that the interpretation of one ZA or NBO has no force in other jurisdictions. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 1 00:11:44 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:11:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: References: <002001c84b84$d83e31a0$b3cd403e@Mildred> <9A61754D-A95D-414D-A81C-77B00E8B023B@starpower.net> <0ED57FD3-F7ED-4BCF-B0CC-0ACDE2461872@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <81871B2E-21C8-4981-9655-417FF9F4794D@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 31, 2007, at 12:32 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Nice try, but completely off the mark on your "another scenario" Perhaps so. I wasn't there. To be honest, I'm not sure who was, at this point. Still, since there's no public record of their deliberations... From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 1 00:16:14 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:16:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: References: <002001c84b84$d83e31a0$b3cd403e@Mildred> <9A61754D-A95D-414D-A81C-77B00E8B023B@starpower.net> <0ED57FD3-F7ED-4BCF-B0CC-0ACDE2461872@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <998B5359-38DD-4AB6-B417-77B9B9B16661@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 31, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > 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. I have no intention of insulting anyone - I'm simply speculating since, like most everyone else here, I have no *evidence* of their thought processes. I can certainly envision a last meeting, running late, trying to dot the i's and cross the t's, and get out in time for dinner (or whatever) wherein this kind of "carelessness" might well happen - and I'm not singling out any particular deliberating body in that. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 1 00:26:21 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:26:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. In-Reply-To: <000801c84bfa$1a65b740$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000801c84bfa$1a65b740$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Dec 31, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > 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. So a claim or concession is an offense under the laws? I don't think so. > Law 70A even says so much with the words: "any doubtful point as to > a claim > shall be resolved against the claimer." So what? That doesn't make him an offender. >> 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). In principle, as I understand the laws, a claim is adjudicated by checking to see if there is a normal line of play, consistent with the claim statement, that will result in claimer getting fewer tricks than he claimed. In doing so, claimer is not himself allowed to suggest a new line of play - iow to deviate from his original statement. If we are going to allow play to continue in the presence of a claim, I do not see how we can justify deviating from that principle. From henk at amsterdamned.org Tue Jan 1 01:01:00 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 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 Tue Jan 1 01:01:01 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 01:01:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for December 2007 Posts From ----- ---- 67 svenpran (at) online.no 54 ehaa (at) starpower.net 48 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 39 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 39 hermandw (at) skynet.be 35 ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com 31 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 31 Gampas (at) aol.com 30 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 26 guthrie (at) ntlworld.com 21 twm (at) cix.co.uk 20 john (at) asimere.com 15 schoderb (at) msn.com 13 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 12 cibor (at) poczta.fm 11 swillner (at) nhcc.net 6 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 6 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 5 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 5 paul.vdm (at) skynet.be 5 adam (at) irvine.com 4 kgrauwel (at) hotmail.com 4 bmeadows666 (at) gmail.com 4 blml (at) dybdal.dk 4 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 4 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 4 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 3 martino (at) bridgenz.co.nz 3 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 3 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 3 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 2 torsten.astrand (at) telia.com 2 sater (at) xs4all.nl 2 petrus (at) stift-kremsmuenster.at 2 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 2 henk (at) ripe.net 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 geller (at) nifty.com 2 eitan.bridge (at) gmail.com 2 david.j.barton (at) sky.com 2 B.Schelen (at) IAE.NL 1 wrgptfan (at) gmail.com 1 richard.hills (at) IMMI.GOV.AU 1 mustikka (at) charter.net 1 karel (at) esatclear.ie 1 herman (at) hdw.be 1 hans-olof.hallen (at) bolina.hsb.se 1 emu (at) fwi.net.au 1 defranchi.henri (at) wanadoo.fr 1 ccw.in.nc (at) gmail.com 1 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 1 andre.kriner (at) gmail.com 1 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 1 01:30:53 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 01:30:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c84c0d$91a5b0e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Dec 31, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > 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. > > So a claim or concession is an offense under the laws? I don't think so. , I didn't say that it is; I said that the player making a claim or a concession causes a deviation from the regular progress of play: trick by trick. > > Law 70A even says so much with the words: "any doubtful point as to > > a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." > > So what? That doesn't make him an offender. And I didn't say that it does. But the laws instruct us to rule against him whenever there is a question of doubt. The easy way to remember this is to treat him as the offending side, and the reason for doing so is that he interrupts the normal progress of play. > >> 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). > > In principle, as I understand the laws, a claim is adjudicated by > checking to see if there is a normal line of play, consistent with > the claim statement, that will result in claimer getting fewer tricks > than he claimed. In doing so, claimer is not himself allowed to > suggest a new line of play - iow to deviate from his original > statement. If we are going to allow play to continue in the presence > of a claim, I do not see how we can justify deviating from that > principle. So how will you rule when a defender says to declarer: You get three of the remaining four tricks and the other defender immediately objects? Remember that this defender has by definition (L68B1) claimed (attempted a claim?) one trick, but he has not yet given any statement with that claim. Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 1 01:48:16 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:48:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. In-Reply-To: <000a01c84c0d$91a5b0e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000a01c84c0d$91a5b0e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <22339F59-7663-4BDE-900F-7ECFD3F3E07E@rochester.rr.com> On Dec 31, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > The easy way to remember this is to treat him as the offending side, So, he's not an offender, we just treat him like he's one? Huh. I don't seem to have any trouble remembering that he's not an offender, and has not committed an offense, but we nonetheless give the benefit of the doubt when adjudicating his claim to his opponent (which is what the law actually *says*, after all). From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 1 03:52:35 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 02:52:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] re claim References: <002001c84b84$d83e31a0$b3cd403e@Mildred><000001c84b8c$7e27eeb0$7a77cc10$@com><05A69EDC-285B-424E-87B6-898FBAD7FF57@starpower.net><005301c84bce$b39260c0$a4c8403e@Mildred> <09E16EB3-3377-4DC5-BB72-577E0823B744@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002501c84c21$6105c920$c5d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 11:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] re claim On Dec 31, 2007, at 11:58 AM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ There are evidently differing opinions as to why the > Drafting Subcommittee (not the WBFLC) did what it did, > and what was the intention. I gather from your following comments that you consider the DSC's intentions irrelevant, now that the 2007 laws have been published. > No individual can interpret the law with authority Um. Careful, Grattan. You are undermining the authority of the TD on site. +=+ I had thought that what followed would clarify. However I agree that at a tournament the Director in charge can interpret the law (but will be subject to any interpretation given to him by Zone or NBO.) Nothing that an individual member of the DSC or of the WBFLC says is anything more than personal opinion. I do support ton's position rather than Kojak's and I muse also upon the possibility of bringing 70D3 into it. The DSC has ceased to exist, except insofar as it may illustrate in an appendix the operation of the 2007 laws. That would not have the force of an 'interpretation' unless and until adopted as such by the WBFLC. In any case the production of an appendix seems to have hit the rocks, albeit only temporarily perhaps. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 1 13:26:32 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:26:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim. CORRECTION. In-Reply-To: <000401c84bc0$805690e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000401c84bc0$805690e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <477A3178.90803@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> 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. > Yes Sven, but, just tell me - why? And why does that same thing not apply to the guy who can't count? It is a claim - no doubt about it. He said something about future tricks! > 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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 1 13:23:31 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:23:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] re claim References: <000701c84bec$f098f420$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <002f01c84c71$8212ba60$baca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] re claim > > What is required now is to have as soon as absolutely > possible an official statement from WBFLC to settle this > dispute. > +=+ Under its agreed procedures the WBFLC only acts corporately in a meeting. It acknowledges the issue of interim interpretations by Zonal Authorities with effect in their respective zones. Each NBO, and each Director in charge of a tournament, has power to fill any vacuum left by default of interpretation. In my opinion, past statements of principle by the WBFLC continue to apply unless incompatible with law; the words 'play continues' are unconditional and place no restraint upon any player in the play; the Director's presence is explicitly stated to be concerned with the potential for use of UI. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From martino at bridgenz.co.nz Tue Jan 1 23:16:52 2008 From: martino at bridgenz.co.nz (Martin Oyston) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:16:52 +1300 Subject: [blml] New Law 27 In-Reply-To: <47790B69.1080709@ripe.net> Message-ID: >From an outsider it looks like the intent of the law is to allow any sort of "normal" auction to continue without reaching a contract based on UI. The technicalities on this one are going to have some Directors in the appeals room far too often! Martin Oyston From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 2 00:58:41 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:58:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <07e701c84938$9ef239d0$823a1d53@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>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). Konrad Ciborowski: >De Wael School has nothing to do with varying understandings. Richard Hills: I agree, which is why the reference to the De Wael School was restricted inside the brackets which referred merely to varying explanations. Konrad Ciborowski: >Coming up: Richard explaining why L1 makes dWS illegal. Grattan Endicott: +=+ 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 deduced from the operation of other laws. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: The 2007 Law 40A3 (and 40A1(b) also) make the De Wael School illegal. The 2007 Law 40B4 uses the strong word "entitled" to an adjusted score if an illegal De Wael School action damages innocent opponents. And the 2007 Law 40C3(b) authorises disciplinary action against any acolytes who repeatedly adopt illegal De Wael School actions. Herman De Wael: >I demand an apology. Richard Hills: I freely acknowledge that Herman's hobby-horse had significant logical merit under the 1997 Lawbook, but its logical merit has shrunk under the new, more explicit 2007 Lawbook. Furthermore, logic takes second-place behind a relevant Authority (WBF LC, Zones, NBOs) when interpreting the Lawbook. And _zero_ relevant Authorities back the De Wael School. I agree that Herman is a lovable eccentric (while I am an unlovable eccentric). with Herman's ongoing clinging to the De Wael School reminiscent of the White Knight (in Alice Through the Looking Glass) saying, "It's my own invention". So I unconditionally apologise if my attack on the illegal De Wael School was misinterpreted as an attack on Herman himself. Perhaps it is time to separate the lovable Herman De Wael, the man, from the illegal concept of the De Wael School (which meme has already infected bridge players in Belgium and elsewhere). Is Herman willing to abandon the De Wael School and move on to designing new and better inventions? 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 Wed Jan 2 10:12:04 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:12:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <477B5564.3080808@skynet.be> Hello Richard, I see that you have not yet mellowed. Although, why should you? richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > Konrad Ciborowski: > >> De Wael School has nothing to do with varying understandings. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree, which is why the reference to the De Wael School was > restricted inside the brackets which referred merely to varying > explanations. > which is not forbidden by L16 (any version). > Konrad Ciborowski: > >> Coming up: Richard explaining why L1 makes dWS illegal. > > Grattan Endicott: > > +=+ 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 deduced from the operation of other laws. > ~ G ~ +=+ I still do not see what "understandings" have to do with the dWS. I again emphasise that the restrictions on bidding by a player whose partner has given a wrong explanation are totally the same under the dWS and any other. In fact, I stress this fairly strongly. > > Richard Hills: > > The 2007 Law 40A3 (and 40A1(b) also) make the De Wael School > illegal. Let's read 2007L40A3 then: A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1). I see nothing therein about explaining. I stop this discussion right now. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 10:49:28 2008 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 04:49:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <002f01c84c71$8212ba60$baca403e@Mildred> References: <000701c84bec$f098f420$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <002f01c84c71$8212ba60$baca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <20080102044928.372e911f@linuxbox> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:23:31 -0000 wrote: > In my opinion, past statements of principle by the > WBFLC continue to apply unless incompatible with law; So what you're saying, Grattan, if I may rephrase it, is that any entity or individual wanting to accurately determine the current understanding of any law must attempt to access all WBFLC minutes, right back to the inception of the WBFLC, just in case there is a "statement of principle" that is still in force, i.e. one that has not been voided by becoming "incompatible with law". If that is the case, then may I suggest that the game would best be served by having the next FLB make no modifications to the Laws whatsoever, but rather be used to get everything up to date so that someone reading TFLB may be certain that what they are reading accurately reflects the laws, at least at the date of publication, and that all WBFLC minutes published prior to that date may be safely disregarded? Brian. -- From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jan 2 11:07:48 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 02 Jan 2008 11:07:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wording of the laws Message-ID: <20080102100748.598EC1D789F@f39.poczta.interia.pl> While working on the Polish version of the new laws I have come to a certain observation of the languange and wording of the laws. The laws rely heavily on some certain subtle nuances of meaning of words in English. Sometimes quite subtle. For instance the meaning of words like "likely" or "probable" when these words are on their own is quite different than when they come in phrases like "at all likely" or "at all probable". This difference is critical for understanding and translation of some crucial laws, like law 12. I checked three versions of the laws: Polish, French and Russian. In two of them (Polish and French) the relevant laws don't match the original laws because whoever did the translation failed to grasp the subtle differences. For instance: "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred." Polish version: the most favorable result that that non-offending side could have obtained had the irregularity not occurred. This is not the same as the most favorable result that was _likely_ - the requirement of the result being likely disappeared. In the French version they got this one right but they got the next one wrong: "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable." In the Polish version this one is translated correctly but the French version reads: the offending side obtains the unfavorable result that is the most probable (le r?sultat d?favorable le plus probable). Not quite the same. If one has a choice between 4S -2 (40% chance in the TD's assessment) or 4S -3 (15% chance) that according to the French version the offenders get 4S -2. Now let's take a look at L70C: "it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent’s hand" Polish version: the claimer was probably unaware that a trump remained in an opponent’s hand Not exactly the same thing - the Polish version requires moch stronger condition to be fulfilled. French version: there exists a remote chance that the claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent’s hand Here "la moindre probabilit?" is required, a remote possibility, which sounds like a much weaker requirement to me. Of course - one can easily blame the authors of the translations (for instance the Russian version was dead right in all cases). But I have a strong suspicion that in many other versions of laws these subtle differences might not have been caught. So instead of relying of non-native speakers being able to feel different shades of meanings of words (on top of that we have a slight discrepancy between the meaning of "likely" in British English and in American English - how many people do you think are aware of that?) it might be a much better idea to simply quantify certain laws (for instance "in the TD's there is 10% chance that...") or at least use simpler English. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mozesz go miec! Ten samochod czeka na Ciebie! Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1cbd From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 2 11:08:26 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:08:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <477B5564.3080808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c84d27$6afa48f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > Let's read 2007L40A3 then: > > A player may make any call or play without prior > announcement provided that such call or play is not based > on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law > 40C1). > > I see nothing therein about explaining. > > I stop this discussion right now. Just one comment: 2007L40B3: 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. DWS appears essentially to be a prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understanding during the auction following a response to a question, namely to adopt an incorrect answer as the new agreement (at least if it can fit the situation). Sven From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jan 2 11:10:12 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:10:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <5A0EEAB0-984D-4626-9F14-08D1C2358104@starpower.net> Message-ID: Sven: > 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. Eric: "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*? ton: Can anybody tell me what the problem is we are discussing here? As you know I am of course willing to help solving such problem but I need to know/understand it to be able to do so. Were are we? Declarer leads to trick 10 and LHO ceases play with the statement: 'this is your last trick' Does anybody disagree with the fact that he implicitly has claimed the other 3 tricks? If yes (disagree), on what base? RHO now objects. Does anybody disagree with the TD telling that play has to be continued? And that he doesn't need to say anymore more, since the only relevant objection can be that RHO thinks to win trick 10? If yes (disagree), on what base? If both answers are 'no' (agree) with what problem are we left? If there isn't one, you may continue to tell that the drafting committee did a lousy job I accept that opinion (for which I do not need to agree with it) but will not join that discussion. ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jan 2 11:24:40 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:24:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: As you may expect I try to understand this topic, so read some more mails. Do I have to believe that somebody is trying to tell us that L68B2 only applies for a defender who concedes all remaining tricks? May I ask David to find the word describing the quality of that opinion? How is it possible to read 'if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks...' in such a way? ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jan 2 11:28:47 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:28:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <002f01c84c71$8212ba60$baca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: > > What is required now is to have as soon as absolutely > possible an official statement from WBFLC to settle this > dispute. > ton: What dispute? You are not telling me that I need to fill the LC agenda with all the (non-)issues coming up in this list? From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jan 2 11:35:00 2008 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <200801021026.m02AQjF3025233@mta09.mx.cix.co.uk> Message-ID: Ton wrote: > > Do I have to believe that somebody is trying to tell us that L68B2 > only applies for a defender who concedes all remaining tricks? Not me. L68b2 applies if: a) Defender concedes all the tricks. b) Defender concedes a number of tricks THEREBY claiming the remainder. (Because in this latter case the cancelling of a concession causes the "thereby claim" to cease to exist following the principle of the WBF 2001 minute. L68D applies if: c) Defender explicitly claims and concedes a specific number of tricks. d) Defender claims a number of tricks thereby conceding the remainder (There is no provision under either L68b2 or the WBF minute to cancel such a claim). Play may continue only if there is *neither* claim nor concession so it is necessary that *both* be cancelled if we are not to apply L68D. Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 2 12:12:37 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 12:12:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <200801021036.m02AaDgM021740@mail26.nsc.no> Message-ID: <000501c84d30$62638f40$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of ton > Sven: > > 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. > > Eric: > "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*? > > > ton: > Can anybody tell me what the problem is we are discussing here? As I have understood the discussion we have one party who asserts that Law 68B2 voids the concession but not any (implied) claim because the words "or claim" was stricken from L68B2. The consequence is that whenever there is a concession by one defender of some but not all the remaining tricks and the other defender immediately objects the Director must still rule on the implied claim and play must therefore cease anyway. > As you know I am of course willing to help solving such problem but I need > to know/understand it to be able to do so. > > Were are we? > Declarer leads to trick 10 and LHO ceases play with the statement: 'this > is > your last trick' > > Does anybody disagree with the fact that he implicitly has claimed the > other > 3 tricks? Obviously not. > If yes (disagree), on what base? > > RHO now objects. > Does anybody disagree with the TD telling that play has to be continued? That is exactly what "the other party" does, they say that the claim is not void, must be ruled upon like a regular claim, and that therefore play must cease. > And > that he doesn't need to say anymore more, since the only relevant > objection > can be that RHO thinks to win trick 10? > > If yes (disagree), on what base? They say this as a consequence of L68B2 only refers to "concession" but not to "claim" as not having occurred. > > If both answers are 'no' (agree) with what problem are we left? To convince that party that when a concession is void under L68B2 so is any implied claim that may have occurred in connection with that concession. > If there isn't one, you may continue to tell that the drafting committee > did > a lousy job I accept that opinion (for which I do not need to agree with > it) > but will not join that discussion. Neither do I. Regards Sven From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jan 2 12:13:48 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 02 Jan 2008 12:13:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? Message-ID: <20080102111348.66AD81D789E@f39.poczta.interia.pl> > DWS appears essentially to be a prior agreement by a partnership to vary > its > understanding during the auction following a response to a question, > namely > to adopt an incorrect answer as the new agreement Huh? How can "an answer" be an agreement? What are you talking about? I open 2H - weak two in hearts holding xx AJxxxx x KJxx Partner bids 2S - asking for shortness. But before partner bids 2S he explains my 2H as 5+-5+ hearts and another. Playing dWS I alert 2S as pass-or-correct and then rebid 3D - replying to the singleton inquiry. I do not bid 3C - THAT would be varying understanding. In that case partner's 2S bid would mean: 1. If responder remembers the meaning of 2H and explains it correctly then opener shows shortness 2. If responder forgets and explains 2H as 5+-5+ then opener shows naturally his best suit that resembles a five-carder the most But no - playing dWS I still bid 3D. Where is varying the understanding? The 2S bid is systemically asking for shortness and I am bidding my shortness. I am varying the explanationto avoid creating UI, yes, but not the understanding. Partner will have no idea that a misunderstanding occurred so how can you talk about my incorrect answer being a new agreement - it takes two sides to create an agreement. It is the traditional school that is much closer to creating an agreement because when I explain 2S as "asking for shortness" partner will immediately know that I have a weak two-bid and not 5+-5+ and from then on we might as well stop explaining anything because everything has become clear for everybody. It is the traditional school that is essentially like an agreement "if I explain wrongly than please immediately correct me so that I know that we have a misunderstaning". Also - playing traditional school - a correct explanation is always a message "partner, we are on the same wavelength, don't worry". Playing DWS I can never be sure that I am not in the middle of a huge misunderstanding. So it is the traditional school that actively uses answers to questions for communication between partners even if everyone remembers the system, the message being "partner, we are on the same wavelength". -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bedac w toalecie korzystala z ... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cbc From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 2 12:16:31 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 12:16:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <200801021108.m02B8DsF003634@mail26.nsc.no> Message-ID: <000601c84d30$edb8f670$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of ton > As you may expect I try to understand this topic, so read some more mails. > > Do I have to believe that somebody is trying to tell us that L68B2 only > applies for a defender who concedes all remaining tricks? Yes > May I ask David to find the word describing the quality of that opinion? > > How is it possible to read 'if a defender attempts to concede one or more > tricks...' in such a way? It is indeed impossible. But they base their opinion on the omission of the words "or claim" from L68B2 and claim that as a consequence any implied claim has indeed occurred and must be handled in the regular way even when the other defender has objected to the concession which therefore "has not occurred". Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 2 12:19:06 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 12:19:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <200801021115.m02BF6Ds027537@mail31.nsc.no> Message-ID: <000701c84d31$4a14ea00$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of ton > > What is required now is to have as soon as absolutely > > possible an official statement from WBFLC to settle this > > dispute. > > > > > ton: > > What dispute? You are not telling me that I need to fill the LC agenda > with > all the (non-)issues coming up in this list? No, but I think this particular one is rather urgent? Regards Sven From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 2 12:53:43 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:53:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000601c84d30$edb8f670$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <200801021108.m02B8DsF003634@mail26.nsc.no> <000601c84d30$edb8f670$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <000b01c84d36$1ff769a0$5fe63ce0$@com> [SP] But they base their opinion on the omission of the words "or claim" from L68B2 and claim that as a consequence any implied claim has indeed occurred [DALB] Not only do they claim that it has, they are not prepared to concede that it hasn't. David Burn London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 2 13:18:05 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 12:18:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] re claim References: <000701c84d31$4a14ea00$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <000901c84d39$b0739aa0$27ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 11:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] re claim >> >> > What is required now is to have as soon as absolutely >> > possible an official statement from WBFLC to settle this >> > dispute. >> > >> (ton) >> What dispute? You are not telling me that I need to fill >> the LC agenda with all the (non-)issues coming up in this >> list? > > (Sven) > No, but I think this particular one is rather urgent? > +=+ A difficulty in raising matters argued on blml in the WBFLC is the low regard that many of the committee members have for the quality of debate in this forum. It is quite likely that ton, like myself, contributes here largely to alert any TDs who subscribe to this forum to the risks of relying upon discussion here as a source of guidance. They should be consulting their regulating authorities. (It also serves to give us an insight as to the aspects on which TDs may be misled.) However, in the case of this claims item the disagreement within the DSC is disturbing and lends weight to the case for official clarification. It tends to justify treatment in the appendix, in which regard the balance of opinion in the DSC seems to be that (in the words of one member who advocates a minimalist approach), it (the proposed appendix) "should be used not to draw attention to changes or to explain them but for examples which would clarify". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jan 2 13:37:01 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 02 Jan 2008 13:37:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke Message-ID: <20080102123701.5018E1D789F@f39.poczta.interia.pl> This law also existed in the previous version L64B4 There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: Wow!! In all team matches that I play (even in the First Division) players get the hand records no sooner that after a half is finished. But this means that if I discover an opponent's revoke in one of the deals when I see the hand records from the half that I have just finished then it is already too late to penalize/rectify it even if this opponent admits to having revoked and is ready to suffer the consequences. Was it intended? If so - am I supposed to ask my opponents to show me their hands every single time I claim? If they say "what for?" am I supposed to call the TD? It hardly seems practical. And it would annoy the hell out of everybody if I started doing it. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mozesz go miec! Ten samochod czeka na Ciebie! Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1cbd From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 2 13:30:03 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 12:30:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <477B5564.3080808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003801c84d3c$db8f3070$27ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> Richard Hills: >> >> The 2007 Law 40A3 (and 40A1(b) also) make the De >> Wael School >> illegal. > > Let's read 2007L40A3 then: > > A player may make any call or play without prior > announcement provided that such call or play is not > based on an undisclosed partnership understanding > (see Law 40C1). > > I see nothing therein about explaining. > > I stop this discussion right now. > +=+ I am glad about this. Among WBFLC members the most frequently cited example of the low quality of debate in this forum is the argument of the DWS school. Members of the WBFLC consider it unworthy of response. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 2 13:41:51 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 12:41:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] re claim References: <000701c84bec$f098f420$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><002f01c84c71$8212ba60$baca403e@Mildred> <20080102044928.372e911f@linuxbox> Message-ID: <003901c84d3c$dc765c20$27ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 9:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] re claim > On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:23:31 -0000 > wrote: > >> In my opinion, past statements of principle by the >> WBFLC continue to apply unless incompatible with law; > > So what you're saying, Grattan, if I may rephrase it, is that any > entity or individual wanting to accurately determine the current > understanding of any law must attempt to access all WBFLC minutes, > right back to the inception of the WBFLC, just in case there is a > "statement of principle" that is still in force, i.e. one that has not > been voided by becoming "incompatible with law". > > If that is the case, then may I suggest that the game would best be > served by having the next FLB make no modifications to the Laws > whatsoever, but rather be used to get everything up to date so that > someone reading TFLB may be certain that what they are reading > accurately reflects the laws, at least at the date of publication, and > that all WBFLC minutes published prior to that date may be safely > disregarded? > +=+ The minutes are posted on the web and may be read. Those interested will read them. The ecats website and the blakjak site provide extra exposure for them. Failure to look at published information does not expunge its existence and we do what we can to make the minutes available. David Stevenson has made a useful contribution to the exercise by including mention of the more significant matters in the English Bridge Union's 'White Book', also available (on the EBU's website). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 2 13:47:34 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 12:47:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Wording of the laws References: <20080102100748.598EC1D789F@f39.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <005401c84d3d$a8b3ab30$27ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 10:07 AM Subject: [blml] Wording of the laws While working on the Polish version of the new laws I have come to a certain observation of the languange and wording of the laws. The laws rely heavily on some certain subtle nuances of meaning of words in English. Sometimes quite subtle. For instance the meaning of words like "likely" or "probable" when these words are on their own is quite different than when they come in phrases like "at all likely" or "at all probable". This difference is critical for understanding and translation of some crucial laws, like law 12. I checked three versions of the laws: Polish, French and Russian. In two of them (Polish and French) the relevant laws don't match the original laws because whoever did the translation failed to grasp the subtle differences. For instance: "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred." Polish version: the most favorable result that that non-offending side could have obtained had the irregularity not occurred. This is not the same as the most favorable result that was _likely_ - the requirement of the result being likely disappeared. In the French version they got this one right but they got the next one wrong: "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable." In the Polish version this one is translated correctly but the French version reads: the offending side obtains the unfavorable result that is the most probable (le r?sultat d?favorable le plus probable). Not quite the same. If one has a choice between 4S -2 (40% chance in the TD's assessment) or 4S -3 (15% chance) that according to the French version the offenders get 4S -2. Now let's take a look at L70C: "it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent’s hand" Polish version: the claimer was probably unaware that a trump remained in an opponent’s hand Not exactly the same thing - the Polish version requires moch stronger condition to be fulfilled. French version: there exists a remote chance that the claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent’s hand Here "la moindre probabilit?" is required, a remote possibility, which sounds like a much weaker requirement to me. Of course - one can easily blame the authors of the translations (for instance the Russian version was dead right in all cases). But I have a strong suspicion that in many other versions of laws these subtle differences might not have been caught. So instead of relying of non-native speakers being able to feel different shades of meanings of words (on top of that we have a slight discrepancy between the meaning of "likely" in British English and in American English - how many people do you think are aware of that?) it might be a much better idea to simply quantify certain laws (for instance "in the TD's there is 10% chance that...") or at least use simpler English. ............................................................................... +=+ I think it is desirable to use the English construction that best conveys, in English, the intended meaning. The English version is the world templet. This does not preclude addition of a translator's note to amplify the meaning. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 2 14:16:33 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:16:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <20080102044928.372e911f@linuxbox> References: <000701c84bec$f098f420$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <002f01c84c71$8212ba60$baca403e@Mildred> <20080102044928.372e911f@linuxbox> Message-ID: <477B8EB1.8020202@skynet.be> Brian wrote: > On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:23:31 -0000 > wrote: > >> In my opinion, past statements of principle by the >> WBFLC continue to apply unless incompatible with law; > > So what you're saying, Grattan, if I may rephrase it, is that any > entity or individual wanting to accurately determine the current > understanding of any law must attempt to access all WBFLC minutes, > right back to the inception of the WBFLC, just in case there is a > "statement of principle" that is still in force, i.e. one that has not > been voided by becoming "incompatible with law". > Yes Brian, that is what you need to do. There is a lot you need to know, other than the laws themselves. That is what a course in directing is for. The current debate is, IMHO, over the top. The laws are clear, again IMHO. A claim and a concession go hand-in-hand, and there is no way to have one without the other. That should follow from the laws, but there are idiots who think otherwise. The 2001 statement by the WBF was merely to say, very politely, that those who think otherwise, are wrong (and idiots). That statement is not needed to continue to understand the laws as written. Since those laws are basically unchanged, there is no need to add in the lawbook "and those that think otherwise are idiots". I apologize to anyone who may find himself included in a category of idiots. I do not think you are an idiot, merely misguided. > If that is the case, then may I suggest that the game would best be > served by having the next FLB make no modifications to the Laws > whatsoever, but rather be used to get everything up to date so that > someone reading TFLB may be certain that what they are reading > accurately reflects the laws, at least at the date of publication, and > that all WBFLC minutes published prior to that date may be safely > disregarded? > > > Brian. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 2 14:21:03 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:21:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c84d27$6afa48f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c84d27$6afa48f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <477B8FBF.60406@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .............. >> Let's read 2007L40A3 then: >> >> A player may make any call or play without prior >> announcement provided that such call or play is not based >> on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law >> 40C1). >> >> I see nothing therein about explaining. >> >> I stop this discussion right now. > > Just one comment: > > 2007L40B3: The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a > partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following > a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity. > > DWS appears essentially to be a prior agreement by a partnership to vary its > understanding during the auction following a response to a question, namely > to adopt an incorrect answer as the new agreement (at least if it can fit > the situation). > > Sven > Sven, please, don't you start as well. The dWS does NOT change any understanding, agreement, action or whatever. Only in our explanations do we differ from you majoritarians! And explanations are not subject to anything of L16! So please stop this line of attack - it is worthless. You have far better arguments - even if not good enough. This argument is quite simply wrong. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 2 14:23:07 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:23:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003801c84d3c$db8f3070$27ce403e@Mildred> References: <477B5564.3080808@skynet.be> <003801c84d3c$db8f3070$27ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <477B903B.5010401@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************** > "We do not want those who are > illegally in the country in Culpeper. > It's not meant to be mean-spirited, > it's not against any nationality, any > race, it's not against any socio -economic > factors. It's about what is legal and > what is illegal - and to me it's very > black and white." > Steve Jenkins (Culpeper VA.) > has a problem with Hispanic incomers. > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 9:12 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> The 2007 Law 40A3 (and 40A1(b) also) make the De >>> Wael School >>> illegal. >> Let's read 2007L40A3 then: >> >> A player may make any call or play without prior >> announcement provided that such call or play is not >> based on an undisclosed partnership understanding >> (see Law 40C1). >> >> I see nothing therein about explaining. >> >> I stop this discussion right now. >> > +=+ I am glad about this. Among WBFLC members > the most frequently cited example of the low quality > of debate in this forum is the argument of the DWS > school. Members of the WBFLC consider it unworthy > of response. Completely strange! I really would like half an hour in front of you guys to explain why not only am I not wrong, but even completely right! The dWS is the logical consequence of the way bridge should be played, in 1997 lawes or earlier or later. I really hope to be able to convince you guys. I thought I had gotten there with you, Grattan, in Antalya. You seemed to understand what I was trying to say! > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 2 14:26:49 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:26:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <20080102111348.66AD81D789E@f39.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20080102111348.66AD81D789E@f39.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <477B9119.6040504@skynet.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > So it is the traditional school that actively > uses answers to questions for communication > between partners even if everyone remembers > the system, the message being "partner, we > are on the same wavelength". > One of the better arguments in favour of the dWS. I'm happy to be not the first to have thought about it. Makes me even more certain I'm on the right track! Thank you Konrad. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 2 14:37:40 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:37:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <20080102123701.5018E1D789F@f39.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <000801c84d44$a5bcfc40$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > This law also existed in the previous version > > L64B4 > > There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: > > > Wow!! In all team matches that I play (even in the First Division) > players get the hand records no sooner that after > a half is finished. > > But this means that if I discover an opponent's revoke > in one of the deals when I see the hand records > from the half that I have just finished then > it is already too late to penalize/rectify it even if > this opponent admits to having revoked and is ready > to suffer the consequences. > > Was it intended? If so - am I supposed to ask my opponents > to show me their hands every single time I claim? > If they say "what for?" am I supposed to call the > TD? > > It hardly seems practical. And it would annoy > the hell out of everybody if I started doing it. Haven't you now completely overlooked or forgotten L64C? Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 2 14:49:28 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:49:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke References: <20080102123701.5018E1D789F@f39.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <001a01c84d46$5f014f70$84d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:37 PM Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke This law also existed in the previous version L64B4 There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: Wow!! In all team matches that I play (even in the First Division) players get the hand records no sooner that after a half is finished. But this means that if I discover an opponent's revoke in one of the deals when I see the hand records from the half that I have just finished then it is already too late to penalize/rectify it even if this opponent admits to having revoked and is ready to suffer the consequences. Was it intended? If so - am I supposed to ask my opponents to show me their hands every single time I claim? If they say "what for?" am I supposed to call the TD? It hardly seems practical. And it would annoy the hell out of everybody if I started doing it. +=+ As under the 1997 Laws the situation is one in which Law 64C applies. At seminars Directors are often guided, should they notice a revoke in the play, not to draw attention to it until the right of rectification has expired. ~ G ~ +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jan 2 15:19:18 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 02 Jan 2008 15:19:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wording of the laws Message-ID: <20080102141918.C310A80DB9B@f13.poczta.interia.pl> > +=+ I think it is desirable to use the English construction > that best conveys, in English, the intended meaning. The > English version is the world templet. This does not preclude > addition of a translator's note to amplify the meaning. > ~ G ~ +=+ If the facts don't fit the theory - too bad for the facts. I have demonstrated that because of the convoluted wording of the laws they were not properly tranlated into languages of two major bridge federations. And what you're saying is essentially "too bad, call somebody who cares". I'd say that overall this is the biggest drawback of the laws (apart from making cheating a no-lose strategy) - ignoring the practical aspect of the application of the laws. Insisting on the students tournament for 8 pairs be played according to exactly the same complex set of laws as the Bermuda Bowl is totally impractical. It is quite a big city (700 000 inhabitants) and with about 500 bridge players. I know all TDs in my city. And only two of them are really capable of fully understanding the current laws. I am going to play in a tourney tonight in a local blub and I know who will be directing and I know what kind of rulings he gives in simple cases. And the WBFLC expects this chap to separate the damage that is caused by MI from the one that is self-inflicted. You gotta be kidding. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mozesz go miec! Ten samochod czeka na Ciebie! Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1cbd From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jan 2 15:51:06 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 02 Jan 2008 15:51:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke Message-ID: <20080102145106.7439380DB9A@f13.poczta.interia.pl> > +=+ As under the 1997 Laws the situation is one in > which Law 64C applies. But the L64C can only rectify anything if the revoke mattered in the bridge way. It cannot re-apply the automatic rectification. Say South is in 7NT on a losing finesse. If West makes a revoke that doesn't affect the play before the finess is taken then the TD cannot adjust to 7NT = (if the TD could still apply the automatic rectification then L64B4 would be totally meaningless). While if South could see the hands record immediately he would know that the revoke occurred. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mozesz go miec! Ten samochod czeka na Ciebie! Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1cbd From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 2 15:53:00 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:53:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wording of the laws In-Reply-To: <20080102141918.C310A80DB9B@f13.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20080102141918.C310A80DB9B@f13.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <477BA54C.2060703@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > I have demonstrated that because of the convoluted > wording of the laws they were not properly tranlated > into languages of two major bridge federations. > > And what you're saying is essentially "too bad, call > somebody who cares". > > I agree with Konrad. Translation problems can be a huge nuisance. Think of Middle East UN resolutions. Asking players to refer to a complex text written in a language they might be using poorly is absurd. Asking specialist translators to make a good job seems more reasonable. Asking lawmakers to make it less complex is even better. Best regards Alain From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jan 2 15:58:43 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:58:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000601c84d30$edb8f670$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: > On Behalf Of ton > As you may expect I try to understand this topic, so read some more mails. > > Do I have to believe that somebody is trying to tell us that L68B2 > only applies for a defender who concedes all remaining tricks? Yes > May I ask David to find the word describing the quality of that opinion? > > How is it possible to read 'if a defender attempts to concede one or > more tricks...' in such a way? It is indeed impossible. But they base their opinion on the omission of the words "or claim" from L68B2 and claim that as a consequence any implied claim has indeed occurred and must be handled in the regular way even when the other defender has objected to the concession which therefore "has not occurred". Regards Sven ton: We did not delete 'or claim' in L 68B2. There was no 'or claim' in 68B2. We have 68B2 as it was in the '97 version with a completely redundant interpretation in LC minutes in 2001 or whatever. Is anybody seriously suggesting that we were not able to say: 'if a defender concedes all remaining tricks....' in law 68B? We did not say so - why would anybody want to make a distinction based on the number of tricks conceded? - therefore 68B2 applies in all situations where a defender concedes at least one trick. L 68B2 clearly states that if partner then objects play continues. With my remark towards David about using the word 'nonsense' in a previous e-mail I made it impossible to use that word myself, which appears to be utterly stupid. ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jan 2 16:11:38 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:11:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim: L68D applies if: d) Defender claims a number of tricks thereby conceding the remainder (There is no provision under either L68b2 or the WBF minute to cancel such a claim). ton: Last try; This statement under d) is wrong. Coming back to my example: declarer leads in trick 10 and LHO says: 'this is your last trick'. RHO objects and play has to be continued. Are you really trying to tell me that with: 'I take the last 3 tricks' and partner objecting play can't be continued? If so, you are wrong. And there is nothing in L68 nor in the 2001 minutes supporting you. ton From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 2 16:42:34 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:42:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <20080102145106.7439380DB9A@f13.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <000001c84d56$1844afe0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski > > +=+ As under the 1997 Laws the situation is one in > > which Law 64C applies. > > But the L64C can only rectify anything if the revoke mattered > in the bridge way. It cannot re-apply the > automatic rectification. > > Say South is in 7NT on a losing finesse. > If West makes a revoke that doesn't affect the play > before the finess is taken then the TD cannot adjust > to 7NT = (if the TD could still apply the automatic > rectification then L64B4 would be totally > meaningless). > > While if South could see the hands record immediately > he would know that the revoke occurred. And if he pays sufficient attention to the game he doesn't need the hand records to discover that West had revoked. You are correct in that L64C cannot be used in this case, quite sensible IMHO. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jan 2 16:46:00 2008 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:46 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000601c84d30$edb8f670$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > But they base their opinion on the omission of the words "or claim" > from L68B2 and claim that as a consequence any implied claim has > indeed occurred Insofar as I am aware nobody has argued that case. *Implied* claims (ie those arising where a number of tricks have been conceded THEREBY claiming the complement) are cancelled following the guidance from the previous WBF minute. The logic for cancelling the claim is that because it arises solely from the concession it ceases to exist when the concession is cancelled. Explicit claims are a different matter. The WBF minute never applied to explicit claims (even those where the claim was for a specific number of tricks THEREBY conceding the remainder). If there is an explicit claim under L68A play then ceases under L68D regardless of whether there was a subsequent, simultaneous, or implied concession. It doesn't matter that an accompanying concession is cancelled since there is still a claim. "I get my two hearts and you get the rest" is a claim even if partner immediately objects to the concession of the rest. We can delete "and you get the rest" under L68b2 and deem the *concession* not to have occurred but we cannot (because L68b1 does not encompass disregarding L68A) delete the "I get my two hearts". This is exactly the same as under the 2001 footnote which did not include cancelling claims (even those for a number of tricks THEREBY conceding the remainder). The use of "THEREBY" absolutely *requires* causality. *Explicit* claims do NOT arise from concessions. This is just basic English - not complex law. Tim From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 16:58:05 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 09:58:05 -0600 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <000001c84d56$1844afe0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <20080102145106.7439380DB9A@f13.poczta.interia.pl> <000001c84d56$1844afe0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801020758iad508a4nb921e7d3268bdbb3@mail.gmail.com> Sven: > > And if he pays sufficient attention to the game he doesn't need the hand > records to discover that West had revoked. You are correct in that L64C > cannot be used in this case, quite sensible IMHO. > He might not know about the revoke unless he asks to see the opponents' hands when he claims. Your logic seems to imply that paying sufficient attention to the game requires seeing the opponent's hands every time one claims. Jerry Fusselman From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 2 17:30:48 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:30:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <200801021615.m02GFrin001248@mail30.nsc.no> Message-ID: <000101c84d5c$d56a69b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of ton > > On Behalf Of ton > > As you may expect I try to understand this topic, so read some more > mails. > > > > Do I have to believe that somebody is trying to tell us that L68B2 > > only applies for a defender who concedes all remaining tricks? > > Yes > > > May I ask David to find the word describing the quality of that opinion? > > > > How is it possible to read 'if a defender attempts to concede one or > > more tricks...' in such a way? > > It is indeed impossible. > > But they base their opinion on the omission of the words "or claim" from > L68B2 and claim that as a consequence any implied claim has indeed > occurred > and must be handled in the regular way even when the other defender has > objected to the concession which therefore "has not occurred". > > Regards Sven > > ton: > > We did not delete 'or claim' in L 68B2. There was no 'or claim' in 68B2. > We have 68B2 as it was in the '97 version with a completely redundant > interpretation in LC minutes in 2001 or whatever. I fully agree with you Ton, but some people have noticed that the words "or claim" were present in the drafts and were removed in the final version of L68B. They use this removal to argue that only concessions, not claims can be void under law 68B2. Regards Sven From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jan 2 17:36:02 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:36:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim: If there is an explicit claim under L68A play then ceases under L68D regardless of whether there was a subsequent, simultaneous, or implied concession. ................................ This is just basic English - not complex law. Tim ton: Sorry to myself, but your statements are close to 'nonsense'. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jan 2 17:36:02 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:36:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim: If there is an explicit claim under L68A play then ceases under L68D regardless of whether there was a subsequent, simultaneous, or implied concession. ................................ This is just basic English - not complex law. Tim ton: Sorry to myself, but your statements are close to 'nonsense'. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 2 17:39:11 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:39:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke References: <20080102145106.7439380DB9A@f13.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <006c01c84d60$d5a8d570$c3ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Correction of a revoke > +=+ As under the 1997 Laws the situation is one in > which Law 64C applies. But the L64C can only rectify anything if the revoke mattered in the bridge way. It cannot re-apply the automatic rectification. +=+ Correct. As it has been so it is now. This is the law. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 2 17:47:31 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:47:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] concession References: Message-ID: <006d01c84d60$d6c960a0$c3ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] concession > Sven wrote: >> >> But they base their opinion on the omission of the words "or claim" >> from L68B2 and claim that as a consequence any implied claim has >> indeed occurred > > Insofar as I am aware nobody has argued that case. *Implied* claims (ie > those arising where a number of tricks have been conceded THEREBY > claiming the complement) are cancelled following the guidance from the > previous WBF minute. The logic for cancelling the claim is that because > it arises solely from the concession it ceases to exist when the > concession is cancelled. > > Explicit claims are a different matter. The WBF minute never applied to > explicit claims (even those where the claim was for a specific number of > tricks THEREBY conceding the remainder). > > If there is an explicit claim under L68A play then ceases under L68D > regardless of whether there was a subsequent, simultaneous, or implied > concession. It doesn't matter that an accompanying concession is > cancelled since there is still a claim. "I get my two hearts and you get > the rest" is a claim even if partner immediately objects to the > concession of the rest. We can delete "and you get the rest" under L68b2 > and deem the *concession* not to have occurred but we cannot (because > L68b1 does not encompass disregarding L68A) delete the "I get my two > hearts". > > This is exactly the same as under the 2001 footnote which did not include > cancelling claims (even those for a number of tricks THEREBY conceding > the remainder). > > The use of "THEREBY" absolutely *requires* causality. *Explicit* claims > do NOT arise from concessions. This is just basic English - not complex > law. > > Tim > +=+ My recollection of the discussion is that we were removing superfluous words, not needed for the meaning of the law, because the principle enunciated in 2001 applies. No intention to change the effect of the law was involved. Ton seems to be somewhere on my side of the river in this, but not Kojak. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 2 17:47:31 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:47:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] concession References: Message-ID: <006d01c84d60$d6c960a0$c3ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] concession > Sven wrote: >> >> But they base their opinion on the omission of the words "or claim" >> from L68B2 and claim that as a consequence any implied claim has >> indeed occurred > > Insofar as I am aware nobody has argued that case. *Implied* claims (ie > those arising where a number of tricks have been conceded THEREBY > claiming the complement) are cancelled following the guidance from the > previous WBF minute. The logic for cancelling the claim is that because > it arises solely from the concession it ceases to exist when the > concession is cancelled. > > Explicit claims are a different matter. The WBF minute never applied to > explicit claims (even those where the claim was for a specific number of > tricks THEREBY conceding the remainder). > > If there is an explicit claim under L68A play then ceases under L68D > regardless of whether there was a subsequent, simultaneous, or implied > concession. It doesn't matter that an accompanying concession is > cancelled since there is still a claim. "I get my two hearts and you get > the rest" is a claim even if partner immediately objects to the > concession of the rest. We can delete "and you get the rest" under L68b2 > and deem the *concession* not to have occurred but we cannot (because > L68b1 does not encompass disregarding L68A) delete the "I get my two > hearts". > > This is exactly the same as under the 2001 footnote which did not include > cancelling claims (even those for a number of tricks THEREBY conceding > the remainder). > > The use of "THEREBY" absolutely *requires* causality. *Explicit* claims > do NOT arise from concessions. This is just basic English - not complex > law. > > Tim > +=+ My recollection of the discussion is that we were removing superfluous words, not needed for the meaning of the law, because the principle enunciated in 2001 applies. No intention to change the effect of the law was involved. Ton seems to be somewhere on my side of the river in this, but not Kojak. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 2 18:09:34 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:09:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c84d62$3fe846e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ................. > Explicit claims are a different matter. The WBF minute never applied to > explicit claims (even those where the claim was for a specific number of > tricks THEREBY conceding the remainder). You should know better than producing false statements like that. Here is the text of that minute; it simply states that neither any concession nor any claim has been made when partner to a defender making a concession immediately objects. There is nothing in that minute to specify that it matters whether the concession was made one way or the other. "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." We are running in circles: Please just remember: 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). ................ > The use of "THEREBY" absolutely *requires* causality. *Explicit* claims > do NOT arise from concessions. This is just basic English - not complex > law. Please say after me: "Because Law 68A says that any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks, I shall never again deny that a concession of a specific number of tricks is a claim of the tricks not conceded, if any." Please repeat until you understand it. Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 2 18:29:02 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:29:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801020758iad508a4nb921e7d3268bdbb3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000a01c84d64$f7ed46d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > Sven: > > > > And if he pays sufficient attention to the game he doesn't need the hand > > records to discover that West had revoked. You are correct in that L64C > > cannot be used in this case, quite sensible IMHO. > > > > He might not know about the revoke unless he asks to see the > opponents' hands when he claims. Your logic seems to imply that > paying sufficient attention to the game requires seeing the opponent's > hands every time one claims. How do you discover revoke when playing rubber and somebody claims? The revoke laws are clearly written for players who are alert enough to wonder "what happened to the last spade" and secure their interests. Sven From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 2 18:46:54 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:46:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000201c84d62$3fe846e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000201c84d62$3fe846e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <000401c84d67$77247f70$656d7e50$@com> [SP] Please say after me: "Because Law 68A says that any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks, I shall never again deny that a concession of a specific number of tricks is a claim of the tricks not conceded, if any." [DALB] The trouble is, as I mentioned before, that if (say) seven tricks remain to be played, a player who says that he will win two of them does not necessarily intend thereby that he will lose five of them - and, of course, vice versa. In the example I gave earlier - West says "I get two tricks and you get four" - he has according to the Pran Interpretation: [a] claimed two tricks (because that is what he said) [b] claimed three tricks (because he conceded four, and 7 - 4 = 3) [c] conceded four tricks (because that is what he said) [d] conceded five tricks (because he claimed two, and 7 - 2 = 5). The difficulty may lie in the interpretation of the English phrase "to the effect that". This is an idiom in which the word "effect" should not be taken too literally (of course, such language has no business in the Laws of a game, as Konrad has pointed out). If a player correctly claims two tricks with seven remaining, then an "effect" is that his opponents get five tricks, but his statement is not a statement "to the effect that" he will lose five tricks - he may have thought he was only going to lose four. [SP] Please repeat until you understand it. [DALB] Oh, I understand it perfectly. That does not make it true, of course. It isn't. David Burn London, England From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Jan 2 19:27:21 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 19:27:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Correction_of_a_revoke?= In-Reply-To: <20080102123701.5018E1D789F@f39.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20080102123701.5018E1D789F@f39.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <1JA8JF-223Gzo0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> From: Konrad Ciborowski [snip] > Am I supposed to ask my opponents > to show me their hands every single time I claim? > If they say "what for?" am I supposed to call the > TD? > > It hardly seems practical. And it would annoy > the hell out of everybody if I started doing it. Peter: What about Law 66D ?? "After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke, or of the number of tricks won or lost; [...]" From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 2 19:46:14 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:46:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] concession References: <000101c84d5c$d56a69b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <002901c84d6f$dbd38440$51d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 4:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] concession > I fully agree with you Ton, but some people have noticed > that the words "or claim" were present in the drafts and > were removed in the final version of L68B. They use this > removal to argue that only concessions, not claims can > be void under law 68B2. > +=+ The fact that someone outside of the DSC happens to be privy to a modification of the text does not give him/her any entitlement to make assertions as to the reasons for the modification. Such presumptions are speculative and unsound as a basis for deducing the intentions of the drafting body. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 2 19:54:54 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:54:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke References: <20080102123701.5018E1D789F@f39.poczta.interia.pl> <1JA8JF-223Gzo0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <003a01c84d70$f9fe5610$51d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 6:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Correction of a revoke > From: Konrad Ciborowski > > [snip] > >> Am I supposed to ask my opponents >> to show me their hands every single time I claim? >> If they say "what for?" am I supposed to call the >> TD? >> >> It hardly seems practical. And it would annoy >> the hell out of everybody if I started doing it. > > Peter: > What about Law 66D ?? > > "After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards > may be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke, or > of the number of tricks won or lost; [...]" > +=+ Er, well, Peter, what about it? If a revoke is found at that stage the Director's action conforms to the law operative at the stage at which the revoke is found. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Wed Jan 2 19:58:32 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:58:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession References: Message-ID: Last try. In defining a concession, Law 68B1, establishes that you can concede in two ways. 1. Say so -- "....will lose a specific"....., or, 2. Imply so -- "....claim...." (less than all) leaving a ".....remainder....". This in no way has to do with a claim of tricks in 68A; it establishes what a concession is. When we go to 68B2 we find instruction that when the partner immediately objects to a concession NO MATTER HOW ARRIVED AT in 68B1, no concession has occurred. The claim part of Ton's or any other example does not disappear from the continuing play. The concession is what is in question, and needs to be resolved. The 2001 minute of the WBFLC adding the words "or claim" is superfluous, changes nothing and simply causes confusion. Law 68A is not cancelled. Sven has now introduced a qualifying word "(implied)" re a claim. Nice segue, but a TD must determine whether or not a claim has indeed been made before going on further into the laws. How to rule/adjudicate? In my opinion I would not let the claimant depart from his claim. Supervised play continues as mandated, and the TD must determine if any exposed cards or actions by defenders provide UI. More importantly I would pay particular attention to see that the claimant or objector does not benefit from actions prohibited by 70 D 2. which is a new and important provision of the laws. The rest of the postings about non-offenders, irregularities, infractions, trick-by-trick, etc., are not ad rem and probably stem from a mistaken impression that you always have to have a bad guy to resolve an issue. Grattan may find that I am not "on the other side of the river" but I am concerned about the sloppy English which makes argument possible. Examples in an Appendix will certainly help. An example shows how a writer(s) would use the law. To object to Appendices usurping the WBFLC power to interpret the law is not a "minimalist" position. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] concession > Tim: > > > L68D applies if: > d) Defender claims a number of tricks thereby conceding the remainder > (There > is no provision under either L68b2 or the WBF minute to cancel such a > claim). > > ton: > Last try; > This statement under d) is wrong. > > Coming back to my example: declarer leads in trick 10 and LHO says: 'this > is > your last trick'. RHO objects and play has to be continued. Are you really > trying to tell me that with: 'I take the last 3 tricks' and partner > objecting play can't be continued? > > If so, you are wrong. And there is nothing in L68 nor in the 2001 minutes > supporting you. > > ton > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Wed Jan 2 19:58:32 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:58:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession References: Message-ID: Last try. In defining a concession, Law 68B1, establishes that you can concede in two ways. 1. Say so -- "....will lose a specific"....., or, 2. Imply so -- "....claim...." (less than all) leaving a ".....remainder....". This in no way has to do with a claim of tricks in 68A; it establishes what a concession is. When we go to 68B2 we find instruction that when the partner immediately objects to a concession NO MATTER HOW ARRIVED AT in 68B1, no concession has occurred. The claim part of Ton's or any other example does not disappear from the continuing play. The concession is what is in question, and needs to be resolved. The 2001 minute of the WBFLC adding the words "or claim" is superfluous, changes nothing and simply causes confusion. Law 68A is not cancelled. Sven has now introduced a qualifying word "(implied)" re a claim. Nice segue, but a TD must determine whether or not a claim has indeed been made before going on further into the laws. How to rule/adjudicate? In my opinion I would not let the claimant depart from his claim. Supervised play continues as mandated, and the TD must determine if any exposed cards or actions by defenders provide UI. More importantly I would pay particular attention to see that the claimant or objector does not benefit from actions prohibited by 70 D 2. which is a new and important provision of the laws. The rest of the postings about non-offenders, irregularities, infractions, trick-by-trick, etc., are not ad rem and probably stem from a mistaken impression that you always have to have a bad guy to resolve an issue. Grattan may find that I am not "on the other side of the river" but I am concerned about the sloppy English which makes argument possible. Examples in an Appendix will certainly help. An example shows how a writer(s) would use the law. To object to Appendices usurping the WBFLC power to interpret the law is not a "minimalist" position. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] concession > Tim: > > > L68D applies if: > d) Defender claims a number of tricks thereby conceding the remainder > (There > is no provision under either L68b2 or the WBF minute to cancel such a > claim). > > ton: > Last try; > This statement under d) is wrong. > > Coming back to my example: declarer leads in trick 10 and LHO says: 'this > is > your last trick'. RHO objects and play has to be continued. Are you really > trying to tell me that with: 'I take the last 3 tricks' and partner > objecting play can't be continued? > > If so, you are wrong. And there is nothing in L68 nor in the 2001 minutes > supporting you. > > ton > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 2 20:24:06 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:24:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <6bnhj2$rv0e85@mx07.lnh.mail.rcn.net> References: <6bnhj2$rv0e85@mx07.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: <45AE4AA6-9F3E-4C01-B163-3E2F82DACABC@starpower.net> On Jan 2, 2008, at 5:10 AM, ton wrote: > Sven: >> 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. > > Eric: > "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*? > > ton: > Can anybody tell me what the problem is we are discussing here? The problem is the application of L68B2. The first sentence, which allows "his partner [to] immediately object[]" applies when "a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks". When a defender explicitly attempts to claim (i.e. makes "any statement to the effect that [he] will win a specific number of tricks" [L68A]) but has not explicitly conceded (i.e. made "any statement to the effect that [he] will lose a specific number of tricks" [L68B1]), he is deemed to have "conce[ded] the remainder". (a) Does his attempt to claim constitute a presumptive "attempt to concede"? Does the first sentence of L68B2 apply? If his partner objects, has "no concession [] occurred"? If so, then (b) We have "a claim of some number of tricks" and a consequent "concession of the remainder" [L68B1]. After applying law L68B2, "no concession has occurred", i.e. the "concession of the remainder" is voided. Does this also void the "claim of some number of tricks", or do the laws that normally govern "a statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks" continue to apply? > As you know I am of course willing to help solving such problem but > I need > to know/understand it to be able to do so. > > Were are we? > Declarer leads to trick 10 and LHO ceases play with the statement: > 'this is > your last trick' > > Does anybody disagree with the fact that he implicitly has claimed > the other > 3 tricks? > > If yes (disagree), on what base? He hasn't explicitly conceded any "tricks other than one [sic] currently in progress" [L68], so there is no consequent implicit claim. If we rule that his statement did not "refer to subsequent tricks" [L68] it is a random remark, possibly conveying UI, but neither claiming nor conceding anything. If we rule that it did (as I would), then he has *explicitly* claimed. But that is a semantic side-issue. To avoid getting distracted from the problem at hand, let us assume that what he actually said was "I get the last three". > RHO now objects. > Does anybody disagree with the TD telling that play has to be > continued? And > that he doesn't need to say anymore more, since the only relevant > objection > can be that RHO thinks to win trick 10? > > If yes (disagree), on what base? There was no concession for L68B to apply to. Since RHO "doubted" LHO's claim, "Law 70 applies" [L68D]. If RHO can indeed win trick 10 (fourth in hand!), we can easily rule that his "failure to [do so] would be irrational" [L70E1], and (assuming LHO's claim of the last three is correct) award the rest of the tricks to the defense. > If both answers are 'no' (agree) with what problem are we left? It's not exactly a "problem", but... Director is called. He checks for potential UI. Play continues. Perhaps (albeit not in this particular scenario) it takes a while, as declarer or LHO works out the implications of RHO's having objected -- which could have further UI implications. Director monitors the subsequent play for potential use of the UI. If an irregularity occurs during the continuing play, he deals with it. If the hand goes off the rails because someone does something "irrational" he rules accordingly. The clock keeps ticking... Whereas in my scenario, director is called, makes an obvious no- brainer ruling, scores it up, and all go on to the next hand. > If there isn't one, you may continue to tell that the drafting > committee did > a lousy job I accept that opinion (for which I do not need to agree > with it) > but will not join that discussion. I would much prefer to accept Kojak's account, which suggests that the drafting committee did an excellent job: realized that the 2001 minute altered the meaning of the 1997 law, drafted alternate versions of the new law which did and did not incorporate that alteration, decided which meaning they wanted for the 2008 law, and chose the appropriately worded version. If, as Ton suggests, they believed that the 2001 minute merely clarified the 1997 law, drafted a version of the new law which incorporated that clarification, then decided to revert to the unclear and ambiguous wording that had previously required clarification out of some notion that "has to do with language" [Ton's post of 12/31] apart from clarity of meaning, then "lousy job" doesn't begin to do justice. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 2 20:26:18 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:26:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801020758iad508a4nb921e7d3268bdbb3@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080102145106.7439380DB9A@f13.poczta.interia.pl> <000001c84d56$1844afe0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <2b1e598b0801020758iad508a4nb921e7d3268bdbb3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 2, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Your logic seems to imply that > paying sufficient attention to the game requires seeing the opponent's > hands every time one claims. I think his logic implies that paying sufficient attention to the game means that one will know what's in opponents' hands when one claims. A supposition that is probably true at expert level, and nowhere close to true at the level at which I play. :-) From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 20:28:18 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:28:18 -0600 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801021128x3e317ce4oa7d882a81f3967bb@mail.gmail.com> Kojak, I think I follow much of what you wrote, but would you be please be so kind as to answer two questions? Kojak: > > How to rule/adjudicate? In my opinion I would not let the claimant depart > from his claim. Supervised play continues as mandated, and the TD must > determine if any exposed cards or actions by defenders provide UI. > Can you tell us a little about how play is supervised? (For example, what does the director say to the table before play continues? Also, which hands does he look at? When should he consider previous tricks or the auction or the defender's convention cards?) Kojak: > More importantly I would pay particular attention to see that the > claimant or objector does not benefit from actions prohibited by 70 D 2. > which is a new and important provision of the laws. > > The rest of the postings about non-offenders, irregularities, infractions, > trick-by-trick, etc., are not ad rem and probably stem from a mistaken > impression > that you always have to have a bad guy to resolve an issue. > > Grattan may find that I am not "on the other side of the river" but I am > concerned about the sloppy English which makes argument possible. Examples > in an Appendix will certainly help. An example shows how a writer(s) would > use the law. To object to Appendices usurping the WBFLC power to interpret > the law is not a "minimalist" position. > OK, that objection *is not* a "minimalist" position, but what *is* it? Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 20:28:18 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:28:18 -0600 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801021128x3e317ce4oa7d882a81f3967bb@mail.gmail.com> Kojak, I think I follow much of what you wrote, but would you be please be so kind as to answer two questions? Kojak: > > How to rule/adjudicate? In my opinion I would not let the claimant depart > from his claim. Supervised play continues as mandated, and the TD must > determine if any exposed cards or actions by defenders provide UI. > Can you tell us a little about how play is supervised? (For example, what does the director say to the table before play continues? Also, which hands does he look at? When should he consider previous tricks or the auction or the defender's convention cards?) Kojak: > More importantly I would pay particular attention to see that the > claimant or objector does not benefit from actions prohibited by 70 D 2. > which is a new and important provision of the laws. > > The rest of the postings about non-offenders, irregularities, infractions, > trick-by-trick, etc., are not ad rem and probably stem from a mistaken > impression > that you always have to have a bad guy to resolve an issue. > > Grattan may find that I am not "on the other side of the river" but I am > concerned about the sloppy English which makes argument possible. Examples > in an Appendix will certainly help. An example shows how a writer(s) would > use the law. To object to Appendices usurping the WBFLC power to interpret > the law is not a "minimalist" position. > OK, that objection *is not* a "minimalist" position, but what *is* it? Jerry Fusselman From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 2 20:37:59 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:37:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <20080102044928.372e911f@linuxbox> References: <000701c84bec$f098f420$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <002f01c84c71$8212ba60$baca403e@Mildred> <20080102044928.372e911f@linuxbox> Message-ID: <73D4ED8D-9069-4497-AB89-366759B8B032@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 2, 2008, at 4:49 AM, Brian wrote: > If that is the case, then may I suggest that the game would best be > served by having the next FLB make no modifications to the Laws > whatsoever, but rather be used to get everything up to date so that > someone reading TFLB may be certain that what they are reading > accurately reflects the laws, at least at the date of publication, and > that all WBFLC minutes published prior to that date may be safely > disregarded? I'm with Brian on this one - the current state of affairs vis-a-vis minutes, not only of the WBFLC but of other relevant bodies, such as the ACBLLC, is more than deplorable - it is absolutely ridiculous. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 2 20:52:39 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:52:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <477B8EB1.8020202@skynet.be> References: <000701c84bec$f098f420$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <002f01c84c71$8212ba60$baca403e@Mildred> <20080102044928.372e911f@linuxbox> <477B8EB1.8020202@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jan 2, 2008, at 8:16 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Brian wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:23:31 -0000 >> wrote: >> >>> In my opinion, past statements of principle by the >>> WBFLC continue to apply unless incompatible with law; >> >> So what you're saying, Grattan, if I may rephrase it, is that any >> entity or individual wanting to accurately determine the current >> understanding of any law must attempt to access all WBFLC minutes, >> right back to the inception of the WBFLC, just in case there is a >> "statement of principle" that is still in force, i.e. one that has >> not >> been voided by becoming "incompatible with law". > > Yes Brian, that is what you need to do. > There is a lot you need to know, other than the laws themselves. That > is what a course in directing is for. > > The current debate is, IMHO, over the top. > The laws are clear, again IMHO. > A claim and a concession go hand-in-hand, and there is no way to have > one without the other. > That should follow from the laws, but there are idiots who think > otherwise. > The 2001 statement by the WBF was merely to say, very politely, that > those who think otherwise, are wrong (and idiots). > > That statement is not needed to continue to understand the laws as > written. Since those laws are basically unchanged, there is no need to > add in the lawbook "and those that think otherwise are idiots". > > I apologize to anyone who may find himself included in a category of > idiots. I do not think you are an idiot, merely misguided. No offense taken; I've been called worse. But who is the bigger idiot: (a) A person who, lacking Herman's mental acuity, cannot understand a law that is "clear... I [his] HO" or what "should follow", or (b) A person publishing a lawbook who must select either a version of a law that could be misunderstood only by idiots or one that could not be misunderstood by anyone, even idiots, and knowingly chooses the former? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 2 20:54:56 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 20:54:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000401c84d67$77247f70$656d7e50$@com> Message-ID: <000d01c84d79$5a0137f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of David Burn ............... > The trouble is, as I mentioned before, that if (say) seven tricks > remain to be played, a player who says that he will win two of > them does not necessarily intend thereby that he will lose five > of them - and, of course, vice versa. Maybe he doesn't intend it but that is exactly what laws 68A and 68B1 define his actions to be. > In the example I gave earlier - West says "I get two tricks > and you get four" - he has according to the Pran Interpretation: > > [a] claimed two tricks (because that is what he said) > [b] claimed three tricks (because he conceded four, and 7 - 4 = 3) > [c] conceded four tricks (because that is what he said) > [d] conceded five tricks (because he claimed two, and 7 - 2 = 5). With those exact words West has claimed two tricks and conceded four, thus he has left one trick unaccounted for. And you have no foundation for claiming that I have said anything else. > The difficulty may lie in the interpretation of the English phrase > "to the effect that". This is an idiom in which the word "effect" > should not be taken too literally (of course, such language has no > business in the Laws of a game, as Konrad has pointed out). And why not? "To the effect that" is a perfectly well defined clause meaning that the exact words used are immaterial, what is important is the meaning that has been expressed. The effect is the same as if a witness says (e.g. in a court of justice): I heard him say "can you take me there or words to that same effect". There is nothing unclear about the meaning of such statements, nor should there be anything unclear when Law 68A uses the clause "to the effect that". > If a player correctly claims two tricks with seven remaining, then > an "effect" is that his opponents get five tricks, but his statement > is not a statement "to the effect that" he will lose five tricks - > he may have thought he was only going to lose four. Of course it is, have you still not understood that that is exactly what is embraced in the definition of a concession in Law 68B1? > Oh, I understand it perfectly. Frankly I doubt that you do. Sven From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Jan 2 20:54:45 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:54:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Correction_of_a_revoke?= In-Reply-To: <003a01c84d70$f9fe5610$51d0403e@Mildred> References: <20080102123701.5018E1D789F@f39.poczta.interia.pl> <1JA8JF-223Gzo0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <003a01c84d70$f9fe5610$51d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <1JA9fp-21JLpQ0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> > > From: Konrad Ciborowski > > > > [snip] > > > >> Am I supposed to ask my opponents > >> to show me their hands every single time I claim? > >> If they say "what for?" am I supposed to call the > >> TD? > >> > >> It hardly seems practical. And it would annoy > >> the hell out of everybody if I started doing it. > > > > Peter: > > What about Law 66D ?? > > > > "After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards > > may be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke, or > > of the number of tricks won or lost; [...]" > > > +=+ Er, well, Peter, what about it? If a revoke is found > at that stage the Director's action conforms to the law > operative at the stage at which the revoke is found. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ Peter: Well, I only wanted to answer Konrad's question whether he is allowed to ask his opponents to show their cards. Yes, he is allowed to ask and "what for" and refusing is an irregularity. It was only secondarily related to 'our' revoke-threads. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 2 20:59:54 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:59:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <73D4ED8D-9069-4497-AB89-366759B8B032@rochester.rr.com> References: <000701c84bec$f098f420$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <002f01c84c71$8212ba60$baca403e@Mildred> <20080102044928.372e911f@linuxbox> <73D4ED8D-9069-4497-AB89-366759B8B032@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000501c84d7a$0b2d82e0$218888a0$@com> [ER] I'm with Brian on this one - the current state of affairs vis-a-vis minutes, not only of the WBFLC but of other relevant bodies, such as the ACBLLC, is more than deplorable - it is absolutely ridiculous. [DALB] Oh, I don't know. I've just had a look at the Rules of Golf. There appear to be 34 of them, so it is something of a mystery why the rule book is 160 or so pages long, followed by an index of 25 pages. You'd think that at least you would be able to know what the rules mean, given the level of detail implied by the foregoing. You'd be wrong. In order to know what they mean, you need another publication called Decisions on the Rules of Golf. This is available in paperback form. All 656 pages of it. David Burn London, England From Gampas at aol.com Wed Jan 2 21:11:25 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:11:25 EST Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke Message-ID: In a message dated 02/01/2008 19:26:58 GMT Standard Time, ereppert at rochester.rr.com writes: > Your logic seems to imply that > paying sufficient attention to the game requires seeing the opponent's > hands every time one claims. I think his logic implies that paying sufficient attention to the game means that one will know what's in opponents' hands when one claims. A supposition that is probably true at expert level, and nowhere close to true at the level at which I play. :-) [paul lamford] Whether you notice that an opponent has revoked may be unrelated to whether you paid attention or not. For example, you play 6NT by South on the following hands on the lead of the QS. S AK5 H AQ9 D AK C AQJ32 S 432 H JT3 D QJ C KT987 You win the lead and cross to the ten of clubs on which West shows out. You take the heart finesse which loses and you say: One down, I will not insult you by playing them out, a spade to you. At half-time you notice that West did have a club. It is now too late to do anything about it, but you have not been inattentive in any way. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 2 21:32:35 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:32:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <68bj7j$1mrtt2h@orngca-mx-08.mgw.rr.com> References: <68bj7j$1mrtt2h@orngca-mx-08.mgw.rr.com> Message-ID: <8DC241A4-FF75-4958-8E7C-2C22628DCD00@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 2, 2008, at 5:28 AM, ton wrote: > What dispute? You are not telling me that I need to fill the LC > agenda with > all the (non-)issues coming up in this list? If there's no dispute, then wtf is all this crap in my inbox? There are two views here, as I understand it. That two of the people holding one of these views are the chairman and secretary of the WBFLC and one holding the other is a mere member of that body does not mean there is no dispute. Particularly given the secretary has repeatedly asserted here that views expressed here by an individual are that individual's opinion only - the interpretation of the LC must come as an official pronouncement of that entire body. The dispute arises in cases where a defender claims some tricks, thereby conceding others, or concedes some tricks (which, they say, thereby claims others, although the law doesn't seem to me to say so), or concedes all the remaining tricks, *and* his partner immediately objects. One view is that the concession, and if it exists the accompanying claim, explicit or implicit, is voided, and play continues, with the erstwhile claimant being allowed to make any play he wishes, regardless whether it is consistent with his now voided line of play statement. The other side holds that in such situations, the claim, if it exists, still holds, and while play continues, the TD must supervise it, and claimant must be held to his accompanying line of play statement (assuming he made one). The second position strikes me as more elegant; the first as more practical. Which does not, of course, make any difference to the determination of which is correct (and they can't both be correct). So I would suggest the WBFLC grasp the bull by the horns and issue whichever interpretation they want - and next time, word the damn laws more clearly. The alternative is to leave it to TDs to decide which view to take - and I will rule one way, and the guy at the game down the street will rule the other, and the players will be *very* annoyed. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 2 21:45:54 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:45:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <003901c84d3c$dc765c20$27ce403e@Mildred> References: <000701c84bec$f098f420$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <002f01c84c71$8212ba60$baca403e@Mildred> <20080102044928.372e911f@linuxbox> <003901c84d3c$dc765c20$27ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Jan 2, 2008, at 7:41 AM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > The minutes are posted on the web and may be read. The last minutes posted on the wbf site were from Monaco in 2003. Have there been no meetings of the committee since then? > Failure to look at published information does not expunge its > existence and we do what we can > to make the minutes available. Pfui. One point on which I'm in agreement with Nigel Guthrie is that the WBF would do well to publish, on its website, an annotated version of the laws, with all relevant minutes included directly in the text. Actually, I would be happy with a link to the minute in the relevant law - that's why hyperlinks were invented, after all. > David Stevenson has made a useful contribution to the exercise by > including mention of the more significant matters in the English > Bridge Union's 'White Book', also available (on the EBU's website). Personally, I find David's guidance, and that of the White Book, very useful. But the fact remains that neither has any legal standing outside of England (and Wales, I suppose). From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 2 21:43:43 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 20:43:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <8DC241A4-FF75-4958-8E7C-2C22628DCD00@rochester.rr.com> References: <68bj7j$1mrtt2h@orngca-mx-08.mgw.rr.com> <8DC241A4-FF75-4958-8E7C-2C22628DCD00@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000601c84d80$2a43d3e0$7ecb7ba0$@com> [ER] One view is that the concession, and if it exists the accompanying claim, explicit or implicit, is voided, and play continues, with the erstwhile claimant being allowed to make any play he wishes, regardless whether it is consistent with his now voided line of play statement. The other side holds that in such situations, the claim, if it exists, still holds, and while play continues, the TD must supervise it, and claimant must be held to his accompanying line of play statement (assuming he made one). [DALB] I had thought that the question (or one of the questions) was whether or not play should continue at all. If West says "I get two clubs and you get the rest", and East objects, then West's concession is cancelled, but there seems to me to have been some debate about whether his claim is also cancelled. If it isn't, then play cannot continue, because play ceases after a claim. Perhaps in 2017 the rules will say: When a defender concedes one or more tricks, and his partner immediately objects, play continues. Otherwise... David Burn London, England From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 2 21:52:13 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:52:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <000601c84d80$2a43d3e0$7ecb7ba0$@com> References: <68bj7j$1mrtt2h@orngca-mx-08.mgw.rr.com> <8DC241A4-FF75-4958-8E7C-2C22628DCD00@rochester.rr.com> <000601c84d80$2a43d3e0$7ecb7ba0$@com> Message-ID: <0EE00468-B7F4-4C1A-AD17-484800A3CB78@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 2, 2008, at 3:43 PM, David Burn wrote: > I had thought that the question (or one of the questions) was > whether or not > play should continue at all. If West says "I get two clubs and you > get the > rest", and East objects, then West's concession is cancelled, but > there > seems to me to have been some debate about whether his claim is also > cancelled. If it isn't, then play cannot continue, because play > ceases after > a claim. Fair enough. Do we have three views, then? From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 2 22:10:06 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:10:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000101c84d5c$d56a69b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000101c84d5c$d56a69b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Jan 2, 2008, at 11:30 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of ton >>> On Behalf Of ton >>> As you may expect I try to understand this topic, so read some more >> mails. >>> >>> Do I have to believe that somebody is trying to tell us that L68B2 >>> only applies for a defender who concedes all remaining tricks? >> >> Yes >> >>> May I ask David to find the word describing the quality of that >>> opinion? >>> >>> How is it possible to read 'if a defender attempts to concede one or >>> more tricks...' in such a way? >> >> It is indeed impossible. >> >> But they base their opinion on the omission of the words "or >> claim" from >> L68B2 and claim that as a consequence any implied claim has indeed >> occurred >> and must be handled in the regular way even when the other >> defender has >> objected to the concession which therefore "has not occurred". >> >> Regards Sven >> >> ton: >> >> We did not delete 'or claim' in L 68B2. There was no 'or claim' in >> 68B2. >> We have 68B2 as it was in the '97 version with a completely redundant >> interpretation in LC minutes in 2001 or whatever. > > I fully agree with you Ton, but some people have noticed that the > words "or > claim" were present in the drafts and were removed in the final > version of > L68B. They use this removal to argue that only concessions, not > claims can > be void under law 68B2. Sorry if this sounds personal, but you guys are getting out of hand. Sven, who is wholly in agreement with Ton, makes up absurd arguments which he attributes to the other side, and Ton dutifully demolishes them. Could you guys please try to address the arguments being made by those who disagree with your conclusions, instead of having an entirely one-sided debate with one another? Ton, nobody who disagrees with you has ever asserted that L68B2 applies only for a defender who concedes all the remaining tricks. We accept that if a defender attempts to concede fewer than all of the remaining tricks, L68B2 applies to the concession. We do dispute that L68B2 applies to all of the remaining tricks. If you cannot see the difference, you cannot understand the contrary argument. Don't be distracted by those red herrings; there is a substantive issue here. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 2 22:14:06 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 22:14:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000e01c84d84$69153b00$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Jan 2, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > Your logic seems to imply that > > paying sufficient attention to the game requires seeing the opponent's > > hands every time one claims. > > I think his logic implies that paying sufficient attention to the > game means that one will know what's in opponents' hands when one > claims. A supposition that is probably true at expert level, and > nowhere close to true at the level at which I play. :-) Then you shouldn't claim! (Sorry mate, I couldn't resist that one 8-) ) Happy New Year Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 2 22:33:44 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:33:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <002901c84d6f$dbd38440$51d0403e@Mildred> References: <000101c84d5c$d56a69b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <002901c84d6f$dbd38440$51d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Jan 2, 2008, at 1:46 PM, wrote: > +=+ The fact that someone outside of the DSC happens to > be privy to a modification of the text does not give him/her > any entitlement to make assertions as to the reasons for the > modification. > Such presumptions are speculative and unsound as a > basis for deducing the intentions of the drafting body. Of course it doesn't! After all, it is certainly possible that the modification was made in a fit of collective insanity for which there was no reason whatsoever. We must not presume any entitlement to imagining that they had to have a reason for anything they did. And who would be so naive as to want to so presume? And here I was thinking that maybe, just maybe, I could presume that the DSC chose the words they chose because they thought they said what the DSC intended them to say, or thought they expressed that intention more clearly to their prospective readers than the words they rejected. Oh foolish me! Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 22:58:12 2008 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:58:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <003901c84d3c$dc765c20$27ce403e@Mildred> References: <000701c84bec$f098f420$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <002f01c84c71$8212ba60$baca403e@Mildred> <20080102044928.372e911f@linuxbox> <003901c84d3c$dc765c20$27ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <20080102165812.16788b27@linuxbox> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 12:41:51 -0000 wrote: > The minutes are posted on the web and may be read. Those > interested will read them. The ecats website and the blakjak site > provide extra exposure for them. Failure to look at published > information does not expunge its existence and we do what we can > to make the minutes available. I believe we're still some years away from universal internet access. Even if (as Ed has noted) the last time the WBFLC met really was Monaco 2003, that's still 15 sets of minutes to wade through, assuming the set on the website is complete. Wouldn't it have been simpler just to update TFLB? Well, maybe not for the WBFLC, but for everyone else? You've said that the members of the WBFLC don't think too much of the standard of the posts on BLML. Fair enough, that's their opinion, they're entitled to it. While we're recording opinions, *my* opinion is that as far as *effective* communication is concerned, I don't think the WBFLC could collectively run a piss-up in a brewery, and I don't have to know the first thing about writing the laws of bridge to come to that conclusion. Brian. -- From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 2 23:02:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:02:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <0EE00468-B7F4-4C1A-AD17-484800A3CB78@rochester.rr.com> References: <68bj7j$1mrtt2h@orngca-mx-08.mgw.rr.com> <8DC241A4-FF75-4958-8E7C-2C22628DCD00@rochester.rr.com> <000601c84d80$2a43d3e0$7ecb7ba0$@com> <0EE00468-B7F4-4C1A-AD17-484800A3CB78@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <835550FF-C891-401D-A4A8-413A46958D19@starpower.net> On Jan 2, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Jan 2, 2008, at 3:43 PM, David Burn wrote: > >> I had thought that the question (or one of the questions) was >> whether or not >> play should continue at all. If West says "I get two clubs and you >> get the >> rest", and East objects, then West's concession is cancelled, but >> there >> seems to me to have been some debate about whether his claim is also >> cancelled. If it isn't, then play cannot continue, because play >> ceases after >> a claim. > > Fair enough. Do we have three views, then? Yup. In my earlier post in response to Ton, I tried to break them down: (a) Does his attempt to claim constitute a presumptive "attempt to concede"? Does the first sentence of L68B2 apply? If his partner objects, has "no concession [] occurred"? If so, then (b) We have "a claim of some number of tricks" and a consequent "concession of the remainder" [L68B1]. After applying law L68B2, "no concession has occurred", i.e. the "concession of the remainder" is voided. Does this also void the "claim of some number of tricks", or do the laws that normally govern "a statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks" continue to apply?" So we might have a claim with a consequent concession (L68B2 does not apply), a claim without a consequent confession (L68B2 cancels the concession but not the original claim), or nothing at all (L68B2 cancels West's statement in its entirety). I haven't done it, but I imagine that we could come up with a scenario where the three interpretations produced three different rulings. Personally, I am undecided between the merits of the first two, but convinced that as a practical matter, the third leads to complexities that can only cause problems, with nothing to gain. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 2 23:38:50 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 23:38:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001101c84d90$3f877350$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ................ > Sorry if this sounds personal, but you guys are getting out of hand. > Sven, who is wholly in agreement with Ton, makes up absurd arguments > which he attributes to the other side, and Ton dutifully demolishes > them. Could you guys please try to address the arguments being made > by those who disagree with your conclusions, instead of having an > entirely one-sided debate with one another? > > Ton, nobody who disagrees with you has ever asserted that L68B2 > applies only for a defender who concedes all the remaining tricks. > We accept that if a defender attempts to concede fewer than all of > the remaining tricks, L68B2 applies to the concession. We do dispute > that L68B2 applies to all of the remaining tricks. If you cannot see > the difference, you cannot understand the contrary argument. Don't > be distracted by those red herrings; there is a substantive issue here. Going back on this thread you will find numerous statements to the effect that (sorry here we go again!) unless the concession objected to was for all the remaining tricks then there was a claim which could not be nullified under Law 68B2, and as a consequence of this we shall end up in Law 68D and play must cease. Only recently has the suggestion been made that play can cease under Law 68D only for the claimed tricks and that Law 68B2 be applied for the conceded tricks. But nobody seems to have given any thought to how this can be practiced? The real fact is that once play have ceased there is no way it can be resumed again because as part of the routine prescribed in Law 70B all four hands may eventually, and will more often than not be faced. If this doesn't imply an assertion that Law 68B2 should only apply for a concession of all remaining tricks I don't know what does. And BTW. I did not attempt to make any one-sided debate with Ton. I tried to sum up the arguments that appeared to having confused him since nobody else seemed fit to do just that. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 2 23:39:55 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:39:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000d01c84d79$5a0137f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000d01c84d79$5a0137f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <477C12BB.1020309@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of David Burn > ............... >> The trouble is, as I mentioned before, that if (say) seven tricks >> remain to be played, a player who says that he will win two of >> them does not necessarily intend thereby that he will lose five >> of them - and, of course, vice versa. > > Maybe he doesn't intend it but that is exactly what laws 68A and 68B1 define > his actions to be. > >> In the example I gave earlier - West says "I get two tricks >> and you get four" - he has according to the Pran Interpretation: >> >> [a] claimed two tricks (because that is what he said) >> [b] claimed three tricks (because he conceded four, and 7 - 4 = 3) >> [c] conceded four tricks (because that is what he said) >> [d] conceded five tricks (because he claimed two, and 7 - 2 = 5). > > With those exact words West has claimed two tricks and conceded four, thus > he has left one trick unaccounted for. And you have no foundation for > claiming that I have said anything else. > If he claims two tricks we shall only offer a third to him if there is no normal play that produces less than three tricks. If he concedes four tricks, he claims three, but we don't give him that third unless all normal lines lead to three tricks. In both cases, the ruling is the same. Three tricks if all normal lines lead to three, two otherwise (unless of course there is a normal line leading to only one trick). There really is no problem if he says both. Even if it does not add up. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 2 23:44:29 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:44:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080102123701.5018E1D789F@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: [snip] >But this means that if I discover an opponent's revoke >in one of the deals when I see the hand records from >the half that I have just finished then it is already >too late to penalize/rectify it even if this opponent >admits to having revoked and is ready to suffer the >consequences. > >Was it intended? If so - am I supposed to ask my >opponents to show me their hands every single time I >claim? [snip] 2007 Law 72B3: A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely. Richard Hills: Some years ago I was playing against Aussie junior international Mark Abraham. He accidentally committed a revoke, but failed to notice his error until the revoke was established. When I claimed, Mark obeyed the 1997 version of the above Law by displaying face up his remaining cards. I was then able to notice that Mark had revoked, so the Director was summoned to give the appropriate ruling. A fine example of ethics by Mark Abraham, although it was only possible due to his detailed knowledge of the Lawbook - I note that no other blmler has mentioned the 2007 Law 72B3 / 1997 Law 72B4. If all blmlers overlook a key and relevant Law, what hope do mere ordinary players have in attempts to play Lawfully? David Burn: >>Oh, I don't know. I've just had a look at the Rules >>of Golf. There appear to be 34 of them, so it is >>something of a mystery why the rule book is 160 or >>so pages long, followed by an index of 25 pages. >> >>You'd think that at least you would be able to know >>what the rules mean, given the level of detail >>implied by the foregoing. You'd be wrong. In order >>to know what they mean, you need another publication >>called Decisions on the Rules of Golf. This is >>available in paperback form. All 656 pages of it. 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 2 23:43:40 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 22:43:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <0EE00468-B7F4-4C1A-AD17-484800A3CB78@rochester.rr.com> References: <68bj7j$1mrtt2h@orngca-mx-08.mgw.rr.com> <8DC241A4-FF75-4958-8E7C-2C22628DCD00@rochester.rr.com> <000601c84d80$2a43d3e0$7ecb7ba0$@com> <0EE00468-B7F4-4C1A-AD17-484800A3CB78@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000701c84d90$ebd1e550$c375aff0$@com> [ER] Fair enough. Do we have three views, then? [DALB] I confess that until I read Kojak's post earlier today, I had not understood that there was any question of play continuing while somehow holding the claimer to his statement of claim, if any. I can't make any picture in my mind of how that would work, or what kind of claim would engender such a situation. Maybe a position such as this: West has the ace and queen of hearts and the two of spades. Dummy (North) has the ace of spades and two small hearts. East has the singleton king of hearts and a couple of club winners, and South leads a heart. West says "I get two hearts and dummy gets a spade", and East objects. But that's trivial - the defence was always going to get three tricks, right? I mean, it would be irrational for West to play the ace of hearts, wouldn't it? Well, perhaps. Suppose that instead of the ace of spades and two small hearts, dummy had the ace of spades and two small diamonds - specifically the nine and seven. And suppose that instead of a couple of club winners, East had the eight and six of diamonds together with his singleton king of hearts. And suppose East not only knew the rules, but was the kind of guy who does not steal candy from babies. Should he object to his partner's claim? Should declarer, when he realises the true position, call for a ruling? If so, what should that ruling be? In view of recent developments in another thread, you may submit two answers to these questions, depending on whether the players realised the position at the table or only after reviewing the hand records in the bar. If they did not review the hand records in the bar, they were not real bridge players anyway, so who cares what happens to them? This, though, is all metaphysics. The real question is: if a defender says to declarer "I get some tricks and you get the rest", and the defender's partner at once pipes up with "No, he doesn't get the rest", what happens? Does play continue, or does it not? The 2001 minute makes clear what the WBFLC thinks ought to happen. The 2007 Laws do not make it at all clear what happens. I don't know what Grattan thinks ought to happen in the general case, or what Ton thinks ought to happen in the general case, or what Kojak thinks ought to happen in the general case - and this is odd, because normally I don't have any difficulty understanding what any of those gentlemen says. Even when they don't agree with one another, I know why they don't - but I confess that in this matter I am completely befogged. I know what I think ought to happen in the general case. Anyone who makes any kind of claim should put his cards on the table and state in what order they will be played so as to achieve the number of tricks he is claiming for his side. Any cards not specified in this statement should be considered played in the legal order least advantageous to the claimer, whether that order is "rational" or not. Moreover, anyone who concedes the rest of the tricks should lose them - and so should his partner, regardless of how many winners he might have. I think that everyone, from the highest to the lowest in the game of bridge, would understand such a rule and would have no difficulty abiding by it. But then, I am in a minority of one in believing that the Laws of bridge should as far as possible be capable of implementation (and translation into other languages) by robots. Or at least, I am in a minority of one among the very small proportion of bridge players who make rules for and compete in the world's most prestigious tournaments. I expect I could persuade quite a lot of club players (and directors) to vote for me - at least in Iowa. David Burn London, England From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jan 2 23:49:23 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 02 Jan 2008 23:49:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke Message-ID: <20080102224923.E488A7DC81E@f20.poczta.interia.pl> > > > From: Konrad Ciborowski > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > >> Am I supposed to ask my opponents > > >> to show me their hands every single time I claim? > > >> If they say "what for?" am I supposed to call the > > >> TD? > > >> > > >> It hardly seems practical. And it would annoy > > >> the hell out of everybody if I started doing it. > > > > > > Peter: > > > What about Law 66D ?? > > > > > > "After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards > > > may be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke, or > > > of the number of tricks won or lost; [...]" > > > > > +=+ Er, well, Peter, what about it? If a revoke is found > > at that stage the Director's action conforms to the law > > operative at the stage at which the revoke is found. > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ > > Peter: > Well, I only wanted to answer Konrad's question whether he is > allowed to ask his opponents to show their cards. I know that you _are_ entitled to ask your opponents to show you their cards. But requiring this is completely impractical, it slows down the game and also the general perception is that this is impolite. - What did you have in clubs, sir? - Three to the jack. - Can I see it? - Excuse me? - Can I see your hand? - I had 4=4=2=3, a 10 count. - Yes, but can I see it? - You don't believe me or what? - It has nothing to do with me trusting to you, can I see your hand, please? I just want to make sure you didn't revoke. - What? Of course I didn't. - Can I see your hand then? - DIRECTOR!!!! This is more or less how it always ends. Which is why almost nobody does that. A few years ago when my team was in the Third Division we once lost about 30 IMPs on a revoke committed by an opponent that went undetected. At our table the opponents were in 6C = while our teammates went to 7C. The opening lead won, trumps, three spades cashed and a heart finesse. The king was offside so my teammate claimed one down. After the match was over my teammate saw the hand records and discovered that on one of the spades his LHO had revoked by pitching a diamond even though he still had a spade. Immediately after the match was over and the play was reconstructed everybody agreed to this including the TD. Declarer couldn't have known that a revoke had occurred as he held Axx - KQx in spades as it was perfectly possible for spades to be 5-2 and because declarer claimed at trick 7 he never had a chance to discover that his LHO did have a missing spade. So the revoke was discovered after the match was over but since 7C was unmakeable as the cards lay there was no grounds for score adjustment under 64C and too late to apply the automatic penalty of 1 trick. So the bottom line is that an opponent got away with a revoke because of L64B4. Instead of insisting on giving players hand record after single every deal in a team match or on requiring your opponent to show you his hand every time you claim it would be much more practical to allow a revoke be punished before the correction period expires. This is the same problem as with different explanations when screens are used. Very often you discover that the explanations were different after the match is over when you talk to your partner in the post-mortem. But in this case you don't lose anything by calling the TD after the match has ended (within the correction period) so why not allow the same for revokes for cases when there are no records available immediately? -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bedac w toalecie korzystala z ... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cbc From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 3 00:08:23 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:08:23 -0600 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801021508k2531195n3d8a48f57a6044ba@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 2, 2008 2:11 PM, wrote: > In a message dated 02/01/2008 19:26:58 GMT Standard Time, > ereppert at rochester.rr.com writes: > > > Your logic seems to imply that > > paying sufficient attention to the game requires seeing the opponent's > > hands every time one claims. > > I think his logic implies that paying sufficient attention to the > game means that one will know what's in opponents' hands when one > claims. A supposition that is probably true at expert level, and > nowhere close to true at the level at which I play. :-) > > [paul lamford] Whether you notice that an opponent has revoked may be > unrelated to whether you paid attention or not. For example, you play 6NT by South > on the following hands on the lead of the QS. > > S AK5 > H AQ9 > D AK > C AQJ32 > > S 432 > H JT3 > D QJ > C KT987 > > You win the lead and cross to the ten of clubs on which West shows out. You > take the heart finesse which loses and you say: One down, I will not insult > you by playing them out, a spade to you. At half-time you notice that West did > have a club. It is now too late to do anything about it, but you have not > been inattentive in any way. > Nice example, Paul. That is indeed exactly what Konrad and I were thinking of. Konrad just gave a similar example, where his team lost about 30 IMPs. I have to agree with Konrad 100% on his points. Jerry Fusselman From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 3 00:15:09 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 23:15:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000d01c84d79$5a0137f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000401c84d67$77247f70$656d7e50$@com> <000d01c84d79$5a0137f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <000801c84d95$51e5ce20$f5b16a60$@com> [SP] "To the effect that" is a perfectly well defined clause meaning that the exact words used are immaterial, what is important is the meaning that has been expressed. [DALB] "All crows are black." "Prove it." "You are wearing a brown jacket and black shoes." "What kind of proof is that?" "It is a statement to the effect that all crows are black." David Burn London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 3 00:21:01 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 23:21:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] re claim References: <000701c84bec$f098f420$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><002f01c84c71$8212ba60$baca403e@Mildred><20080102044928.372e911f@linuxbox><003901c84d3c$dc765c20$27ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <001401c84d96$4dd69200$02ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] re claim > > On Jan 2, 2008, at 7:41 AM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > >> The minutes are posted on the web and may be read. > > > The last minutes posted on the wbf site were from Monaco in 2003. > Have there been no meetings of the committee since then? > > David Stevenson has made a useful contribution to the exercise by >> including mention of the more significant matters in the English >> Bridge Union's 'White Book', also available (on the EBU's website). > > Personally, I find David's guidance, and that of the White Book, very > useful. But the fact remains that neither has any legal standing > outside of England (and Wales, I suppose). > +=+ David quotes the committee verbatim and is therefore a source of reliable information. The ecats site presents documents in a formal arrangement with the WBF and is an official source of information. There have been two meetings since November 2003. They were a meeting of 31 October 2004 at which I was not present, and a meeting of 7th October 2007. I am making enquiries to establish how it is that these minutes are not posted. We do not control what appears on the web site but they should appear before long. The 2004 meeting gave guidance in answer to the questions "What score should be given if a pair cannot play more than a few boards in one or more sessions?" and "Can a penalty for a revoke be given by a score adjustment instead of penalty tricks?". There is nothing in the munutes of October 2007 that gives guidance for Directors, no such question having arisen. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Thu Jan 3 00:55:50 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 23:55:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke References: <2b1e598b0801021508k2531195n3d8a48f57a6044ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003601c84d9b$025650e0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 11:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Correction of a revoke > On Jan 2, 2008 2:11 PM, wrote: >> In a message dated 02/01/2008 19:26:58 GMT Standard Time, >> ereppert at rochester.rr.com writes: >> >> > Your logic seems to imply that >> > paying sufficient attention to the game requires seeing the opponent's >> > hands every time one claims. >> >> I think his logic implies that paying sufficient attention to the >> game means that one will know what's in opponents' hands when one >> claims. A supposition that is probably true at expert level, and >> nowhere close to true at the level at which I play. :-) >> >> [paul lamford] Whether you notice that an opponent has revoked may be >> unrelated to whether you paid attention or not. For example, you play 6NT >> by South >> on the following hands on the lead of the QS. >> >> S AK5 >> H AQ9 >> D AK >> C AQJ32 >> >> S 432 >> H JT3 >> D QJ >> C KT987 >> >> You win the lead and cross to the ten of clubs on which West shows out. >> You >> take the heart finesse which loses and you say: One down, I will not >> insult >> you by playing them out, a spade to you. At half-time you notice that >> West did >> have a club. It is now too late to do anything about it, but you have >> not >> been inattentive in any way. Opponent's failure to face their hands is a 72B1 position. I'll try that route. John >> > > Nice example, Paul. That is indeed exactly what Konrad and I were > thinking of. Konrad just gave a similar example, where his team lost > about 30 IMPs. I have to agree with Konrad 100% on his points. > > Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Jan 3 01:00:26 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 00:00:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] concession References: Message-ID: <006101c84d9b$a866acf0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 6:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] concession > Last try. snip > > How to rule/adjudicate? In my opinion I would not let the claimant depart > from his claim. Supervised play continues as mandated, and the TD must > determine if any exposed cards or actions by defenders provide UI. > seems blindingly obvious to me. What do i know, I'm just an egg. John From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 3 01:02:34 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:02:34 -0600 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <006101c84d9b$a866acf0$0701a8c0@john> References: <006101c84d9b$a866acf0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801021602o1fe17cb4m7e2a2fa79cd2fee0@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 2, 2008 6:00 PM, John Probst wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; "blml" > > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 6:58 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] concession > > > > Last try. > > snip > > > > > How to rule/adjudicate? In my opinion I would not let the claimant depart > > from his claim. Supervised play continues as mandated, and the TD must > > determine if any exposed cards or actions by defenders provide UI. > > > > seems blindingly obvious to me. What do i know, I'm just an egg. John > Wonderful! If it is so blindingly obvious to you, perhaps you can answer my question about that paragraph. DALB asked a similar question, I believe. I'll repeat my question from earlier today: Can you tell us a little about how play is supervised? (For example, what does the director say to the table before play continues? Also, which hands does he look at? When should he consider previous tricks or the auction or the defender's convention cards?) Jerry Fusselman From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 3 01:09:25 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 00:09:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <003601c84d9b$025650e0$0701a8c0@john> References: <2b1e598b0801021508k2531195n3d8a48f57a6044ba@mail.gmail.com> <003601c84d9b$025650e0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000301c84d9c$e70ac9e0$b5205da0$@com> [JP] Opponent's failure to face their hands is a 72B1 position. I'll try that route. [DALB] Route to what? To awarding what you think the score ought to be, without reference to what the rules of the game are? That's what Kaplan used to do - "whatever ruling I think is appropriate, I can find a law to justify it". No wonder it's all such a shambles. David Burn London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 3 01:15:12 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 00:15:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke References: <2b1e598b0801021508k2531195n3d8a48f57a6044ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <006901c84d9d$bdefc230$02ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 11:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Correction of a revoke > On Jan 2, 2008 2:11 PM, wrote: >> In a message dated 02/01/2008 19:26:58 GMT Standard Time, >> ereppert at rochester.rr.com writes: >> >> > Your logic seems to imply that >> > paying sufficient attention to the game requires seeing the opponent's >> > hands every time one claims. >> >> I think his logic implies that paying sufficient attention to the >> game means that one will know what's in opponents' hands when one >> claims. A supposition that is probably true at expert level, and >> nowhere close to true at the level at which I play. :-) >> >> [paul lamford] Whether you notice that an opponent has revoked may be >> unrelated to whether you paid attention or not. For example, you play 6NT >> by South >> on the following hands on the lead of the QS. >> >> S AK5 >> H AQ9 >> D AK >> C AQJ32 >> >> S 432 >> H JT3 >> D QJ >> C KT987 >> >> You win the lead and cross to the ten of clubs on which West shows >> out. You take the heart finesse which loses and you say: One down, >> I will not insult you by playing them out, a spade to you. At half-time >> you notice that West did have a club. It is now too late to do anything >> about it, but you have not been inattentive in any way. >> > > Nice example, Paul. That is indeed exactly what Konrad and I were > thinking of. Konrad just gave a similar example, where his team lost > about 30 IMPs. I have to agree with Konrad 100% on his points. > > Jerry Fusselman > +=+ It is an interesting example. However the law is what it is. It does not regard failure to collect the tricks artificially transferred as being 'damage'. In respect of Law 64 the only matter raised with the DSC was with regard to 64B2. In the subcommittee this question from an NBO was discussed at length and the final outcome you see. No-one, be it from within or from without the DSC, expressed a desire that we review Law 64B4 or Law 64B5. Since this law has remained the same since 1973 (and in the 1963 Code listed what is now 64B5 but not 64B4) it is conceivable that Directors, NBOs and international bodies are comfortable with it the way it is. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 3 01:27:16 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:27:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] EBU White Book & WBF LC minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001401c84d96$4dd69200$02ce403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert asserted: [snip] >>Personally, I find David's guidance, and that of the White Book, >>very useful. But the fact remains that neither has any legal >>standing outside of England (and Wales, I suppose). Grattan Endicott asserted: >+=+ David quotes the committee verbatim and is therefore a source >of reliable information. [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: No, David Stevenson has a deliberate policy of _paraphrasing_ the WBF LC minutes in the EBU White Book, believing that verbatim reproduction might be less than helpful to the target audience of the White Book (the average TD seeking guidance, not nuances). ;-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Standards Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From schoderb at msn.com Thu Jan 3 01:36:13 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:36:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession References: <006101c84d9b$a866acf0$0701a8c0@john> <2b1e598b0801021602o1fe17cb4m7e2a2fa79cd2fee0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I suggest you (John) don't bite on this bait. Would end up in the longest thread this august body has ever produced. Just go ahead and be an egg and run your most successful club using the Laws and understanding their intent. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] concession > On Jan 2, 2008 6:00 PM, John Probst wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; "blml" > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 6:58 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] concession > > > > > > > Last try. > > > > snip > > > > > > > > How to rule/adjudicate? In my opinion I would not let the claimant > > > depart > > > from his claim. Supervised play continues as mandated, and the TD must > > > determine if any exposed cards or actions by defenders provide UI. > > > > > > > seems blindingly obvious to me. What do i know, I'm just an egg. John > > > > Wonderful! If it is so blindingly obvious to you, perhaps you can > answer my question about that paragraph. DALB asked a similar > question, I believe. I'll repeat my question from earlier today: > > Can you tell us a little about how play is supervised? (For example, > what does the director say to the table before play continues? Also, > which hands does he look at? When should he consider previous tricks > or the auction or the defender's convention cards?) > > Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 3 01:47:10 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:47:10 -0600 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <006901c84d9d$bdefc230$02ce403e@Mildred> References: <2b1e598b0801021508k2531195n3d8a48f57a6044ba@mail.gmail.com> <006901c84d9d$bdefc230$02ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801021647y685a53d8i1cb2a42f508fce21@mail.gmail.com> > +=+ It is an interesting example. However the law is what it is. It > does not regard failure to collect the tricks artificially transferred as > being 'damage'. In respect of Law 64 the only matter raised with > the DSC was with regard to 64B2. In the subcommittee this question > from an NBO was discussed at length and the final outcome you see. > No-one, be it from within or from without the DSC, expressed a > desire that we review Law 64B4 or Law 64B5. Since this law has > remained the same since 1973 (and in the 1963 Code listed what is > now 64B5 but not 64B4) it is conceivable that Directors, NBOs and > international bodies are comfortable with it the way it is. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > After someone carefully points out an inconsistency in something, I never really understood the counterargument that the authorities are comfortable with the status quo. Instead, I would like to see what these authorities can come up with when they rethink the status quo after understanding the inconsistency. For example, can they show there is actually no inconsistency? Or can they give a good reason why not to care? Or maybe, on reflection, they agree and want to fix it. Yes, we know that the law is what it is. Konrad is trying to make a contribution for better laws in the future. Jerry Fusselman From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 3 01:57:22 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 00:57:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke References: <2b1e598b0801021508k2531195n3d8a48f57a6044ba@mail.gmail.com> <003601c84d9b$025650e0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <008c01c84da3$b151df80$02ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 11:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Correction of a revoke >>> >>> You win the lead and cross to the ten of clubs on which >>> West shows out. You take the heart finesse which loses >>> and you say: "One down, I will not insult you by playing >>> them out, a spade to you". At half-time you notice that >>> West did have a club. It is now too late to do anything >>> about it, but you have not been inattentive in any way. > > (john) > Opponent's failure to face their hands is a 72B1 position. I'll > try that route. > > John > +=+ Presumably claiming that there is an irregularity (violation of 2007 Law 72B3) and that the offender "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side" (2007 L23). However, this begs the question once more of the nature of damage caused by the revoke, as indeed might also be arguable if you sought instead a 12A1 adjustment (see Law 12B1 which raises the question "What is a 'table result'?"). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Thu Jan 3 01:59:47 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:59:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] EBU White Book & WBF LC minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Kojak further quibbles. The White Book, David's quotes and explanations, and even Grattan's voluminous book written with Hansen years ago have weight and authority within the EBL, but to transfer these helpful documents into universal interpretations of the WBF laws is an exercise in either intentional or unknowing forgetfulness that there are other Regulating Authorities with similar but not same documents in force in their realms. Let's keep the delineation between Rules and Regulations (RA authority) and Laws interpretation (WBFLC authority) separated. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] EBU White Book & WBF LC minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Ed Reppert asserted: > > [snip] > > >>Personally, I find David's guidance, and that of the White Book, > >>very useful. But the fact remains that neither has any legal > >>standing outside of England (and Wales, I suppose). > > Grattan Endicott asserted: > > >+=+ David quotes the committee verbatim and is therefore a source > >of reliable information. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > No, David Stevenson has a deliberate policy of _paraphrasing_ the > WBF LC minutes in the EBU White Book, believing that verbatim > reproduction might be less than helpful to the target audience of > the White Book (the average TD seeking guidance, not nuances). > > ;-) > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 3 02:25:58 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 20:25:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0B417414-414C-4944-94BF-25E67FD34D95@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 2, 2008, at 5:44 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 2007 Law 72B3: > > A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as > by committing a second revoke, concealing a card > involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely. > > Richard Hills: > > Some years ago I was playing against Aussie junior > international Mark Abraham. He accidentally committed > a revoke, but failed to notice his error until the > revoke was established. When I claimed, Mark obeyed > the 1997 version of the above Law by displaying face > up his remaining cards. I was then able to notice > that Mark had revoked, so the Director was summoned to > give the appropriate ruling. > > A fine example of ethics by Mark Abraham, although it > was only possible due to his detailed knowledge of the > Lawbook - I note that no other blmler has mentioned > the 2007 Law 72B3 / 1997 Law 72B4. If all blmlers > overlook a key and relevant Law, what hope do mere > ordinary players have in attempts to play Lawfully? One wonders why, if the lawmakers consider it ethical* to show one's cards when an opponent claims, the laws do not explicitly require him to do so. (The laws do say that the TD *may* require all four hands to be faced, but this is in connection with a contested claim. If the claimer's opponents are not going to contest it, the laws on claims are mute on the question. * given that the laws of a game define its ethics. From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 3 02:30:40 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 02:30:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <006901c84d9d$bdefc230$02ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c84da8$407d3110$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk ................ > +=+ It is an interesting example. However the law is what it is. It > does not regard failure to collect the tricks artificially transferred as > being 'damage'. In respect of Law 64 the only matter raised with > the DSC was with regard to 64B2. In the subcommittee this question > from an NBO was discussed at length and the final outcome you see. Indeed a very intriguing result. Didn't anybody comment on the fact that Law 64C applies without any exception for each and every established revoke, so the special reference to Law 64C that was inserted in Law 64B2 is completely superfluous? (Or should the above happen to be a typo for Law 64A2 where the real change in Law 64 has been made?) Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 3 02:54:40 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 01:54:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. In-Reply-To: <000101c8438b$409bda10$c1d38e30$@com> References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> <004d01c8436e$c1c18d50$38cb403e@Mildred> <000101c8438b$409bda10$c1d38e30$@com> Message-ID: <477C4060.7040106@ntlworld.com> [DALB] [SNIP] 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". [SNIP] 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". [nige1] I feel that David Burn speaks for most players on these issues; but I fear that the agenda of directors (including player-directors) is subtly different ... For a director, the law-book concept of "Equity" (remedying an irregularity by re-establishing the situation before an infraction) is a more difficult and interesting challenge than applying a simple deterrent penalty. Furthermore, the resulting "Equity" rulings encourage subsequent infractions that further enhance the director's role and increase the player's reliance on the director. I think directors also relish the prospect that the preface to the new laws promises: to exercise more subjective judgement and to wield more personal influence on results. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 3 02:59:03 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 01:59:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <477C4167.5060201@ntlworld.com> [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. [ton] A defender with 4 tricks to go concedes 5 tricks. You see, you can't treat concessions and concessions as if they were the same thing. [nige1] IMO claims and concessions are the same. [Eric Landau] The notion that the explicit language of a newly published law can be overridden by an action [minute] of the legislative body that was taken prior to the law having been written is beyond absurd. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ A difficulty in raising matters argued on blml in the WBFLC is the low regard that many of the committee members have for the quality of debate in this forum. It is quite likely that ton, like myself, contributes here largely to alert any TDs who subscribe to this forum to the risks of relying upon discussion here as a source of guidance. They should be consulting their regulating authorities. (It also serves to give us an insight as to the aspects on which TDs may be misled.) However, in the case of this claims item the disagreement within the DSC is disturbing and lends weight to the case for official clarification. It tends to justify treatment in the appendix, in which regard the balance of opinion in the DSC seems to be that (in the words of one member who advocates a minimalist approach), it (the proposed appendix) "should be used not to draw attention to changes or to explain them but for examples which would clarify". [nige1] Personally, I am grateful for any pearls of wisdom that Grattan and his ilk let fall into our trough. Nevertheless, IMO, Bridge laws should be made understandable by average BLMLers and even ordinary players like myself; not just Grattan's inner circle. The new edition should render previous editions and their accompanying minutes obsolete. When the general interpretation of a law causes wide controversy, the WBFLC should clarify the law-book immediately. Furthermore, interpretations should be corrected and clarified by altering the law-book text, in place, not just in minutes. Reliance on arcane minutes conveys the message that the law is tailored for secretary birds' amusement rather than players' enjoyment. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 3 02:59:57 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 01:59:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Wording of the laws In-Reply-To: <20080102100748.598EC1D789F@f39.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20080102100748.598EC1D789F@f39.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <477C419D.4060107@ntlworld.com> [Konrad Ciborowski] ... a much better idea to simply quantify certain laws (for instance "in the TD's [opinion] there is 10% chance that...") or at least use simpler English. [nige1] More common sense from Konrad. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 3 03:10:37 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 20:10:37 -0600 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: References: <006101c84d9b$a866acf0$0701a8c0@john> <2b1e598b0801021602o1fe17cb4m7e2a2fa79cd2fee0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801021810o62237758ue7dcedd009edf301@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 2, 2008 6:36 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > I suggest you (John) don't bite on this bait. Would end up in the longest > thread this august body has ever produced. Just go ahead and be an egg and > run your most successful club using the Laws and understanding their intent. > This is the closest I have yet come, I believe, to being honored with an accusation of trolling. Perhaps someone, anyone, can give a few sentences of hints (in answer to my question) that may be appropriate to someone without experience directing and then resist the nearly irresistible impulse to type another 10,000 sentences. If it is so simple, then why is it so complicated that not even a few words can be said? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 3 04:10:36 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 14:10:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: There were very trivial changes between the 1987 edition of the Lawbook and the 1997 edition of the Lawbook. However, radical and sweeping changes have been inserted into the 2007 Lawbook. For convenience I will discuss these changes under three headings: (1) Changes affecting players (2) Changes affecting Directors (3) Changes affecting bridge administrators Part Two - Changes affecting Directors Firstly I will blow my own trumpet by noting that I am the co-author of the Index, which is usefully organised by Law number, rather than page number. However, despite my Index role, my views which follow are totally unofficial and unauthorised. The internal structure of the Lawbook has also been improved, with some consolidation of topics in the same or adjacent Laws (thus reducing the number of times a Director has to flip backwards and forwards through the Lawbook). For example, Laws 88 and 89 have been consolidated into Law 12. Law 12B1 gives guidance on the reason for an adjusted score, and also defines "damage": "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred - but see C1(b)." The vexed problem of argy-bargy over hesitations has been improved in two ways. Firstly, what used to be the misnomer of "logical alternative" now has a special Law 16B1(b) definition replacing its dictionary definition. Secondly, and psychologically much more important, the non-hesitating side no longer risk any of their rights by a delay in summoning the Director. Law 16B3: "When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends**. The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender. ** it is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later." A lot of average players get upset if accused of hesitating. These upsets can now be minimised, since there is no need to call the Director at all at the end of play if the non-hesitators realise that they have not been damaged. A Director may wish to educate their customers about this Law 16B3 change (as well as mentioning that a hesitation without design is not an infraction, but rather the hesitator's partner has restricted logical alternatives). Radical changes to Law 27 on insufficient bids. The key clause outlining the new approach is Law 27C1: "If the insufficient bid is replaced by a bid at the lowest legal level or double or pass that incorporates the information contained in the insufficient bid, the auction and play continues with the information arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides (Law 16D does not apply), but see 2 following." This now permits some conventional or potentially convention insufficient bids to be corrected without barring partner. For example: WEST EAST 2NT (natural) 2C (Stayman) Provided the partnership agreement of 3C over 2NT is also Stayman, East may correct 2C to 3C without barring West from the auction. But if 3C unluckily happens to be the somewhat different Baron convention, then West is barred and East has to punt their best guess. Note that Law 27 includes a number of caveats and twisty bits, so a Director should read the entire Law 27 carefully before giving a ruling. The completely rewritten Law 40 carefully defines what partnership understandings are - including much more detail defining _implicit_ partnership understandings. An important statement of principle on the difference between a deviation and/or psyche and an implicit partnership understanding is the first sentence of 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." Law 40 also gives specific and detailed powers to the Director to rectify misinformation. The revoke Laws 61 to 64 have been simplified. I believe a particular boon to playing Directors (who need to give quick-and-dirty rulings before going back to their own tables) is the abolition of the slow-and-clean final phrase of the 1997 Law 64A2: deleted -> "also, if an additional trick was subsequently won by the offending player with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick, one such trick is transferred to the non-offending side." <- deleted A playing Director now quick-and-dirty announces, "Two trick penalty if the revoking player won the revoke trick, one trick penalty otherwise, call me at the end of play if you think the revoking side still gained an advantage." A big improvement against those unethical players who "claim early and claim often", slipping through an occasional extra undeserved trick, is the new Law 69B2: "Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C: if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side." * * * Note that the above is merely my personal selection of the tip of the iceberg of key 2007 Lawbook changes which the average club Director (like myself) should know. I recommend that any Director who has the time should download and read the "parallel texts" version of the 1997 / 2007 Lawbooks. 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 Thu Jan 3 04:10:41 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 22:10:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 12 A 1. In-Reply-To: <477C4060.7040106@ntlworld.com> References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> <004d01c8436e$c1c18d50$38cb403e@Mildred> <000101c8438b$409bda10$c1d38e30$@com> <477C4060.7040106@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <1A47716C-36B1-425F-A70E-E0A99AA54AE8@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 2, 2008, at 8:54 PM, Guthrie wrote: > I feel that David Burn speaks for most players on these issues; but I > fear that the agenda of directors (including player-directors) is > subtly different ... > > For a director, the law-book concept of "Equity" (remedying an > irregularity by re-establishing the situation before an infraction) is > a more difficult and interesting challenge than applying a simple > deterrent penalty. > > Furthermore, the resulting "Equity" rulings encourage subsequent > infractions that further enhance the director's role and increase the > player's reliance on the director. > > I think directors also relish the prospect that the preface to the new > laws promises: to exercise more subjective judgement and to wield more > personal influence on results. You paint with entirely too broad a brush, Nigel. And an insulting one, too. But I suppose that's the modern way. :-( From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 3 05:38:03 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 04:38:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0B417414-414C-4944-94BF-25E67FD34D95@rochester.rr.com> References: <0B417414-414C-4944-94BF-25E67FD34D95@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c84dc2$6db3e740$491bb5c0$@com> [ER] * given that the laws of a game define its ethics [DALB] But that is precisely what the laws of a game do not, and should not, do. Suppose we play a game of noughts and crosses, or ticktacktoe as I believe it is called in the colonies. And suppose I put an X in the centre (center) square, and my opponent puts an O in the square immediately above it (or below it, or to the left or right of it). I make my next move, and it dawns on my opponent that I am about to win. "Oh shit", he says, "I shouldn't have made my first move. That was a mechanical error (or "an irrational thing to do"). Obviously I would not have done it, but for [some extraneous factor]. I want a ruling." At ticktacktoe, he loses. At every other game under the sun in an analogous situation, he loses. Only at bridge does he draw. Not only does he draw, he might even carry a 60% score instead of a 50% score into the next round (maybe the sun was in everyone's eyes, so both players get average plus). David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 3 07:18:04 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:18:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c84da8$407d3110$6400a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>In respect of Law 64 the only matter raised with the DSC was with regard >>to 64B2. In the subcommittee this question from an NBO was discussed at >>length and the final outcome you see. Sven Pran: >Indeed a very intriguing result. Didn't anybody comment on the fact that >Law 64C applies without any exception for each and every established >revoke, so the special reference to Law 64C that was inserted in Law 64B2 >is completely superfluous? Richard Hills: Any cross-reference which prevents an unforced error by a Director is not completely superfluous. 1997 Law 64B2: The penalty for an established revoke does not apply: to a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player. 2007 Law 64B2: There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: if it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player. Law 64C may apply. Richard Hills: It is possible that without the new "superfluous" cross-reference a novice Director might assume that Law 64C applies only to the first revoke. Note that Law 64B2 is the only clause in the revoke laws directly discussing _multiple_ 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 nancy at dressing.org Thu Jan 3 03:49:15 2008 From: nancy at dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 21:49:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead Message-ID: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main> Recently at the club, at the end of the auction, a player removed a card from his hand, placed it face down on the table and asked LHO "May I lead?". LHO refused to answer the question stating she did not feel that she was responsible for telling him that he could lead. She suggested he ask his partner if he could lead. The person about to lead then said, :I am asking you, because if my partner gives me the wrong information, I will be penalized but if I ask you, I won't be." A stalemate was now reached and neither opponent offered the information that he was the correct leader. The director was called. What ruling should be made in this situation? LHO also later stated that she was the dummy and therefore could not answer the question. Two rounds later, the same player followed the same procedure asking the same question and his RHO said, "No, it is not your lead". Nancy T Dressing No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1206 - Release Date: 1/1/2008 12:09 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080102/44395f53/attachment.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 3 09:36:57 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 09:36:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main> References: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main> Message-ID: <477C9EA9.2040500@ulb.ac.be> Nancy T Dressing a ?crit : > Recently at the club, at the end of the auction, a player removed a > card from his hand, placed it face down on the table and asked LHO > "May I lead?". LHO refused to answer the question stating she did not > feel that she was responsible for telling him that he could lead. She > suggested he ask his partner if he could lead. The person about to > lead then said, :I am asking you, because if my partner gives me the > wrong information, I will be penalized but if I ask you, I won't be." > A stalemate was now reached and neither opponent offered the > information that he was the correct leader. The director was called. > What ruling should be made in this situation? LHO also later stated > that she was the dummy and therefore could not answer the question. Last things first. Dummy takes one's role only after the lead is revealed, so the last argument doesn't hold. I can't find this explicitly in TFLB, but it's an obvious consequence of the wording of L54A. The potential leader could have solved the problem by leading face down, then requesting a review of the bidding according to L41B, then pulling his card back if needed. Note that opponents are compelled to answer *this* request. As TD, I would demand that one of the opponents give this review. If they don't, I'll penalize them according to L74A1-2 and several others. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 3 09:36:57 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 09:36:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main> References: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main> Message-ID: <477C9EA9.2040500@ulb.ac.be> Nancy T Dressing a ?crit : > Recently at the club, at the end of the auction, a player removed a > card from his hand, placed it face down on the table and asked LHO > "May I lead?". LHO refused to answer the question stating she did not > feel that she was responsible for telling him that he could lead. She > suggested he ask his partner if he could lead. The person about to > lead then said, :I am asking you, because if my partner gives me the > wrong information, I will be penalized but if I ask you, I won't be." > A stalemate was now reached and neither opponent offered the > information that he was the correct leader. The director was called. > What ruling should be made in this situation? LHO also later stated > that she was the dummy and therefore could not answer the question. Last things first. Dummy takes one's role only after the lead is revealed, so the last argument doesn't hold. I can't find this explicitly in TFLB, but it's an obvious consequence of the wording of L54A. The potential leader could have solved the problem by leading face down, then requesting a review of the bidding according to L41B, then pulling his card back if needed. Note that opponents are compelled to answer *this* request. As TD, I would demand that one of the opponents give this review. If they don't, I'll penalize them according to L74A1-2 and several others. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 3 09:50:33 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 09:50:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <477CA1D9.10001@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > For example: > > WEST EAST > 2NT (natural) 2C (Stayman) > > Provided the partnership agreement of 3C over 2NT is > also Stayman, East may correct 2C to 3C without > barring West from the auction. But if 3C unluckily > happens to be the somewhat different Baron convention, > then West is barred and East has to punt their best > guess. > > I don't understand this. The meaning of Stayman AND Baron is "please describe your hand further", unless you're of the very old school who would always have one major to bid 2C. IOW, 3C Baron doesn't teel anything about the hand that 2C Stayman does, for the reson that the latter doesn't tell anything. One could argue that the next bid by responder would have different meaning, but this isn't restricted by L27. More generally, replacing a forcing relay by another forcing relay should be admitted anytime. > > > "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." > > Well, that's an important bid. It means that, when there obviously are 55 HCP in the deck and only one side is vulnerable, you're allowed to field the psyche as long as you already have shown your strength. So, the famous 1C case discussed some weeks ago isn't obvious (opponents don't know you hold a maximum for your 2C bid), but assume the bidding went : 1S 2C 2D 3NT p p You wouldn't be compelled to double, because both sides know something happened. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 3 09:50:33 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 09:50:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <477CA1D9.10001@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > For example: > > WEST EAST > 2NT (natural) 2C (Stayman) > > Provided the partnership agreement of 3C over 2NT is > also Stayman, East may correct 2C to 3C without > barring West from the auction. But if 3C unluckily > happens to be the somewhat different Baron convention, > then West is barred and East has to punt their best > guess. > > I don't understand this. The meaning of Stayman AND Baron is "please describe your hand further", unless you're of the very old school who would always have one major to bid 2C. IOW, 3C Baron doesn't teel anything about the hand that 2C Stayman does, for the reson that the latter doesn't tell anything. One could argue that the next bid by responder would have different meaning, but this isn't restricted by L27. More generally, replacing a forcing relay by another forcing relay should be admitted anytime. > > > "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." > > Well, that's an important bid. It means that, when there obviously are 55 HCP in the deck and only one side is vulnerable, you're allowed to field the psyche as long as you already have shown your strength. So, the famous 1C case discussed some weeks ago isn't obvious (opponents don't know you hold a maximum for your 2C bid), but assume the bidding went : 1S 2C 2D 3NT p p You wouldn't be compelled to double, because both sides know something happened. Best regards Alain From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Jan 3 10:13:54 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:13:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] re claim In-Reply-To: <000601c84d80$2a43d3e0$7ecb7ba0$@com> Message-ID: David: Perhaps in 2017 the rules will say: When a defender concedes one or more tricks, and his partner immediately objects, play continues. Otherwise... David Burn ton: I read this as a nice way to avoid using the word 'nonsense' for all those opinions trying to tell that L68B only applies when a defender concedes all tricks, and certainly not when the defender demanded one or more tricks. The case seems closed. A complete other issue of course is whether the conceding defender may deviate from his proposed line of play. This seems the issue Kojak wants to touch and it illustrates how complicated discussions can be, people mixing up statements and therewith introducing their own debate. My answer on that question is that there is no strait answer in yes or no, but it is close to 'no'. Let us be practical, it almost never happens that declarer gives a clear statement when claiming/conceding and that happens even less when defender does so. He shows his remaining high trump and everybody but partner understands that one trick to be claimed. ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Jan 3 10:16:07 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:16:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric: And here I was thinking that maybe, just maybe, I could presume that the DSC chose the words they chose because they thought they said what the DSC intended them to say, or thought they expressed that intention more clearly to their prospective readers than the words they rejected. Oh foolish me! Eric Landau ton: Not foolish at all, they did. ton From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 3 10:59:34 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 04:59:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c84dc2$6db3e740$491bb5c0$@com> References: <0B417414-414C-4944-94BF-25E67FD34D95@rochester.rr.com> <000401c84dc2$6db3e740$491bb5c0$@com> Message-ID: On Jan 2, 2008, at 11:38 PM, David Burn wrote: > But that is precisely what the laws of a game do not, and should > not, do. > Suppose we play a game of noughts and crosses, or ticktacktoe as I > believe > it is called in the colonies. And suppose I put an X in the centre > (center) > square, and my opponent puts an O in the square immediately above > it (or > below it, or to the left or right of it). > > I make my next move, and it dawns on my opponent that I am about to > win. "Oh > shit", he says, "I shouldn't have made my first move. That was a > mechanical > error (or "an irrational thing to do"). Obviously I would not have > done it, > but for [some extraneous factor]. I want a ruling." > > At ticktacktoe, he loses. At every other game under the sun in an > analogous > situation, he loses. Only at bridge does he draw. Not only does he > draw, he > might even carry a 60% score instead of a 50% score into the next > round > (maybe the sun was in everyone's eyes, so both players get average > plus). I see the words, but.... From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 3 11:25:45 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 05:25:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <477C9EA9.2040500@ulb.ac.be> References: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main> <477C9EA9.2040500@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <843D5A14-9566-49A5-BE9E-A0572FCCA443@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 3, 2008, at 3:36 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Nancy T Dressing a ?crit : >> Recently at the club, at the end of the auction, a player removed a >> card from his hand, placed it face down on the table and asked LHO >> "May I lead?". LHO refused to answer the question stating she did >> not >> feel that she was responsible for telling him that he could lead. >> She >> suggested he ask his partner if he could lead. The person about to >> lead then said, :I am asking you, because if my partner gives me the >> wrong information, I will be penalized but if I ask you, I won't be." >> A stalemate was now reached and neither opponent offered the >> information that he was the correct leader. The director was called. >> What ruling should be made in this situation? LHO also later stated >> that she was the dummy and therefore could not answer the question. > Last things first. Dummy takes one's role only after the lead is > revealed, so the last argument doesn't hold. I can't find this > explicitly in TFLB, but it's an obvious consequence of the wording > of L54A. > > The potential leader could have solved the problem by leading face > down, > then requesting a review of the bidding according to L41B, then > pulling > his card back if needed. Note that opponents are compelled to answer > *this* request. > As TD, I would demand that one of the opponents give this review. If > they don't, I'll penalize them according to L74A1-2 and several > others. Declarer's partner becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced - it's in the definitions, chapter one of the laws. A player is entitled to a review of the auction if he asks for it at the proper time. So his opponent has no basis to deny it to him. Also, a player is required to follow the instructions of the director. So your review example doesn't hold water. The opening lead is made face down. This player placed a card face down on the table. He has made his lead - the question is superfluous. I would answer "you already did". Once the opening lead is made, even if face down, it may only be retracted on instruction of the director, so if a review of the auction reveals he shouldn't have led, he can't just retract it. A player who doesn't know whether it's his lead is paying insufficient attention to the game. A player who knows, but asks this question anyway, is playing mind games and ought to be smacked upside the head. If this player is asking his LHO if he has any questions, he's asking the wrong player - only his partner and the declarer can ask questions at this time. Law 41B. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 3 11:35:19 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:35:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead References: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main> <477C9EA9.2040500@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003201c84df4$5a1c1d10$0bd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: "'Bridge Laws'" Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Opening Lead > Nancy T Dressing a ?crit : >> Recently at the club, at the end of the auction, a player removed a >> card from his hand, placed it face down on the table and asked LHO >> "May I lead?". LHO refused to answer the question stating she did not >> feel that she was responsible for telling him that he could lead. She >> suggested he ask his partner if he could lead. The person about to >> lead then said, :I am asking you, because if my partner gives me the >> wrong information, I will be penalized but if I ask you, I won't be." >> A stalemate was now reached and neither opponent offered the >> information that he was the correct leader. The director was called. >> What ruling should be made in this situation? LHO also later stated >> that she was the dummy and therefore could not answer the question. > Last things first. Dummy takes one's role only after the lead is > revealed, so the last argument doesn't hold. I can't find this > explicitly in TFLB, but it's an obvious consequence of the wording of > L54A. > > The potential leader could have solved the problem by leading face down, > then requesting a review of the bidding according to L41B, then pulling > his card back if needed. Note that opponents are compelled to answer > *this* request. > As TD, I would demand that one of the opponents give this review. If > they don't, I'll penalize them according to L74A1-2 and several others. > > Best regards > > Alain > +=+ 1997 Law 47E1 should be noted. In the 2007 Code we have strengthened the language. At trick one it is sensible in preparing to lead not to reveal the face of the card until LHO has become aware of the intention to lead. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 3 11:35:19 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:35:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead References: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main> <477C9EA9.2040500@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003201c84df4$5a1c1d10$0bd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: "'Bridge Laws'" Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Opening Lead > Nancy T Dressing a ?crit : >> Recently at the club, at the end of the auction, a player removed a >> card from his hand, placed it face down on the table and asked LHO >> "May I lead?". LHO refused to answer the question stating she did not >> feel that she was responsible for telling him that he could lead. She >> suggested he ask his partner if he could lead. The person about to >> lead then said, :I am asking you, because if my partner gives me the >> wrong information, I will be penalized but if I ask you, I won't be." >> A stalemate was now reached and neither opponent offered the >> information that he was the correct leader. The director was called. >> What ruling should be made in this situation? LHO also later stated >> that she was the dummy and therefore could not answer the question. > Last things first. Dummy takes one's role only after the lead is > revealed, so the last argument doesn't hold. I can't find this > explicitly in TFLB, but it's an obvious consequence of the wording of > L54A. > > The potential leader could have solved the problem by leading face down, > then requesting a review of the bidding according to L41B, then pulling > his card back if needed. Note that opponents are compelled to answer > *this* request. > As TD, I would demand that one of the opponents give this review. If > they don't, I'll penalize them according to L74A1-2 and several others. > > Best regards > > Alain > +=+ 1997 Law 47E1 should be noted. In the 2007 Code we have strengthened the language. At trick one it is sensible in preparing to lead not to reveal the face of the card until LHO has become aware of the intention to lead. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 3 11:49:12 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:49:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead Message-ID: <003701c84df6$49cc04a0$0bd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: "'Bridge Laws'" Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Opening Lead > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Cc: "'Bridge Laws'" > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 8:36 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Opening Lead > >>> LHO also later stated that she was the dummy and >>> therefore could not answer the question. >> Last things first. Dummy takes one's role only after >> the lead is revealed, so the last argument doesn't hold. > +=+ The statement does reveal, however, that she believed it was her RHO who should make the opening lead. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 3 11:49:12 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:49:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead Message-ID: <003701c84df6$49cc04a0$0bd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: "'Bridge Laws'" Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Opening Lead > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Cc: "'Bridge Laws'" > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 8:36 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Opening Lead > >>> LHO also later stated that she was the dummy and >>> therefore could not answer the question. >> Last things first. Dummy takes one's role only after >> the lead is revealed, so the last argument doesn't hold. > +=+ The statement does reveal, however, that she believed it was her RHO who should make the opening lead. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Thu Jan 3 12:03:12 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:03:12 +0900 Subject: [blml] How careful with words was the DSC? In-Reply-To: <200801030916.m039G7d6002020@mxg501.nifty.com> References: <200801030916.m039G7d6002020@mxg501.nifty.com> Message-ID: <200801031103.AA11913@geller204.nifty.com> I am appreciative to the great efforts of the DSC (see Ton's comment below), but at the same time I think it is fair to say they could and should have been a bit more careful in their choice of words. Let's take a random example that I happen to be looking at now, L74B(5): *********************************************** L74B As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: 5. summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants. ********************************************** The (minor) problem with the above is that "contestants" should be replaced by "players," since "contestants" has the following specific meaning (according to the "definitions") namely: *********************************************** Contestant . in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates. Contract . the undertaking by declarer?s side ********************************************** This one minor point is no big deal in itself, but IMO there are many such examples of infelicitious or careless choice of wording which combine to detract from the quality of the final Laws, and also create needless problems for translators. -Bob ton writes: >Eric: > >And here I was thinking that maybe, just maybe, I could presume that the DSC >chose the words they chose because they thought they said what the DSC >intended them to say, or thought they expressed that intention more clearly >to their prospective readers than the words they rejected. Oh foolish me! > > >Eric Landau > >ton: > >Not foolish at all, they did. > >ton > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From martino at bridgenz.co.nz Thu Jan 3 12:32:13 2008 From: martino at bridgenz.co.nz (Martin Oyston) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 00:32:13 +1300 Subject: [blml] Tartan or Weak Message-ID: Can you please assist me, as this situation arose: 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? From martino at bridgenz.co.nz Thu Jan 3 12:37:12 2008 From: martino at bridgenz.co.nz (Martin Oyston) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 00:37:12 +1300 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <843D5A14-9566-49A5-BE9E-A0572FCCA443@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: In the 2007 Laws, 20C1 gives the player the right to ask the question (I assume of any other player at the table, who would be obliged to answer. Martin Oyston Director BridgeNZ (2004) Limited -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Ed Reppert Sent: Thursday, 3 January 2008 11:26 p.m. To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Opening Lead On Jan 3, 2008, at 3:36 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Nancy T Dressing a ?crit : >> Recently at the club, at the end of the auction, a player removed a >> card from his hand, placed it face down on the table and asked LHO >> "May I lead?". LHO refused to answer the question stating she did >> not >> feel that she was responsible for telling him that he could lead. >> She >> suggested he ask his partner if he could lead. The person about to >> lead then said, :I am asking you, because if my partner gives me the >> wrong information, I will be penalized but if I ask you, I won't be." >> A stalemate was now reached and neither opponent offered the >> information that he was the correct leader. The director was called. >> What ruling should be made in this situation? LHO also later stated >> that she was the dummy and therefore could not answer the question. > Last things first. Dummy takes one's role only after the lead is > revealed, so the last argument doesn't hold. I can't find this > explicitly in TFLB, but it's an obvious consequence of the wording > of L54A. > > The potential leader could have solved the problem by leading face > down, > then requesting a review of the bidding according to L41B, then > pulling > his card back if needed. Note that opponents are compelled to answer > *this* request. > As TD, I would demand that one of the opponents give this review. If > they don't, I'll penalize them according to L74A1-2 and several > others. Declarer's partner becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced - it's in the definitions, chapter one of the laws. A player is entitled to a review of the auction if he asks for it at the proper time. So his opponent has no basis to deny it to him. Also, a player is required to follow the instructions of the director. So your review example doesn't hold water. The opening lead is made face down. This player placed a card face down on the table. He has made his lead - the question is superfluous. I would answer "you already did". Once the opening lead is made, even if face down, it may only be retracted on instruction of the director, so if a review of the auction reveals he shouldn't have led, he can't just retract it. A player who doesn't know whether it's his lead is paying insufficient attention to the game. A player who knows, but asks this question anyway, is playing mind games and ought to be smacked upside the head. If this player is asking his LHO if he has any questions, he's asking the wrong player - only his partner and the declarer can ask questions at this time. Law 41B. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From martino at bridgenz.co.nz Thu Jan 3 12:40:24 2008 From: martino at bridgenz.co.nz (Martin Oyston) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 00:40:24 +1300 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <843D5A14-9566-49A5-BE9E-A0572FCCA443@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <194E6089A2D044DCBC5F5C1B7F6EC93B@BridgeNZL3> Subject: Re: [blml] Opening Lead On Jan 3, 2008, at 3:36 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Nancy T Dressing a ?crit : >> Recently at the club, at the end of the auction, a player removed a >> card from his hand, placed it face down on the table and asked LHO >> "May I lead?". LHO refused to answer the question stating she did >> not >> feel that she was responsible for telling him that he could lead. >> She >> suggested he ask his partner if he could lead. The person about to >> lead then said, :I am asking you, because if my partner gives me the >> wrong information, I will be penalized but if I ask you, I won't be." >> A stalemate was now reached and neither opponent offered the >> information that he was the correct leader. The director was called. >> What ruling should be made in this situation? LHO also later stated >> that she was the dummy and therefore could not answer the question. > Last things first. Dummy takes one's role only after the lead is > revealed, so the last argument doesn't hold. I can't find this > explicitly in TFLB, but it's an obvious consequence of the wording > of L54A. > > The potential leader could have solved the problem by leading face > down, > then requesting a review of the bidding according to L41B, then > pulling > his card back if needed. Note that opponents are compelled to answer > *this* request. > As TD, I would demand that one of the opponents give this review. If > they don't, I'll penalize them according to L74A1-2 and several > others. Declarer's partner becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced - it's in the definitions, chapter one of the laws. A player is entitled to a review of the auction if he asks for it at the proper time. So his opponent has no basis to deny it to him. Also, a player is required to follow the instructions of the director. So your review example doesn't hold water. The opening lead is made face down. This player placed a card face down on the table. He has made his lead - the question is superfluous. I would answer "you already did". Once the opening lead is made, even if face down, it may only be retracted on instruction of the director, so if a review of the auction reveals he shouldn't have led, he can't just retract it. A player who doesn't know whether it's his lead is paying insufficient attention to the game. A player who knows, but asks this question anyway, is playing mind games and ought to be smacked upside the head. If this player is asking his LHO if he has any questions, he's asking the wrong player - only his partner and the declarer can ask questions at this time. Law 41B. [Martino] In the 2007 Laws, 20C1 gives the player the right to ask the question (I assume of any other player at the table, who would be obliged to answer. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 3 12:55:20 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:55:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <843D5A14-9566-49A5-BE9E-A0572FCCA443@rochester.rr.com> References: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main> <477C9EA9.2040500@ulb.ac.be> <843D5A14-9566-49A5-BE9E-A0572FCCA443@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <477CCD28.3080705@ulb.ac.be> Ed Reppert a ?crit : > Once the opening lead is made, even if face down, it may only be > retracted on instruction of the director, so if a review of the > auction reveals he shouldn't have led, he can't just retract it. > So please tell me what's the use of making one's lead face down ? From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 3 12:48:38 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:48:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005601c84e06$c8af2170$0bd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 3:10 AM Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > There were very trivial changes between the 1987 edition > of the Lawbook and the 1997 edition of the Lawbook. > > However, radical and sweeping changes have been inserted > into the 2007 Lawbook. > > For convenience I will discuss these changes under three > headings: > > (1) Changes affecting players > (2) Changes affecting Directors > (3) Changes affecting bridge administrators > > Part Two - Changes affecting Directors > > Firstly I will blow my own trumpet by noting that I am > the co-author of the Index, which is usefully organised > by Law number, rather than page number. However, > despite my Index role, my views which follow are totally > unofficial and unauthorised. > > The internal structure of the Lawbook has also been > improved, with some consolidation of topics in the same > or adjacent Laws (thus reducing the number of times a > Director has to flip backwards and forwards through the > Lawbook). For example, Laws 88 and 89 have been > consolidated into Law 12. > > Law 12B1 gives guidance on the reason for an adjusted > score, and also defines "damage": > > "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage > to a nonoffending side and to take away any advantage > gained by an offending side through its infraction. > Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an > innocent side obtains a table result less favourable > than would have been the expectation had the infraction > not occurred - but see C1(b)." > > The vexed problem of argy-bargy over hesitations has > been improved in two ways. Firstly, what used to be > the misnomer of "logical alternative" now has a special > Law 16B1(b) definition replacing its dictionary > definition. Secondly, and psychologically much more > important, the non-hesitating side no longer risk any > of their rights by a delay in summoning the Director. > > Law 16B3: > > "When a player has substantial reason to believe that > an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an > action that could have been suggested by such > information, he should summon the Director when play > ends**. The Director shall assign an adjusted score > (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law > has resulted in an advantage for the offender. > > ** it is not an infraction to call the Director earlier > or later." > > A lot of average players get upset if accused of > hesitating. These upsets can now be minimised, since > there is no need to call the Director at all at the > end of play if the non-hesitators realise that they > have not been damaged. A Director may wish to educate > their customers about this Law 16B3 change (as well as > mentioning that a hesitation without design is not an > infraction, but rather the hesitator's partner has > restricted logical alternatives). > > Radical changes to Law 27 on insufficient bids. The > key clause outlining the new approach is Law 27C1: > > "If the insufficient bid is replaced by a bid at the > lowest legal level or double or pass that incorporates > the information contained in the insufficient bid, the > auction and play continues with the information > arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both > sides (Law 16D does not apply), but see 2 following." > > This now permits some conventional or potentially > convention insufficient bids to be corrected without > barring partner. > > For example: > > WEST EAST > 2NT (natural) 2C (Stayman) > > Provided the partnership agreement of 3C over 2NT is > also Stayman, East may correct 2C to 3C without > barring West from the auction. But if 3C unluckily > happens to be the somewhat different Baron convention, > then West is barred and East has to punt their best > guess. > > Note that Law 27 includes a number of caveats and > twisty bits, so a Director should read the entire Law > 27 carefully before giving a ruling. > > The completely rewritten Law 40 carefully defines what > partnership understandings are - including much more > detail defining _implicit_ partnership understandings. > > An important statement of principle on the difference > between a deviation and/or psyche and an implicit > partnership understanding is the first sentence of > 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." > > Law 40 also gives specific and detailed powers to the > Director to rectify misinformation. > > The revoke Laws 61 to 64 have been simplified. I > believe a particular boon to playing Directors (who > need to give quick-and-dirty rulings before going > back to their own tables) is the abolition of the > slow-and-clean final phrase of the 1997 Law 64A2: > > deleted -> "also, if an additional trick was > subsequently won by the offending player with a card > that he could legally have played to the revoke trick, > one such trick is transferred to the non-offending > side." <- deleted > > A playing Director now quick-and-dirty announces, "Two > trick penalty if the revoking player won the revoke > trick, one trick penalty otherwise, call me at the > end of play if you think the revoking side still > gained an advantage." > > A big improvement against those unethical players who > "claim early and claim often", slipping through an > occasional extra undeserved trick, is the new Law 69B2: > > "Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be > withdrawn within the Correction Period established > under Law 79C: > if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his > side would likely have won had the play continued. > The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his > side." > > * * * > > Note that the above is merely my personal selection of > the tip of the iceberg of key 2007 Lawbook changes > which the average club Director (like myself) should > know. I recommend that any Director who has the time > should download and read the "parallel texts" version > of the 1997 / 2007 Lawbooks. > > > 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 Thu Jan 3 13:46:32 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:46:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: claim References: <477C4167.5060201@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <005701c84e06$ca14a4e0$0bd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 1:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: claim > > When the general interpretation of a law causes wide controversy, the > WBFLC should clarify the law-book immediately. > > Furthermore, interpretations should be corrected and clarified by > altering the law-book text, in place, not just in minutes. Reliance on > arcane minutes conveys the message that the law is tailored for > secretary birds' amusement rather than players' enjoyment. > +=+I think this overstates the matter if we consider the constitutional position. The duty of the WBF in the matter is to provide the membership of the WBF, that is to say the NBOs, with the interpretations and the clarification of the laws that they need. It is the responsibility of the NBO to provide information to its members and affiliates. It is wholly appropriate to communicate with NBOs by way of minutes. In recent years the WBFLC has recognized the interest of Directors especially, but also of players, in its decisions and has placed them where they can be read by those who wish to read them. The WBF tends to see this as influencing (but not imposing) a commonality of treatment of subjects among NBOs since their members may then raise questions with them. I do not consider a disagreement among three former DSC members as a 'wide controversy'. The unofficial bandying of arguments on a subject in this forum is just that and outwith the administration of the game. In the past it has not been the practice of the WBFLC to alter the text of the laws between decennial reviews, but only to add clarification, quite rarely, in a footnote. Currently such matters are only decided in a meeting. One cannot yet say how the WBFLC will decide to proceed in future but it will be a surprise to me if these practices are varied. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Jan 3 14:44:41 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 03 Jan 2008 14:44:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] L86D Message-ID: <20080103134442.1839A21C906@f28.poczta.interia.pl> This is me once again. I need an explanation: L86D reads: +== In team play when the Director awards an adjusted score (excluding any award that ensues from application of Law 6D2), and a result has been obtained* between the same contestants at another table, the Director may assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points (and should do so when that result appears favourable to the non-offending side). +== I take it to mean that if the TD adjusts and the board hasn't yet been played at the other table then he obviously must assign an adjusted score in total points but if he already knows the score from the other room he may adjust directly in IMPs. Am I correct? Fine. So far so good. Then we have "he should do so when that result appears favourable to the non-offending side". He should do what? What does "so" refer to? He should adjust when the result in the other room appears favorable to the NOs? Well, if there has been an infraction and damage in the Open Room then the TD should adjust the result in the Open Room regardless of the result in the Closed Room, no? Or does it mean that if the TD is to adjust +620 for the NOs instead of -100 they obtained in actual play but he sees that in the Closed Room the NOs' teammates went down for 1400 he shouldn't adjust? Or should he cancel the boeard? It all makes no sense to me. I'd appreciate clarification on what this particular laws is supposed to mean (especially the second remark in parenthesis). Or is this law supposed to refer to artificial adjusted score and the word "artificial" is missing? -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bedac w toalecie korzystala z ... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cbc From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 3 15:57:55 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 14:57:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Tartan or Weak References: Message-ID: <000601c84e19$0883bf60$bcd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 11:32 AM Subject: [blml] Tartan or Weak > Can you please assist me, as this situation arose: > > 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? > +=+ In relation to the 2007 Code see Law 40B6(b). Under the 1997 Code the response to the enquiry has failed to give 'full' information - see Law 20. This is misinformation. The failure to alert, if required by regulation, is misinformation in 2007 and 1997 alike. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 3 16:18:16 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:18:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <001101c84d90$3f877350$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <001101c84d90$3f877350$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <3FB7E2B4-337C-4464-B7B8-63690BA6B14E@starpower.net> On Jan 2, 2008, at 5:38 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau >> >> Ton, nobody who disagrees with you has ever asserted that L68B2 >> applies only for a defender who concedes all the remaining tricks. >> We accept that if a defender attempts to concede fewer than all of >> the remaining tricks, L68B2 applies to the concession. We do dispute >> that L68B2 applies to all of the remaining tricks. If you cannot see >> the difference, you cannot understand the contrary argument. Don't >> be distracted by those red herrings; there is a substantive issue >> here. > > Going back on this thread you will find numerous statements to the > effect > that (sorry here we go again!) unless the concession objected to > was for all > the remaining tricks then there was a claim which could not be > nullified > under Law 68B2, and as a consequence of this we shall end up in Law > 68D and > play must cease. > > Only recently has the suggestion been made that play can cease > under Law 68D > only for the claimed tricks and that Law 68B2 be applied for the > conceded > tricks. But nobody seems to have given any thought to how this can be > practiced? The real fact is that once play have ceased there is no > way it > can be resumed again because as part of the routine prescribed in > Law 70B > all four hands may eventually, and will more often than not be faced. > > If this doesn't imply an assertion that Law 68B2 should only apply > for a > concession of all remaining tricks I don't know what does. *Absolutely nobody* has argued that L68B2 does not apply to any explicit concession of any number of tricks. Several have argued that it does not apply to an implicit concession consequent on an attempt to claim -- which cannot, of course, be a concession of all the tricks. Sven is failing to make the distinction between an implicit claim consequent on an explict concession and an explicit claim which results in an implicit concession. For those who would disagree with his interpretation, that distinction is crucial. So, understanding that we are addressing *only* the latter... There are three interpretations on the table. From my reply to Jerry yesterday (numbers added): "So we might have [1] a claim with a consequent concession (L68B2 does not apply), [2] a claim without a consequent confession (L68B2 cancels the concession but not the original claim), or [3] nothing at all (L68B2 cancels West's statement in its entirety)." Sven's "numerous statements" argue for [2]. Sven is correct that under either [1] or [2], play must cease as a consequence of the "outstanding" claim. But they are different. The rationale for [2] comes from interpreting "play continues" to mean "the table action resumes normally" -- but the normal action with a claim on the table is for play to stop and the claim to be either accepted or adjudicated. Nevertheless, L68B2 applies: if partner objects, the concession is withdrawn; the objection is heard and (if not accepted by declarer) taken into account in the subsequent adjudication. "Play continues" at L68D. In [1], the concession cannot be not withdrawn; if partner objects to it, L68D is triggered directly, in turn taking us to L70. In either case we get an adjudicated outcome, but they may be different. In [1], we adjudicate based on the claimer's original statement; in [2] we adjudicate a composite "statement" taking the claimer's partner's objection into account, subject to the (UI- related) constraints of L68B2. Only with [3] do we allow the actual play of the hand to restart. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 3 16:46:27 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:46:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main> References: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main> Message-ID: <3F12F5B2-3545-4E15-9EE8-814CD87EAC0A@starpower.net> On Jan 2, 2008, at 9:49 PM, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > Recently at the club, at the end of the auction, a player removed a > card from his hand, placed it face down on the table and asked LHO > "May I lead?". LHO refused to answer the question stating she did > not feel that she was responsible for telling him that he could > lead. She suggested he ask his partner if he could lead. The > person about to lead then said, :I am asking you, because if my > partner gives me the wrong information, I will be penalized but if > I ask you, I won't be." Perhaps a better reply would have been, "May I have a review of the auction?" Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Jan 3 17:23:47 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:23:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: claim In-Reply-To: <005701c84e06$ca14a4e0$0bd5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sent: donderdag 3 januari 2008 13:47 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: claim Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 1:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: claim > > When the general interpretation of a law causes wide controversy, the > WBFLC should clarify the law-book immediately. > > Furthermore, interpretations should be corrected and clarified by > altering the law-book text, in place, not just in minutes. Reliance on > arcane minutes conveys the message that the law is tailored for > secretary birds' amusement rather than players' enjoyment. +=+ ... I do not consider a disagreement among three former DSC members as a 'wide controversy'. ........ ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I am not sure that I have a disagreement with Kojak about this case. Can somebody with a different opinion tell me what it is? ton From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 3 17:30:07 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:30:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: <477CA1D9.10001@ulb.ac.be> References: <477CA1D9.10001@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Jan 3, 2008, at 3:50 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> For example: >> >> WEST EAST >> 2NT (natural) 2C (Stayman) >> >> Provided the partnership agreement of 3C over 2NT is >> also Stayman, East may correct 2C to 3C without >> barring West from the auction. But if 3C unluckily >> happens to be the somewhat different Baron convention, >> then West is barred and East has to punt their best >> guess. > > I don't understand this. The meaning of Stayman AND Baron is "please > describe your hand further", unless you're of the very old school who > would always have one major to bid 2C. > IOW, 3C Baron doesn't teel anything about the hand that 2C Stayman > does, > for the reson that the latter doesn't tell anything. > > One could argue that the next bid by responder would have different > meaning, but this isn't restricted by L27. > > More generally, replacing a forcing relay by another forcing relay > should be admitted anytime. Either of these interpretations can be supported by the text of L27C1. It depends on how we choose to define "information". Alain uses the "ordinary" meaning ("knowledge of a specific event or situation" -- AHD). That would mean that any call that says nothing at all about the bidder's hand (a pure asking bid or relay) has its (null) information "incorporated" in any other call. Richard uses the "information theory" meaning ("a nonaccidental signal"). That would mean that the "information" in an asking bid is "incorporated" only in a different bid that asks the same question. Either interpretation is equally workable IMO. Do we have an old, still- applicable WBFLC minute left over from some previous lawbook that tells us how to interpret "information", or do we need a new one? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Jan 3 17:44:24 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:44:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <3FB7E2B4-337C-4464-B7B8-63690BA6B14E@starpower.net> Message-ID: I apreciate that Eric tries to explain to me what exactly the matter is, but I still don't understand it. We,the drafting committee, did not change anything in this respect and for at least a decade already the laws tell us to continue play when a defender claims a couple of tricks and concedes the other and his partner objects. ( a couple being an integer from zero to the number of tricks still to be played and therewith 'the other' also). Whether done explicitly or implicitly does not matter. An interesting question is whether play should continue when a defender claims all tricks and his partner objects. That certainly is not the intention expressed in 68B. But formally spoken the TD can do so, I think. What could have helped, but I have never been aware of the problem some of us seem to have - these laws are so clear - is to add to the first sentence of L 68D the words: 'but see B'. To come back to your explanation: When you start with: nobody has asserted that 68B only applies for a defender who concedes all remaining tricks and then draws the conclusion that play can't continue when there is a claim and concession what ridiculous position have you brought us in? ton >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau >> >> Ton, nobody who disagrees with you has ever asserted that L68B2 >> applies only for a defender who concedes all the remaining tricks. >> We accept that if a defender attempts to concede fewer than all of >> the remaining tricks, L68B2 applies to the concession. We do dispute >> that L68B2 applies to all of the remaining tricks. If you cannot see >> the difference, you cannot understand the contrary argument. Don't >> be distracted by those red herrings; there is a substantive issue >> here. > > Going back on this thread you will find numerous statements to the > effect that (sorry here we go again!) unless the concession objected > to was for all the remaining tricks then there was a claim which could > not be nullified under Law 68B2, and as a consequence of this we shall > end up in Law 68D and play must cease. > > Only recently has the suggestion been made that play can cease under > Law 68D only for the claimed tricks and that Law 68B2 be applied for > the conceded tricks. But nobody seems to have given any thought to how > this can be practiced? The real fact is that once play have ceased > there is no way it can be resumed again because as part of the routine > prescribed in Law 70B all four hands may eventually, and will more > often than not be faced. > > If this doesn't imply an assertion that Law 68B2 should only apply for > a concession of all remaining tricks I don't know what does. *Absolutely nobody* has argued that L68B2 does not apply to any explicit concession of any number of tricks. Several have argued that it does not apply to an implicit concession consequent on an attempt to claim -- which cannot, of course, be a concession of all the tricks. Sven is failing to make the distinction between an implicit claim consequent on an explict concession and an explicit claim which results in an implicit concession. For those who would disagree with his interpretation, that distinction is crucial. So, understanding that we are addressing *only* the latter... There are three interpretations on the table. From my reply to Jerry yesterday (numbers added): "So we might have [1] a claim with a consequent concession (L68B2 does not apply), [2] a claim without a consequent confession (L68B2 cancels the concession but not the original claim), or [3] nothing at all (L68B2 cancels West's statement in its entirety)." Sven's "numerous statements" argue for [2]. Sven is correct that under either [1] or [2], play must cease as a consequence of the "outstanding" claim. But they are different. The rationale for [2] comes from interpreting "play continues" to mean "the table action resumes normally" -- but the normal action with a claim on the table is for play to stop and the claim to be either accepted or adjudicated. Nevertheless, L68B2 applies: if partner objects, the concession is withdrawn; the objection is heard and (if not accepted by declarer) taken into account in the subsequent adjudication. "Play continues" at L68D. In [1], the concession cannot be not withdrawn; if partner objects to it, L68D is triggered directly, in turn taking us to L70. In either case we get an adjudicated outcome, but they may be different. In [1], we adjudicate based on the claimer's original statement; in [2] we adjudicate a composite "statement" taking the claimer's partner's objection into account, subject to the (UI- related) constraints of L68B2. Only with [3] do we allow the actual play of the hand to restart. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam at irvine.com Thu Jan 3 17:52:15 2008 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 08:52:15 -0800 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Jan 2008 09:50:33 +0100." <477CA1D9.10001@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200801031645.IAA27622@mailhub.irvine.com> Alain wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > For example: > > > > WEST EAST > > 2NT (natural) 2C (Stayman) > > > > Provided the partnership agreement of 3C over 2NT is > > also Stayman, East may correct 2C to 3C without > > barring West from the auction. But if 3C unluckily > > happens to be the somewhat different Baron convention, > > then West is barred and East has to punt their best > > guess. > > > > > I don't understand this. The meaning of Stayman AND Baron is "please > describe your hand further", unless you're of the very old school who > would always have one major to bid 2C. > IOW, 3C Baron doesn't teel anything about the hand that 2C Stayman does, > for the reson that the latter doesn't tell anything. A couple comments off the top of my head: (1) I don't think it's possible for an asking bid to convey no information at all. Even if an asking bid doesn't tell anything *specific* about one's hand, it does convey the information that the asker has the kind of hand that believes that making that particular asking bid is the best way to determine the correct contract. And the sets of hands for which 2C Stayman, 3C Stayman, or 3C Baron are the best approach are all different. (2) Even 2C Stayman over 1NT and 3C Stayman over 2NT aren't quite the same convention, IMHO; over 1NT, many partnerships have to go through 2C to show certain kinds of hands (e.g. some hands with a long minor). [Which means that 2C isn't quite the "pure" asking bid Alain makes it out to be.] So technically, the "incorporates the same information" criterion of Law 27C1 is probably never satisfied. In fact, it's probably never satisfied even if the intended meaning of the insufficient bid and the meaning of the lowest legal sufficient bid in the same denomination are boring natural bids. Obviously, the definition of "information" can't be very strict, and (as Eric said later) is going to be a matter of interpretation. -- Adam From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 3 18:02:04 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:02:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalize or Rectify? In-Reply-To: <1A47716C-36B1-425F-A70E-E0A99AA54AE8@rochester.rr.com> References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> <004d01c8436e$c1c18d50$38cb403e@Mildred> <000101c8438b$409bda10$c1d38e30$@com> <477C4060.7040106@ntlworld.com> <1A47716C-36B1-425F-A70E-E0A99AA54AE8@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <477D150C.7020909@ntlworld.com> [nige1] I feel that David Burn speaks for most players on these issues; but I fear that the agenda of directors (including player-directors) is subtly different ... For a director, the law-book concept of "Equity" (remedying an irregularity by re-establishing the situation before an infraction) is a more difficult and interesting challenge than applying a simple deterrent penalty. Furthermore, the resulting "Equity" rulings encourage subsequent infractions that further enhance the director's role and increase the player's reliance on the director. I think directors also relish the prospect that the preface to the new laws promises: to exercise more subjective judgement and to wield more personal influence on results. [Ed Reppert] You paint with entirely too broad a brush, Nigel. And an insulting one, too. But I suppose that's the modern way. :-( [nige2] I apologise for hurting Ed's feelings. When Ed's "Bridgetalk" asked me to tone down my views about the subtle difference in the agenda of directors and players, I complied. I air my concerns on BLML, because discussion here seems more robust; although, unlike some on BLML, I still eschew *personal* criticism. I feel, however, that reasoned comment on a *category of people* is justifiable -- sometimes even necessary -- especially on a large body with legal powers that regulate my behaviour. Directors seem to have more direct influence on Bridge-laws than mere players. Hence, law-makers should consider whether the interests of directors and players are identical. In theory, separate procedural and disciplinary penalties deter. In practice, most players regard such penalties as offensive. Presumably, there is also fear of litigation. For whatever reason, they are rarely and selectively applied. Surely it would be better to increase the penalty / deterrent element in normal "rectification", as is common in other games. As an ordinary player, I wish I could understand the rules of Bridge. To that end, I wish that the rules were complete, clear, simple, and as objective as possible. I concede that my views may not be typical but it would be easy for law-makers to regularly poll player's views. From Gampas at aol.com Thu Jan 3 18:25:40 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:25:40 EST Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke Message-ID: S AK5 H AT9 D AK2 C AQJ2 S 432 H KJ8 D QJ3 C KT97 Lo and behold, after my earlier example of failing to notice a revoke, I had the above hand where I was again in 6NT in a 32-board match, again on the lead of the SQ. This time, I cashed two top diamonds, opponents both following and then the ace of clubs. I now played a club to the king, West discarding the six of spades. I then ran the jack of hearts, which lost, and I conceded one down. Imagine my chagrin when I noticed at the break after 16 boards that West did indeed have another club, in fact he had two more. I tried the "could have known" argument, but the director did not buy that; "how could West have known that I had a heart guess which would be affected by vacant spaces considerations?", he asked. That was taking "could have known" to an extreme. I did not agree that my failing to cash a third club (when East would have shown out) was careless or irrational. West just smiled and said that he had the six of spades in with his clubs. I thought law 64C should protect me, but as it did not affect the play up to that time, it appears not. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 3 18:53:57 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:53:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <6bnhj8$hfgola@mx09.lnh.mail.rcn.net> References: <6bnhj8$hfgola@mx09.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: On Jan 3, 2008, at 11:44 AM, ton wrote: > I apreciate that Eric tries to explain to me what exactly the > matter is, but > I still don't understand it. > > We,the drafting committee, did not change anything in this respect > and for > at least a decade already the laws tell us to continue play when a > defender > claims a couple of tricks and concedes the other and his partner > objects. ( > a couple being an integer from zero to the number of tricks still > to be > played and therewith 'the other' also). Whether done explicitly or > implicitly does not matter. If this were as clear-cut as Ton suggests, the WBFLC would not have needed to issue a clarifying minute in 2001; by doing so they have implicitly admitted that the 1997 language was less than perfectly clear. In 2007 they had the opportunity to incorporate the clarifying language of the minute into the new lawbook, and Kojak reports that they considered doing so, so their failure was not a mere oversight. I can think of three possible reasons for this (only two on my own, but Grattan has provided a third): (1) they believed the minute made a substantive change to the meaning of the law and intended that it revert to its original meaning, (2) they believed that the clarification would make no substantive difference, but for some mysterious reason preferred to leave the wording ambiguous rather than take the opportunity clarify it, or (3) it never occurred to anyone that a prospective reader of the new lawbook might not be familiar with the 2001 minute or might, somehow, conceivably, assume that, being a clarification of a 1997 law, it no longer applied post facto to a new version of the law that was written years later. Given those choices, one might be forgiven for thinking that either (1) is the correct explanation or the committee was made up entirely of morons. > An interesting question is whether play should continue when a > defender > claims all tricks and his partner objects. That certainly is not the > intention expressed in 68B. But formally spoken the TD can do so, I > think. > > What could have helped, but I have never been aware of the problem > some of > us seem to have - these laws are so clear - is to add to the first > sentence > of L 68D the words: 'but see B'. > > To come back to your explanation: When you start with: nobody has > asserted > that 68B only applies for a defender who concedes all remaining > tricks and > then draws the conclusion that play can't continue when there is a > claim and > concession what ridiculous position have you brought us in? > >> Eric Landau >> >> The rationale for [2] comes from interpreting "play continues" to >> mean "the table action resumes normally"... That doesn't sound like a ridiculous position to me. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Jan 3 19:22:13 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:22:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: <200801031645.IAA27622@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200801031645.IAA27622@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <477D27D5.6010507@meteo.fr> Adam Beneschan a ?crit : > Alain wrote: > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>> For example: >>> >>> WEST EAST >>> 2NT (natural) 2C (Stayman) >>> >>> Provided the partnership agreement of 3C over 2NT is >>> also Stayman, East may correct 2C to 3C without >>> barring West from the auction. But if 3C unluckily >>> happens to be the somewhat different Baron convention, >>> then West is barred and East has to punt their best >>> guess. >>> >>> >> I don't understand this. The meaning of Stayman AND Baron is "please >> describe your hand further", unless you're of the very old school who >> would always have one major to bid 2C. >> IOW, 3C Baron doesn't teel anything about the hand that 2C Stayman does, >> for the reson that the latter doesn't tell anything. > > A couple comments off the top of my head: > > (1) I don't think it's possible for an asking bid to convey no > information at all. there are bids which convey no information at all but they are rare: they are forced bids, like mandatory responses to puppet. > Even if an asking bid doesn't tell anything > *specific* about one's hand, it does convey the information that > the asker has the kind of hand that believes that making that > particular asking bid is the best way to determine the correct > contract. And the sets of hands for which 2C Stayman, 3C Stayman, > or 3C Baron are the best approach are all different. agreed: there are hands worth of a pass over 1NT but worth of 3C stayman over 2NT. > > (2) Even 2C Stayman over 1NT and 3C Stayman over 2NT aren't quite the > same convention, IMHO; over 1NT, many partnerships have to go > through 2C to show certain kinds of hands (e.g. some hands with a > long minor). [Which means that 2C isn't quite the "pure" asking > bid Alain makes it out to be.] > > So technically, the "incorporates the same information" criterion of > Law 27C1 is probably never satisfied. In fact, it's probably never > satisfied even if the intended meaning of the insufficient bid and the > meaning of the lowest legal sufficient bid in the same denomination > are boring natural bids. Obviously, the definition of "information" > can't be very strict, and (as Eric said later) is going to be a matter > of interpretation. i think "incorporates" is not a criterion of egality (same set of hands) but of inclusion (one set of hands needing to be a subset of the other set of hands) so that the insufficient bid can't offer any UI. in the case of 2C corrected to 3C, it would be OK if the set of hands fitting 3C was a subset of the set of hands fitting 2C (in other words if 3C was more precise than 2C, carried supplementary information to 2C). unfortunately it's rather the opposite: all hands justifying 2C, justify 3C but there are hands worth of 3C which are too weak for 2C. jpr > > -- Adam > -- _______________________________________________ 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 ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 3 22:16:21 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 16:16:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <194E6089A2D044DCBC5F5C1B7F6EC93B@BridgeNZL3> References: <194E6089A2D044DCBC5F5C1B7F6EC93B@BridgeNZL3> Message-ID: <06D49E9C-1EA9-4B4E-9C3A-2B9DD62E7D85@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 3, 2008, at 6:40 AM, Martin Oyston wrote: > [Martino] > In the 2007 Laws, 20C1 gives the player the right to ask the > question (I > assume of any other player at the table, who would be obliged to > answer. Yeah, I missed that one. :-( From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 3 22:16:54 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 16:16:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <477CCD28.3080705@ulb.ac.be> References: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main> <477C9EA9.2040500@ulb.ac.be> <843D5A14-9566-49A5-BE9E-A0572FCCA443@rochester.rr.com> <477CCD28.3080705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <79EB9784-EBC6-4C11-80E2-AB193F021322@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 3, 2008, at 6:55 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > So please tell me what's the use of making one's lead face down ? Who cares? The laws require it. From martino at bridgenz.co.nz Thu Jan 3 22:23:21 2008 From: martino at bridgenz.co.nz (Martin Oyston) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:23:21 +1300 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <477CCD28.3080705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <22BCC94DE0984538B30F3A44639BA07D@BridgeNZL3> Ed Reppert a ?crit : > Once the opening lead is made, even if face down, it may only be > retracted on instruction of the director, so if a review of the > auction reveals he shouldn't have led, he can't just retract it. > So please tell me what's the use of making one's lead face down ? [[MRO]] The use is that partner may now ask questions relating to the auction without it being seen to affect your lead. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 3 23:12:58 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:12:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005601c84e06$c8af2170$0bd5403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: +=+ I regard the footnote to Law 64 as important. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 2007 [revoke] Law 64 footnote: * a trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes of this Law. Konrad Ciborowski ("Wording of the laws" thread): >If the facts don't fit the theory - too bad for the facts. > >I have demonstrated that because of the convoluted >wording of the laws they were not properly translated >into languages of two major bridge federations. > >And what you're saying is essentially "too bad, call >somebody who cares". [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, Konrad's position is excessively purist. An ambiguity which existed in the 1997 Law 64 has been clarified by a footnote in the 2007 Law 64. And, overall in the entire 2007 Lawbook, there is much less convoluted language than there was in the 1997 Lawbook. As a notorious optimist, I see the glass as half full, while Konrad seems to see the glass as half empty. ;-) 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 martino at bridgenz.co.nz Thu Jan 3 23:42:05 2008 From: martino at bridgenz.co.nz (Martin Oyston) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:42:05 +1300 Subject: [blml] Tartan or Weak In-Reply-To: <000601c84e19$0883bf60$bcd5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <9D0C06CD530A406CB3A2D29DD87E2D36@BridgeNZL3> [Martino] Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 11:32 AM Subject: [blml] Tartan or Weak > Can you please assist me, as this situation arose: > > 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? > +=+ In relation to the 2007 Code see Law 40B6(b). Under the 1997 Code the response to the enquiry has failed to give 'full' information - see Law 20. This is misinformation. The failure to alert, if required by regulation, is misinformation in 2007 and 1997 alike. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [[MRO]] OK now we have the mis-information, but with the correct information the bidding might have been different (East may not bid 5D, and West most unlikely to correct 6C to 6S) so what should be the final contract? Do we find the most favourable for E/W (being the non-offenders after the first infraction [failure to alert 2-suiter])? _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 4 00:06:21 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:06:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74D29E39-9073-4E78-B963-E03BEBA2F202@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 3, 2008, at 5:12 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > As a notorious optimist, I see the glass as half full, while > Konrad seems to see the glass as half empty. "The glass is too damn big" -- George Carlin From schoderb at msn.com Fri Jan 4 00:26:14 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:26:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: The answer to Konrad -- I care! I'm not sure what the flippant filling of glasses has to do with the subject. To me the problem is not to be treated humorously or "optimistically". Konrad stated facts in mistranslation of the 2007 laws, and showed admirable concern to keep the game international. Whether these were caused by the English used in those laws, or by the lack of understanding of that sometimes convoluted language the game is hurt. The Laws need to be translated by a professional translator and that person need not be expert in bridge. When translating the nuances and intent they must be accurate. Non-professional translations just because a degree of multilingual fluency exists do not do the job. To disadvantage any group of players in international play of our game by not "getting it right" is serious to me. At the least a review of translations by professionals would be more than worth the cost. I would think this would be great concern to the EBL officials where many languages are unique and differ greatly. For the English speaking world it simply becomes a matter assuring that the various dialects in use today get the message accurately across from one to the other. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > +=+ I regard the footnote to Law 64 as important. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > 2007 [revoke] Law 64 footnote: > > * a trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes > of this Law. > > Konrad Ciborowski ("Wording of the laws" thread): > > >If the facts don't fit the theory - too bad for the facts. > > > >I have demonstrated that because of the convoluted > >wording of the laws they were not properly translated > >into languages of two major bridge federations. > > > >And what you're saying is essentially "too bad, call > >somebody who cares". > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, Konrad's position is excessively purist. An > ambiguity which existed in the 1997 Law 64 has been clarified > by a footnote in the 2007 Law 64. > > And, overall in the entire 2007 Lawbook, there is much less > convoluted language than there was in the 1997 Lawbook. > > As a notorious optimist, I see the glass as half full, while > Konrad seems to see the glass as half empty. > > ;-) > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam at irvine.com Fri Jan 4 00:32:21 2008 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:32:21 -0800 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:06:21 EST." <74D29E39-9073-4E78-B963-E03BEBA2F202@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200801032325.PAA00229@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Jan 3, 2008, at 5:12 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > As a notorious optimist, I see the glass as half full, while > > Konrad seems to see the glass as half empty. > > "The glass is too damn big" -- George Carlin My preferred way of looking at things: Optimist: The glass is half full. Pessimist: The glass is half empty. Me: (glug glug) The glass is *all* empty. WAITER!!! -- Adam From geller at nifty.com Fri Jan 4 01:00:40 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:00:40 +0900 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200801040000.AA11920@geller204.nifty.com> My perspective may be somewhat different (and perhaps useful, for that reason) because I am a native speaker of English who is more or less fluent in written and spoken japanese, as a result of having lived and worked in Japan (I am professor of geophysics at a university) for over 20 years. I don't think a professional translator can be relied on to do the job, because of the specialized language of bridge in each country, although a translator could help as part of a team. Basically you need a several abilities to do a good translation. Perhaps some exceptional genius could fulfill all these needs, but otherwise you need a team. You need native (or near-native) ability in English, together with reasonable fluency in the target language (Japanese in my case), And you need a person with reasonable knowledge of English as a foreign language, and good writing ability in the traget language. All these people have to have good knowledge of bridge. I have a few thoughts about what the WBFLC could do to help trnslators. First, a project should be started now to rewrite the current English laws without changing the meaning, to make them easier to understand. For example: (1) To the extent possible one word (or term) should be used for only one purpose. Take "regulation" as an example. This is used to denote supplementary rules promulgated by the RA or tourney organizer EXCEPT in the title of Law 80, which is "Regulation and Organization." The "Regulation" in Law 80 means the regulatory authority, not supplementary rules. This is is a pitfall for translators. (2) When different but related terms (e.g., "competitor" and "player") are used, make sure they are correctly differentiated in all cases. (3) Go through the English and edit it to be in shorter and simpler sentences. This will make it much easier to translate. (4) The drafters shouldn't be so snide. If a lot of people have trouble understanding the claims and concessions laws, for example, they should be rewritten so they're simpler to understand. My suggestion is that the WBFLC start a project to rewrite the 2008 laws now. Depending on the outcome the new simplified laws could be adopted by the WBF at some point between 2008 and 2018, but in any case the 2018 laws drafters could and should start from the simplified laws rather that the current 2008 laws. The problem till now has been that the laws drafted every 10 years are slways done in haste and then are left to sit as they are for 7 or 8 years till the next hasty job. I hope the WBFLC will seriously consider this suggestion -Bob WILLIAM SCHODER ????????: >The answer to Konrad -- I care! I'm not sure what the flippant filling of >glasses has to do with the subject. To me the problem is not to be treated >humorously or "optimistically". > >Konrad stated facts in mistranslation of the 2007 laws, and showed admirable >concern to keep the game international. Whether these were caused by the >English used in those laws, or by the lack of understanding of that >sometimes >convoluted language the game is hurt. The Laws need to be translated by a >professional translator and that person need not be expert in bridge. >When translating the nuances and intent they must be accurate. >Non-professional translations just because a degree of multilingual fluency >exists do not do the job. To disadvantage any group of players in >international play of our game by not "getting it right" is serious to me. >At the least a review of translations by professionals would be more than >worth the cost. > >I would think this would be great concern to the EBL officials where many >languages are unique and differ greatly. For the English speaking world >it simply becomes a matter assuring that the various dialects in use today >get the message accurately across from one to the other. > >Kojak > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:12 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 >Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> +=+ I regard the footnote to Law 64 as important. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> 2007 [revoke] Law 64 footnote: >> >> * a trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes >> of this Law. >> >> Konrad Ciborowski ("Wording of the laws" thread): >> >> >If the facts don't fit the theory - too bad for the facts. >> > >> >I have demonstrated that because of the convoluted >> >wording of the laws they were not properly translated >> >into languages of two major bridge federations. >> > >> >And what you're saying is essentially "too bad, call >> >somebody who cares". >> >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> In my opinion, Konrad's position is excessively purist. An >> ambiguity which existed in the 1997 Law 64 has been clarified >> by a footnote in the 2007 Law 64. >> >> And, overall in the entire 2007 Lawbook, there is much less >> convoluted language than there was in the 1997 Lawbook. >> >> As a notorious optimist, I see the glass as half full, while >> Konrad seems to see the glass as half empty. >> >> ;-) >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 4 02:04:44 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 12:04:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] L86D [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080103134442.1839A21C906@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: >It all makes no sense to me. I'd appreciate clarification >on what this particular law is supposed to mean Richard Hills: North-South bid and make a difficult grand slam for +2210. When the board arrives at the other table the king of hearts is face up in the West slot, preventing replay of the board. Due to the Law 86D "(and should do so when that result appears favourable to the non-offending side)" the TD is no longer required to give the non-offending side a mere +3 imps, but can instead award a juster +13 imps. 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 Fri Jan 4 02:20:21 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 01:20:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001301c84e6f$fb7a93f0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 11:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > The answer to Konrad -- I care! I'm not sure what the flippant filling > of > glasses has to do with the subject. To me the problem is not to be treated > humorously or "optimistically". > > Konrad stated facts in mistranslation of the 2007 laws, and showed > admirable > concern to keep the game international. Whether these were caused by the > English used in those laws, or by the lack of understanding of that > sometimes > convoluted language the game is hurt. The Laws need to be translated by a > professional translator and that person need not be expert in bridge. > When translating the nuances and intent they must be accurate. > Non-professional translations just because a degree of multilingual > fluency > exists do not do the job. To disadvantage any group of players in > international play of our game by not "getting it right" is serious to me. > At the least a review of translations by professionals would be more than > worth the cost. > > I would think this would be great concern to the EBL officials where many > languages are unique and differ greatly. For the English speaking world > it simply becomes a matter assuring that the various dialects in use today > get the message accurately across from one to the other. Kojak, as a not inconsiderable linguist yourself, you make light of the incredible complexity of translating accurately _from_ English the intent of the laws. Translation of the nuance of English to other languages is something that my polyglot lodgers, most of whom speak excellent English as their second language, find mind bending - and it's to their advantage to be able to do so well. I endlessly am explaining the subtleties to them of the differences in meaning of the quarter of a million words that make up my language. Even you can use several thousand of them, which is why it doesn't seem so hard for us :-) . best, John > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:12 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and > 2007 > Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> +=+ I regard the footnote to Law 64 as important. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> 2007 [revoke] Law 64 footnote: >> >> * a trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes >> of this Law. >> >> Konrad Ciborowski ("Wording of the laws" thread): >> >> >If the facts don't fit the theory - too bad for the facts. >> > >> >I have demonstrated that because of the convoluted >> >wording of the laws they were not properly translated >> >into languages of two major bridge federations. >> > >> >And what you're saying is essentially "too bad, call >> >somebody who cares". >> >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> In my opinion, Konrad's position is excessively purist. An >> ambiguity which existed in the 1997 Law 64 has been clarified >> by a footnote in the 2007 Law 64. >> >> And, overall in the entire 2007 Lawbook, there is much less >> convoluted language than there was in the 1997 Lawbook. >> >> As a notorious optimist, I see the glass as half full, while >> Konrad seems to see the glass as half empty. >> >> ;-) >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jan 4 03:51:02 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:51:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <200801031738.m03HcJb6006995@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801031738.m03HcJb6006995@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <477D9F16.50802@nhcc.net> From: "ton" > at least a decade already the laws tell us to continue play when a defender > claims a couple of tricks and concedes the other and his partner objects. I'm confused by all the different opinions in this thread. It seems everyone agrees that if a defender concedes _all_ tricks, and his partner objects, play continues. Any arguments there? > An interesting question is whether play should continue when a defender > claims all tricks and his partner objects. That certainly is not the > intention expressed in 68B. But formally spoken the TD can do so, I think. Why isn't this covered by L68D? That Law doesn't seem to distinguish claims by declarer or a defender, and I don't see any provision in 68B2 or elsewhere to override 68D. (I'm looking at the 2007 Laws.) > What could have helped, but I have never been aware of the problem some of > us seem to have - these laws are so clear - is to add to the first sentence > of L 68D the words: 'but see B'. That might have helped, though there is still the unclear language of 68B itself. So what is supposed to happen if a defender claims some but not all the remaining tricks and his partner objects? Play continues? With or without restrictions from the claim statement? (And where do the Laws say?) Or the TD rules on the claim? > ... nobody has asserted > that 68B only applies for a defender who concedes all remaining tricks I believe David Burn has asserted that position, though I'm no longer sure. Possibly Eric Landau. I confess it's what the language seems to me to say. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 4 03:57:01 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:57:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >I recommend that any Director who has the time >should download and read the "parallel texts" version >of the 1997 / 2007 Lawbooks. The "parallel texts" comparison of the old and new Lawbooks is currently available on Anna Gudge's Ecats website only in "tracked changes" form, so as to assist translators who had started translating an earlier version of the 2007 Laws a year ago. The downside is that Directors and other interested parties find the "parallel texts" harder to read and so less useful. However, I have put together a Zipped file of Word documents containing the "parallel texts" _without_ the tracked changes, and am happy to email it on request. 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 Jan 4 03:58:38 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:58:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <200801031835.m03IZdnV023598@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801031835.m03IZdnV023598@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <477DA0DE.8000908@nhcc.net> > From: Gampas at aol.com > S AK5 > H AT9 > D AK2 > C AQJ2 > > S 432 > H KJ8 > D QJ3 > C KT97 > > ... in 6NT in a 32-board match, again on the > lead of the SQ. This time, I cashed two top diamonds, opponents both following > and then the ace of clubs. I now played a club to the king, West discarding > the six of spades. I then ran the jack of hearts, which lost, and I conceded > one down. Imagine my chagrin when I noticed at the break after 16 boards that > West did indeed have another club, in fact he had two more. I tried the > "could have known" argument, but the director did not buy that; Fair enough. > I did not agree that my failing to cash a third club (when East would have > shown out) was careless or irrational. I don't think it is either. Even if it was, the EW score should have been adjusted. > I thought law 64C should protect me, but > as it did not affect the play up to that time, it appears not. I don't understand that. Wouldn't the play have gone differently -- you would have finessed the other way -- if you had gotten a correct club count? Surely that's at least "at all probable," though it seems to me not only "likely" (L12C2) but indeed all but certain. I think you would have a much weaker case if West had had only two clubs. Then the revoke probably didn't change the play. As someone else mentioned, there's also L72B3. If West failed to face his cards after you conceded, you should have gotten not only the winning finesse but also the penalty trick. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 4 06:12:40 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 00:12:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98278019-1D30-43FB-B42D-27275DA271E6@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 3, 2008, at 6:26 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > The Laws need to be translated by a professional translator and that > person need not be expert in bridge. I completely agree. It might even be a worthwhile exercise to have a second professional translator translate *back* to English, and see how closely that text resembles the original - it might well highlight problems no one has seen yet. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 4 06:11:45 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:11:45 +1100 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200801040000.AA11920@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Robert Geller: [snip] >For example: >(1) To the extent possible one word (or term) should be used for >only one purpose. Richard Hills: Agreed. Edgar Kaplan had an elegant literary style, such elegance included using two words with one meaning, or one word with two meanings. A case in point was the 1997 Lawbook's use of the word "penalty", which had two meanings. The 2007 Lawbook instead uses two words for the two meanings, adding "rectification" to "penalty". Robert Geller: >Take "regulation" as an example. This is used to denote >supplementary rules promulgated by the RA or tourney organizer >EXCEPT in the title of Law 80, which is "Regulation and >Organization." The "Regulation" in Law 80 means the regulatory >authority, not supplementary rules. This is is a pitfall for >translators. 2007 Introduction: Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law Richard Hills: It seems to me that free translations of headings are allowed, so the Japanese Law 80 heading could be: "Regulating Authorities and Tournament Organizers". Robert Geller: >(2) When different but related terms (e.g., "competitor" and >"player") are used, make sure they are correctly differentiated in >all cases. +=+ Spoken like a true comparative proof reader ~ G ~ +=+ Robert Geller: >(3) Go through the English and edit it to be in shorter and >simpler sentences. This will make it much easier to translate. Richard Hills: Yes, like Konrad Ciborowski, I do not like the traditional Law 12 phrase "at all probable" either. Perhaps it is part of the New York idiom? (Edgar Kaplan's hometown.) The Canberra idiom is the easier to translate "at all possible". But what is wrong with the simple "1/6th chance, unless varied by the Regulating Authority"? Robert Geller: >(4) The drafters shouldn't be so snide. If a lot of people have >trouble understanding the claims and concessions laws, for example, >they should be rewritten so they're simpler to understand. Richard Hills: As I understand the debate on Law 68B2, some of the Drafting Committee did rewrite that law to make it easier for the average TD to understand. This they did by deleting the confusing words "or claim". But what some of the Drafting Committee thought was a simpler-to-understand cosmetic change was deemed a substantive change by another member of the Drafting Committee. Anyway, the 2007 claims and concessions laws _were_ rewritten and _are_ simpler to understand than the 1997 claims and concessions 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 4 06:32:09 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 23:32:09 -0600 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <98278019-1D30-43FB-B42D-27275DA271E6@rochester.rr.com> References: <98278019-1D30-43FB-B42D-27275DA271E6@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801032132x6c00ce09g8891a00bdd27b43a@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 3, 2008 11:12 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2008, at 6:26 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > > > The Laws need to be translated by a professional translator and that > > person need not be expert in bridge. > > I completely agree. It might even be a worthwhile exercise to have a > second professional translator translate *back* to English, and see > how closely that text resembles the original - it might well > highlight problems no one has seen yet. > My prediction is this: If you get two professional translators to carry out Ed's suggestion, and if one of the translators has no helper with good knowledge of bridge laws, then by the time it gets back to English, we won't recognize it, and much of it will be quite wrong. Jerry Fusselman From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 4 10:15:43 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:15:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <477D9F16.50802@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000001c84eb2$625c23d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > From: "ton" > > at least a decade already the laws tell us to continue play when a > defender > > claims a couple of tricks and concedes the other and his partner > objects. > > I'm confused by all the different opinions in this thread. It seems > everyone agrees that if a defender concedes _all_ tricks, and his > partner objects, play continues. Any arguments there? > > > An interesting question is whether play should continue when a defender > > claims all tricks and his partner objects. That certainly is not the > > intention expressed in 68B. But formally spoken the TD can do so, I > think. > > Why isn't this covered by L68D? That Law doesn't seem to distinguish > claims by declarer or a defender, and I don't see any provision in 68B2 > or elsewhere to override 68D. (I'm looking at the 2007 Laws.) > > > What could have helped, but I have never been aware of the problem some > of > > us seem to have - these laws are so clear - is to add to the first > sentence > > of L 68D the words: 'but see B'. > > That might have helped, though there is still the unclear language of > 68B itself. > > So what is supposed to happen if a defender claims some but not all the > remaining tricks and his partner objects? Play continues? With or > without restrictions from the claim statement? (And where do the Laws > say?) Or the TD rules on the claim? > > > ... nobody has asserted > > that 68B only applies for a defender who concedes all remaining tricks > > I believe David Burn has asserted that position, though I'm no longer > sure. Possibly Eric Landau. I confess it's what the language seems to > me to say. There is as far as I have noticed no dispute on L68B2 when a defender concedes all remaining tricks and his partner immediately objects. The dispute has arisen on situations with both claim and concession involved simultaneously, i.e. when there is a concession or a claim for some of but not all the remaining tricks. Also, I assume that the reason the laws seem silent on a situation where a defender claims all the remaining tricks and his partner immediately objects simply is that nobody (nor me) has imagined such a situation in real life. Wouldn't it be for Declarer to contest such a claim by a defender? Regards Sven From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Jan 4 10:17:39 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:17:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Do we have an old, still- applicable WBFLC minute left over from some previous lawbook that tells us how to interpret "information", or do we need a new one? Eric Landau ton: No we have not, which is a pity looking at the problems we have created with this wonderful L27C1. My very personal opinion (if I don't add this I can guess Grattan's reply) is that we should interpret information in such a way that we allow substitutions as much as possible without throwing away L27C1. The reason for the change was to decrease the cases where partner is barred from the bidding. So no surprise that in this example I agree with the idea to consider asking bids where the answers are not identical and the strength might differ as containing the same information: 'tell me what you have'. Let me give another example, which happened at my table yesterday. 1C - pass - 1S - 2D - 1NT. In the '97 laws the replacement by 2NT let the auction continue normally. But 1NT shows 6 - 9 while 2NT shows 10 -11 plus some diamonds. So there is a bunch of UI available, partner has to pass. I do not feel happy with that consequence but there seems no escape. Yes, blml could take part in the production of an extensive minute describing the approach we have to follow in the application of L27C1. Good you brought it up. ton From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Jan 4 11:23:14 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 04 Jan 2008 11:23:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007Laws - Part Two Message-ID: <20080104102314.C21B836FC2F@f44.poczta.interia.pl> > Let me give another example, which happened at my table yesterday. > 1C - pass - 1S - 2D - 1NT. In the '97 laws the replacement by 2NT let > the > auction continue normally. But 1NT shows 6 - 9 while 2NT shows 10 -11 > plus > some diamonds. Either you play a strong pass system or you messed up your sequence. Opener cannot have 6-9 for his opening bid. -- Cibor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mozesz go miec! Ten samochod czeka na Ciebie! Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1cbd From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 4 11:32:06 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:32:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] concession References: <000001c84eb2$625c23d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <002001c84ebd$13bfc6e0$b5ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] concession > > Also, I assume that the reason the laws seem silent on a situation where a > defender claims all the remaining tricks and his partner immediately > objects > simply is that nobody (nor me) has imagined such a situation in real life. > Wouldn't it be for Declarer to contest such a claim by a defender? > +=+ I am puzzled by this statement. How about Law 68D in both the 1997 and the 2007 laws? Just once the situation has happened to me. When I claimed partner, who was more awake, observed that one of my cards was a loser. I had stated the play. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Jan 4 11:54:37 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:54:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and2007Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: <20080104102314.C21B836FC2F@f44.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: ton: > Let me give another example, which happened at my table yesterday. > 1C - pass - 1S - 2D - 1NT. In the '97 laws the replacement by 2NT let > the auction continue normally. But 1NT shows 6 - 9 while 2NT shows 10 > -11 plus some diamonds. Cibor: Either you play a strong pass system or you messed up your sequence. Opener cannot have 6-9 for his opening bid. ton: You are (almost)right: I messed up two different examples 1C - pass - 1S - 2D 1NT (12-14) replaced by 2NT which shows a stronger hand. Partner in 2008 has to pass and if it makes 27C2 has to be considered. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 4 11:58:34 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:58:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and2007Laws - Part Two References: <4755DC150E70C6A6@mail-10-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-10.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <002701c84ec0$db83bb70$b5ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and2007Laws - Part Two > Do we have an old, still- applicable WBFLC minute left over from some > previous lawbook that tells us how to interpret "information", or do we > need > a new one? > > > Eric Landau > > > ton: > No we have not, which is a pity looking at the problems we have created > with > this wonderful L27C1. > > My very personal opinion (if I don't add this I can guess Grattan's reply) > is that we should interpret information in such a way that we allow > substitutions as much as possible without throwing away L27C1. The reason > for the change was to decrease the cases where partner is barred from the > bidding. > So no surprise that in this example I agree with the idea to consider > asking > bids where the answers are not identical and the strength might differ as > containing the same information: 'tell me what you have'. > > ton > +=+ Actually my personal opinion is that we are under a constraint to do something about this situation. The instrument we have in view is a proposed 'appendix' of illustrations and I would say we have to look at the possibility of providing illustrations of 27C1 to cover the points that have arisen, if we can agree appropriate wording. We can then recommend to RAs incorporation of the Appendix in Conditions of Contest as guidance for Directors and ACs. Further off, at the next meeting of the WBFLC the subject will no doubt be on the agenda. 'Information' = 1. knowledge acquired through experience or study; 2. knowledge of specific and timely events or situations. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 4 12:18:28 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:18:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <22BCC94DE0984538B30F3A44639BA07D@BridgeNZL3> References: <22BCC94DE0984538B30F3A44639BA07D@BridgeNZL3> Message-ID: <477E1604.3090000@ulb.ac.be> Martin Oyston a ?crit : > Ed Reppert a ?crit : > >> Once the opening lead is made, even if face down, it may only be >> retracted on instruction of the director, so if a review of the >> auction reveals he shouldn't have led, he can't just retract it. >> >> > So please tell me what's the use of making one's lead face down ? > > [[MRO]] The use is that partner may now ask questions relating to the > auction without it being seen to affect your lead. > > No Sir. In that case, the lead might be made openly and questions asked thereafter. From martino at bridgenz.co.nz Fri Jan 4 12:53:15 2008 From: martino at bridgenz.co.nz (Martin Oyston) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 00:53:15 +1300 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <477E1604.3090000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <9FB12846BAC34BDB8C447770AFA6C861@BridgeNZL3> Martin Oyston a ?crit : > Ed Reppert a ?crit : > >> Once the opening lead is made, even if face down, it may only be >> retracted on instruction of the director, so if a review of the >> auction reveals he shouldn't have led, he can't just retract it. >> >> > So please tell me what's the use of making one's lead face down ? > > [[MRO]] The use is that partner may now ask questions relating to the > auction without it being seen to affect your lead. > > No Sir. In that case, the lead might be made openly and questions asked thereafter. [[MRO]] Therefore it is merely to avoid the penalty of the exposed card. But surely partner may ask questions which lead to the exposure of miss-information, in which case the lead may be changed before dummy is exposed? _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 4 13:08:32 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:08:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <477E1604.3090000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000201c84eca$86cbe990$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Martin Oyston a ?crit : > > Ed Reppert a ?crit : > > > >> Once the opening lead is made, even if face down, it may only be > >> retracted on instruction of the director, so if a review of the > >> auction reveals he shouldn't have led, he can't just retract it. > >> > >> > > So please tell me what's the use of making one's lead face down ? > > > > [[MRO]] The use is that partner may now ask questions relating to the > > auction without it being seen to affect your lead. > > > > > No Sir. In that case, the lead might be made openly and questions asked > thereafter. If answers to questions asked by leader's partner reveal misinformation from declaring side, the director can (and should) offer to roll back the auction under Law 21B. This option is no longer available once the opening lead has been faced. Consequently, making the opening lead face up rather than face down can inhibit procedures that otherwise could have avoided or at least reduced any damage from misinformation. I tend to rule that if this is the case, damage that could have been avoided had defending side used correct procedures, is self-inflected rather than caused by the misinformation. Regards Sven From vitoldbr at yandex.ru Fri Jan 4 13:39:24 2008 From: vitoldbr at yandex.ru (vitoldbr) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:39:24 +0300 Subject: [blml] from Vitold Message-ID: <295751199450364@webmail40.yandex.ru> Hi all:) Have not written here for years... But let me throw my two pennies to translation problems:) 1. Thx to Konrad Ciborowski (dzieki!) for his warm remark about Russian text of the Laws and I am really surprised that there were made such great and useful comparative work with three languages texts... Roset's stone:) 2. I am fully agree with Robert Geller that translators should know bridge as game and bridge TD-ship. 3. Our team (Sergey Kapustin - from Ukranian bridge federation, Victor Zimnitski, Michael Rosenblum and me - from Russian bridge federation) consists from players, organizers and TDs. None of us is professional translator. 4. Our main idea was "operational principle": when judging bridge case russian TD with russian text should have the same problems as english TD with english text. 5. That's why we tried not to make text simpler, not to insert even slightest explanation. Every unclear (or seems to be unclear) expressions were remained, even smallest ambig??ty was repeated in russian text. Nobody but WBFLC (or Zonal authority) can make TD's job simpler. The Laws should not be improved by translators. 6. For making so one us had looked through lot of dictionaries and introduced us up to tens versions in doubt cases. Then we discussed about players' position, TDs' possibilities and thoughts etc... 7. When we translated several expressions with modality - we needed even to create in Russian several expressions that never were used. But their meanings for any russian-spoken TDs (or players) was the same as original expressions - for english-spoken TDs. 8. Russian text of the Laws was ready in 8 months... Best wishes HNY to all:) Vitold From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 4 13:52:02 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 12:52:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007Laws - Part Two References: Message-ID: <003101c84ed0$9a830120$cf890360$@com> [TK] No we have not, which is a pity looking at the problems we have created with this wonderful L27C1. [DALB] A thought has struck me. Suppose my RHO opens 3D and I - thinking for the moment that he opened 2D - overcall 3C. In my methods, a 4C overcall of 3D shows clubs and a major, the convention known as "non-leaping Michaels". My hand is such that I would, having seen the opening bid correctly, risk 5C given that I can't bid four. Law 27C1 says: If the insufficient bid is replaced by a bid at the lowest legal level or double or pass that incorporates the information contained in the insufficient bid, the auction and play continues with the information arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides. Now: a 3C overcall shows a club suit. A 4C overcall that shows clubs and spades "incorporates" the information that I have clubs (at least, according to any definition of the word "incorporate" with which I am familiar), but presumably I am not allowed to bid 4C in the given circumstances to show only clubs (even though L27C1 actually says that I am). If I bid 5C, partner is barred. Is this what is intended? David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 4 14:05:46 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 14:05:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <9FB12846BAC34BDB8C447770AFA6C861@BridgeNZL3> Message-ID: <000801c84ed2$857141f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Martin Oyston .................. > No Sir. In that case, the lead might be made openly and questions asked > thereafter. > [[MRO]] > Therefore it is merely to avoid the penalty of the exposed card. > But surely partner may ask questions which lead to the exposure of > miss-information, in which case the lead may be changed before dummy is > exposed? See Law 41B: The leader's partner may ask questions before the opening lead is faced and thereafter whenever it is his turn to play. He may therefore not ask any question after the opening lead is faced until after dummy is also faced. Regards Sven From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Jan 4 15:01:00 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 04 Jan 2008 15:01:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] from Vitold Message-ID: <20080104140100.860504B3241@f33.poczta.interia.pl> > Hi all:) > 7. When we translated several expressions with modality - we needed even > to create in Russian several expressions that never were used. I think I know exactly what you mean - you're talking about 'obyazan' - right? The biggest problem for our team is the translation of the English Colored Future as opposed to Pure Future. And I bet you had the same problem with the Russian version. It is the huge problem, I mean - really huge. It is as if you were trying to translate into English a Polish text that would rely heavily on diminutives - in Polish you can create a diminutive from almost every single noun that exists, often in multiple versions. English is absolutely helpless here - if you know someone who is Polish then ask him to try to explain to you the difference between "c?rka", "c?reczka", "c?ruchna", "c?rus" and "c?ra" - technically all of them meaning "daughter" - and you'll see what I mean. This exactly the kind of problem we're having with the Laws. The difference between "shall" (eg. A request to have calls restated shall be responded to only by an opponent.) and "should" (eg. declarer should clearly state both) simply doesn't exist in Polish because, ironically, the verb "powinien" (shall/should/ought) is that one verb that doesn't exist in Conditional Mode in Polish (or in Russian and I suspect that in most Slavic languages). In French you at least have "il doit" and "il devrait" but in Polish you are stuck. The same huge problem we have with the difference between "may not" and "must not" - it is impossible to express this difference in Polish. Although with negative forms I do have some ideas (perhaps we'll use expressions like "it is forbidden" or "he has no right to...", too early to tell). But with "he shall do" and "he should do" - I'm at a loss. So far I haven't come up with anything that wouldn't sound terribly artificially in Polish (you just can't fill the laws with a phrase like "it is imperative that" repeated over and over everywhere). This is exactly what the Russian authors did - they invented constructs that sound awfully for the Russian ear (obyazan ne delat'). The problem is in fact so big that the author of the Polish translation of the 1997 laws simply chose to ignore it altogether - the preface was removed from the Polish edition of the 1997 laws and the translation of should/shall, may not/must not was done with only stylistic considerations in mind. Our team will meet face to face this weekend and will discuss the issue at length. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mamy worek pelen prezentow. Te prezenty sa dla Ciebie. Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1cbf From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Jan 4 15:23:59 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 04 Jan 2008 15:23:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] L86D [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <20080104142359.502474B3241@f33.poczta.interia.pl> > Konrad Ciborowski: > > >It all makes no sense to me. I'd appreciate clarification > >on what this particular law is supposed to mean > > Richard Hills: > > North-South bid and make a difficult grand slam for +2210. > > When the board arrives at the other table the king of > hearts is face up in the West slot, preventing replay of > the board. > > Due to the Law 86D "(and should do so when that result > appears favourable to the non-offending side)" the TD is > no longer required to give the non-offending side a mere > +3 imps, but can instead award a juster +13 imps. > So my guess was right - the first part of the sentence in the 86D should read "In team play when the Director is about to award an artificial adjusted score..." Is that correct? -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mamy worek pelen prezentow. Te prezenty sa dla Ciebie. Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1cbf From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Jan 4 16:13:58 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:13:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Lawsand 2007Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: <003101c84ed0$9a830120$cf890360$@com> References: <003101c84ed0$9a830120$cf890360$@com> Message-ID: <477E4D36.3000507@meteo.fr> David Burn a ?crit : > [TK] > > No we have not, which is a pity looking at the problems we have created with > this wonderful L27C1. > > [DALB] > > A thought has struck me. Suppose my RHO opens 3D and I - thinking for the > moment that he opened 2D - overcall 3C. In my methods, a 4C overcall of 3D > shows clubs and a major, the convention known as "non-leaping Michaels". My > hand is such that I would, having seen the opening bid correctly, risk 5C > given that I can't bid four. > > Law 27C1 says: > > If the insufficient bid is replaced by a bid at the lowest legal level or > double or pass that incorporates the information contained in the > insufficient bid, the auction and play continues with the information > arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides. > > Now: a 3C overcall shows a club suit. A 4C overcall that shows clubs and > spades "incorporates" the information that I have clubs (at least, according > to any definition of the word "incorporate" with which I am familiar), but > presumably I am not allowed to bid 4C in the given circumstances to show > only clubs (even though L27C1 actually says that I am). it depends on your precise agreements: if your 3C overcall could be made routinely with 5C and a 5-card major, yes 4C over 3D incorporates the information carried by 3C, the replacement will be authorized and no additionnal information will be given to partner. on another side, if you don't have a 5-card major, your partner will form a very wrong idea of your hand and i doubt you will reach an optimal contract. > > If I bid 5C, partner is barred. Is this what is intended? i don't know but it is what is written. what annoys me in L27C1 is the final sentence "information arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides" which seems superfluous: if the conditions for the replacement are satisfied, such information is null. jpr > > David Burn > London, England > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From vitoldbr at yandex.ru Fri Jan 4 16:27:38 2008 From: vitoldbr at yandex.ru (vitoldbr) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 18:27:38 +0300 Subject: [blml] from Vitold Message-ID: <2926661199460458@webmail33.yandex.ru> Hi all:) Czesc Konradzie! I'd like to make little correction: it is possible to translate on Polish difference between "should" and "shal": He should = Jemu trzeba (impersonal form only) He shall - On powinien He must - On musi (On zobowjazany) Real problem is negative form: shall not, must not etc. Same in Russian as in Polish one should use rather strange but absolutely understandable constructiom as "Jemy trzeba nie..." On powinien nie..." "On zobowiazany nie..." And on Polish it saunds more common than in Russian:) Vitold From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Jan 4 16:59:44 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:59:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <002001c84ebd$13bfc6e0$b5ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: > Also, I assume that the reason the laws seem silent on a situation where a > defender claims all the remaining tricks and his partner immediately > objects > simply is that nobody (nor me) has imagined such a situation in real life. > Wouldn't it be for Declarer to contest such a claim by a defender? > +=+ I am puzzled by this statement. How about Law 68D in both the 1997 and the 2007 laws? Just once the situation has happened to me. When I claimed partner, who was more awake, observed that one of my cards was a loser. I had stated the play. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ton: This reaction doesn't help us at all Grattan. I noticed that in such case according to the laws (L68B2) the TD might have to decide to let the play continue. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Jan 4 17:09:49 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:09:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Lawsand 2007Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: <003101c84ed0$9a830120$cf890360$@com> Message-ID: David: A thought has struck me. Suppose my RHO opens 3D and I - thinking for the moment that he opened 2D - overcall 3C. In my methods, a 4C overcall of 3D shows clubs and a major, the convention known as "non-leaping Michaels". My hand is such that I would, having seen the opening bid correctly, risk 5C given that I can't bid four. Law 27C1 says: If the insufficient bid is replaced by a bid at the lowest legal level or double or pass that incorporates the information contained in the insufficient bid, the auction and play continues with the information arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides. Now: a 3C overcall shows a club suit. A 4C overcall that shows clubs and spades "incorporates" the information that I have clubs (at least, according to any definition of the word "incorporate" with which I am familiar), but presumably I am not allowed to bid 4C in the given circumstances to show only clubs (even though L27C1 actually says that I am). If I bid 5C, partner is barred. Is this what is intended? ton: You are allowed to bid 4 clubs (what can we do if 27C1 says so?) and then the auction continues normally. But a clever opponent might find your reasoning leading to the bid of 5C. So if partner passes your 4C it could be necessary to apply 27C2 if 5C doesn't make. Nice law don't you think? ton From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 4 17:24:17 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:24:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <477D9F16.50802@nhcc.net> References: <200801031738.m03HcJb6006995@cfa.harvard.edu> <477D9F16.50802@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <1F354B9D-E77B-47C1-B1B1-617764261DB1@starpower.net> On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > From: "ton" >> at least a decade already the laws tell us to continue play when a >> defender >> claims a couple of tricks and concedes the other and his partner >> objects. > > I'm confused by all the different opinions in this thread. It seems > everyone agrees that if a defender concedes _all_ tricks, and his > partner objects, play continues. Any arguments there? > >> An interesting question is whether play should continue when a >> defender >> claims all tricks and his partner objects. That certainly is not the >> intention expressed in 68B. But formally spoken the TD can do so, >> I think. > > Why isn't this covered by L68D? That Law doesn't seem to distinguish > claims by declarer or a defender, and I don't see any provision in > 68B2 > or elsewhere to override 68D. (I'm looking at the 2007 Laws.) > >> What could have helped, but I have never been aware of the problem >> some of >> us seem to have - these laws are so clear - is to add to the first >> sentence >> of L 68D the words: 'but see B'. > > That might have helped, though there is still the unclear language of > 68B itself. > > So what is supposed to happen if a defender claims some but not all > the > remaining tricks and his partner objects? Play continues? With or > without restrictions from the claim statement? (And where do the Laws > say?) Or the TD rules on the claim? > >> ... nobody has asserted >> that 68B only applies for a defender who concedes all remaining >> tricks > > I believe David Burn has asserted that position, though I'm no longer > sure. Possibly Eric Landau. I confess it's what the language > seems to > me to say. Those indented quotations can get confusing; in fact, it was probably me who wrote "nobody has asserted..." Let me try to clarify that. When a defender "makes a statement to the effect that he will lose a specific number of tricks", whether all the rest or fewer, that results in a concession [L68B1]. When a defender "makes a statement to the effect that he will win" fewer than all the rest, that results in a claim [L68A], and that claim, in turn, produces a consequent concession of the remainder [L68B1]. There are three different positions that need to be sorted out. But all agree that in the first case, L68B applies in its full majesty, and everyone in all three camps gives the same ruling. The difference between the three positions relates *only* to the second case: (1) The two cases are indentical. Either gives rise to a "synchronous and inseparable" composite claim/concession entity with which we must deal. It follows perforce that the ruling in the second case must be identical to the ruling in the first. (ISTM that the folks who think the opposing position means that L68B applies only to all the rest are *assuming* this to be true, and do not understand the alternative positions.) (2) In the first case, the concession (and consequent claim) "came from" the defender's attempt to concede. In the second case, the concession came from the claim, which in turn came from the defender's attempt to claim; there was no "attempt to concede" in the chain. Therefore (*in the second case only*) L68B does not apply. (3) Both cases give rise to a claim and a concession, not some sort of composite entity, but two different things. L68B applies in either case; if partner objects, the concession is nullified. In the first case, the claim was consequent to the concession, therefore "disappears" when the concession is nullified. In the second case, the concession was a consequence of the claim; nullifying it does not "undo" the fact that defender has made a "statement to the effect [he] will win a specific number of tricks", which remains to be dealt with. So what is supposed to happen? In the first case, play continues at the table. No disagreement. In the second case: In (1), play continues at the table. The director sorts out any subsequent irregularities, including violation of the UI constraints in L68B. In (2), we apply L68D directly. Partner's objection triggers a L70 ruling based on the original claim statement. In (3), we nullify the implicit concession incorporated in the claim statement. The director hears partner's objection (presumably accepting it unless he deems it to violate the UI constraints in L68B). With the concession nullified, the action continues at L68D. Declarer's objection (to the claimer's partner's objection) triggers a L70 ruling based on the original claim statement as modified by the claimer's partner's objection. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 4 17:00:48 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:00:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - RA's options. Message-ID: <002c01c84ef0$96412b30$f0c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott <003101c84ed0$9a830120$cf890360$@com> Message-ID: <002e01c84ef0$9a792f90$f0c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 12:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Lawsand 2007Laws - Part Two > [TK] > > No we have not, which is a pity looking at the problems we have created > with > this wonderful L27C1. > > [DALB] > > A thought has struck me. Suppose my RHO opens 3D and I - thinking for the > moment that he opened 2D - overcall 3C. In my methods, a 4C overcall of 3D > shows clubs and a major, the convention known as "non-leaping Michaels". > My > hand is such that I would, having seen the opening bid correctly, risk 5C > given that I can't bid four. > > Law 27C1 says: > > If the insufficient bid is replaced by a bid at the lowest legal level or > double or pass that incorporates the information contained in the > insufficient bid, the auction and play continues with the information > arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides. > > Now: a 3C overcall shows a club suit. A 4C overcall that shows clubs and > spades "incorporates" the information that I have clubs (at least, > according > to any definition of the word "incorporate" with which I am familiar), but > presumably I am not allowed to bid 4C in the given circumstances to show > only clubs (even though L27C1 actually says that I am). > > If I bid 5C, partner is barred. Is this what is intended? > +=+ When ton suggested this change of principle some colleagues, while welcoming the idea, were wary of unforeseen problems if they extended the (radical) relaxation of the law to 'any legal call' replacing the IB. That there could be unforeseen problems was a fair thought, although it is perhaps now evident the DSC's instincts were not altogether well honed as to where they might arise. So the answer is that, as I would expect, you read the law correctly. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Fri Jan 4 17:47:58 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:47:58 EST Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke Message-ID: In a message dated 04/01/2008 02:59:07 GMT Standard Time, swillner at nhcc.net writes: [paul lamford] > S AK5 > H AT9 > D AK2 > C AQJ2 > > S 432 > H KJ8 > D QJ3 > C KT97 > > ... in 6NT in a 32-board match, again on the > lead of the SQ. This time, I cashed two top diamonds, opponents both following > and then the ace of clubs. I now played a club to the king, West discarding > the six of spades. I then ran the jack of hearts, which lost, and I conceded > one down. Imagine my chagrin when I noticed at the break after 16 boards that > West did indeed have another club, in fact he had two more. I tried the > "could have known" argument, but the director did not buy that; [swillner] Fair enough. [paul lamford]> I did not agree that my failing to cash a third club (when East would have shown out) was careless or irrational. [swillner] I don't think it is either. Even if it was, the EW score should have been adjusted. > I thought law 64C should protect me, but > as it did not affect the play up to that time, it appears not. [swillner] I don't understand that. Wouldn't the play have gone differently -- you would have finessed the other way -- if you had gotten a correct club count? Surely that's at least "at all probable," though it seems to me not only "likely" (L12C2) but indeed all but certain. I think you would have a much weaker case if West had had only two clubs. Then the revoke probably didn't change the play. [paul lamford] Then I misunderstand the rules: (64B) 4. After Non-offending Side Calls to Next Deal if attention was first drawn to the revoke after a member of the non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal. 5. After Round Has Ended if attention was first drawn to the revoke after the round has ended As I understand it, 64C allows the director to restore equity to redress a revoke that gains in some way, whether subject to penalty or not, for which the penalty provided by the laws is inadequate, but here the penalty of one trick allowing the contract to make without the heart guess IS clearly adequate, but the revoke was not pointed out in time. I see nothing in the laws that suggests that the purpose of 64C is to provide an extension to 64B4 and 64B5. [swillner] As someone else mentioned, there's also L72B3. If West failed to face his cards after you conceded, you should have gotten not only the winning finesse but also the penalty trick. There is no suggestion here that the defender attempted to conceal the infraction, as covered by 72B3, assuming the player in question did think his spade had been a club. He merely acquiesced in a claim that seemed correct. I can find nothing in either the 1997 or 2007 Laws which specifically indicates that a defender must face all his cards after a claim, but maybe I am not looking hard enough. I remain unconvinced that the director is empowered to award an adjusted score. An adequate penalty is provided by the Law, and the time limits for pointing out the revoke are clearly stated. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 4 18:22:18 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 12:22:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98B80E4E-B65C-479E-A3E2-1921EB52B5FA@starpower.net> On Jan 4, 2008, at 12:11 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > As I understand the debate on Law 68B2, some of the Drafting > Committee did rewrite that law to make it easier for the average TD > to understand. This they did by deleting the confusing words "or > claim". But what some of the Drafting Committee thought was a > simpler-to-understand cosmetic change was deemed a substantive > change by another member of the Drafting Committee. Mind-boggling insanity alert! Knowing that there was enough confusion over its applicability to claims to have warranted a clarifying WBFLC minute to the previous version of the law, the drafting committee decided that leaving out any mention of claims would make the revised version *easier* for the average TD to understand? Welcome to looney-land. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 4 18:45:28 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 12:45:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <98278019-1D30-43FB-B42D-27275DA271E6@rochester.rr.com> References: <98278019-1D30-43FB-B42D-27275DA271E6@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Jan 4, 2008, at 12:12 AM, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Jan 3, 2008, at 6:26 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > >> The Laws need to be translated by a professional translator and that >> person need not be expert in bridge. > > I completely agree. It might even be a worthwhile exercise to have a > second professional translator translate *back* to English, and see > how closely that text resembles the original - it might well > highlight problems no one has seen yet. Some day we may even be able to use automatic language-translation software. But not quite yet. I found a program on the net, and, since it's been so pertinent to one of our recent discussions, I fed it, "Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred." [from L68B2] The software translated this into French as, "Ind?pendamment de 1 pr?c?dant, si un d?fenseur essaye de conc?der un ou plusieurs tours et ses objets d'associ? imm?diatement, aucune concession ne s'est produite." Translating the French back into English produced, "Independently of 1 preceding, if a defender tries to concede one or more turns and his objects of immediately associated, no concession occurred." Translating it into Russian and back produced, "Regardless of 1 preceding, if defender asks it was inferior one or more tricks and his objects of participant immediately, then no concession not of proiskhodila." Japanese produced, "In order in spite even in 1 it precedes for the protection person to recognize the purpose of the trick and that partner of one or more immediately, if you tried, concession did not happen." I guess it's not so easy. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at irvine.com Fri Jan 4 18:59:48 2008 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:59:48 -0800 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:45:28 EST." Message-ID: <200801041753.JAA13838@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > Some day we may even be able to use automatic language-translation > software. But not quite yet. I found a program on the net, and, > since it's been so pertinent to one of our recent discussions, I fed > it, "Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one > or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has > occurred." [from L68B2] > > The software translated this into French as, "Ind?pendamment de 1 > pr?c?dant, si un d?fenseur essaye de conc?der un ou plusieurs tours > et ses objets d'associ? imm?diatement, aucune concession ne s'est > produite." > > Translating the French back into English produced, "Independently of > 1 preceding, if a defender tries to concede one or more turns and his > objects of immediately associated, no concession occurred." > > Translating it into Russian and back produced, "Regardless of 1 > preceding, if defender asks it was inferior one or more tricks and > his objects of participant immediately, then no concession not of > proiskhodila." > > Japanese produced, "In order in spite even in 1 it precedes for the > protection person to recognize the purpose of the trick and that > partner of one or more immediately, if you tried, concession did not > happen." > > I guess it's not so easy. Eric, what program is this? This actually sounds like something that my kids and I might have fun playing with. -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 4 19:01:14 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:01:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: <6bnhj8$hftqrl@mx09.lnh.mail.rcn.net> References: <6bnhj8$hftqrl@mx09.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: On Jan 4, 2008, at 4:17 AM, ton wrote: > Do we have an old, still- applicable WBFLC minute left over from some > previous lawbook that tells us how to interpret "information", or > do we need > a new one? > > Eric Landau > > ton: > No we have not, which is a pity looking at the problems we have > created with > this wonderful L27C1. > > My very personal opinion (if I don't add this I can guess Grattan's > reply) > is that we should interpret information in such a way that we allow > substitutions as much as possible without throwing away L27C1. The > reason > for the change was to decrease the cases where partner is barred > from the > bidding. > So no surprise that in this example I agree with the idea to > consider asking > bids where the answers are not identical and the strength might > differ as > containing the same information: 'tell me what you have'. > > Let me give another example, which happened at my table yesterday. > 1C - pass - 1S - 2D - 1NT. In the '97 laws the replacement by 2NT > let the > auction continue normally. But 1NT shows 6 - 9 while 2NT shows 10 > -11 plus > some diamonds. So there is a bunch of UI available, partner has to > pass. I > do not feel happy with that consequence but there seems no escape. > > Yes, blml could take part in the production of an extensive minute > describing the approach we have to follow in the application of L27C1. > > Good you brought it up. Ton's opinion feels right IMO. When I first compared the old and new versions without parsing the words in great detail, it certainly read like the new law was intended to allow more situations in which the auction would continue without the offender's partner being barred, and taking the narrower definition of "information" would most likely produce the opposite effect. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 4 19:09:28 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:09:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000001c84eb2$625c23d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c84eb2$625c23d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <9433C106-0082-4AAC-B9EB-CC258DB3F7DB@starpower.net> On Jan 4, 2008, at 4:15 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Also, I assume that the reason the laws seem silent on a situation > where a > defender claims all the remaining tricks and his partner > immediately objects > simply is that nobody (nor me) has imagined such a situation in > real life. > Wouldn't it be for Declarer to contest such a claim by a defender? (2008) L68D: "If [the claim or concession] is doubted by *any player* [emphasis mine]..., the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies." (1997 L68D similarly). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 4 19:22:49 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 18:22:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801032132x6c00ce09g8891a00bdd27b43a@mail.gmail.com> References: <98278019-1D30-43FB-B42D-27275DA271E6@rochester.rr.com> <2b1e598b0801032132x6c00ce09g8891a00bdd27b43a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <477E7979.9040807@ntlworld.com> [Robert Geller] I have a few thoughts about what the WBFLC could do to help translators. First, a project should be started now to rewrite the current English laws without changing the meaning, to make them easier to understand. For example: (1) To the extent possible one word (or term) should be used for only one purpose. Take "regulation" as an example. This is used to denote supplementary rules promulgated by the RA or tourney organizer EXCEPT in the title of Law 80, which is "Regulation and Organization." The "Regulation" in Law 80 means the regulatory authority, not supplementary rules. This is is a pitfall for translators. (2) When different but related terms (e.g., "competitor" and "player") are used, make sure they are correctly differentiated in all cases. (3) Go through the English and edit it to be in shorter and simpler sentences. This will make it much easier to translate. (4) The drafters shouldn't be so snide. If a lot of people have trouble understanding the claims and concessions laws, for example, they should be rewritten so they're simpler to understand. My suggestion is that the WBFLC start a project to rewrite the 2008 laws now. Depending on the outcome the new simplified laws could be adopted by the WBF at some point between 2008 and 2018, but in any case the 2018 laws drafters could and should start from the simplified laws rather that the current 2008 laws. The problem till now has been that the laws drafted every 10 years are slways done in haste and then are left to sit as they are for 7 or 8 years till the next hasty job. I hope the WBFLC will seriously consider this suggestion [WILLIAM SCHODER] The Laws need to be translated by a professional translator and that person need not be expert in bridge. [Ed Reppert] I completely agree. It might even be a worthwhile exercise to have a second professional translator translate *back* to English, and see how closely that text resembles the original - it might well highlight problems no one has seen yet. [Jerry Fusselman] My prediction is this: If you get two professional translators to carry out Ed's suggestion, and if one of the translators has no helper with good knowledge of bridge laws, then by the time it gets back to English, we won't recognize it, and much of it will be quite wrong. [Vitold] Have not written here for years... But let me throw my two pennies to translation problems:) 1. Thx to Konrad Ciborowski (dzieki!) for his warm remark about Russian text of the Laws and I am really surprised that there were made such great and useful comparative work with three languages texts... Roset's stone:) 2. I am fully agree with Robert Geller that translators should know bridge as game and bridge TD-ship. 3. Our team (Sergey Kapustin - from Ukranian bridge federation, Victor Zimnitski, Michael Rosenblum and me - from Russian bridge federation) consists from players, organizers and TDs. None of us is professional translator. 4. Our main idea was "operational principle": when judging bridge case russian TD with russian text should have the same problems as english TD with english text. 5. That's why we tried not to make text simpler, not to insert even slightest explanation. Every unclear (or seems to be unclear) expressions were remained, even smallest ambig??ty was repeated in russian text. Nobody but WBFLC (or Zonal authority) can make TD's job simpler. The Laws should not be improved by translators. 6. For making so one us had looked through lot of dictionaries and introduced us up to tens versions in doubt cases. Then we discussed about players' position, TDs' possibilities and thoughts etc... 7. When we translated several expressions with modality - we needed even to create in Russian several expressions that never were used. But their meanings for any russian-spoken TDs (or players) was the same as original expressions - for english-spoken TDs. 8. Russian text of the Laws was ready in 8 months... Best wishes [Nige1] Robert Geller is correct that you need a translating *team*. IMO such a team requires the following roles ... [A] A bilingual translator. [B] A bridge expert. [C] A legal professional. [D] A technical writer. [E] Ideally also a member of WBFLC. Bob is also right that the WBFLC should draft the laws to facilitate translation. IMO the translator's task will be easier and ordinary players will be able to understand the laws better if the next edition [A] Comprises short active sentences. [B] Defines *all* specialist terms separately and clearly and prints them in bold italic in the body of the text. Especially words like "equity" with unexpected meanings. [C] Eschews elegant variation. [D] Uses *shall* wherever possible (see 2007 TFLB quote below). What is the point of detailing correct procedure but specifying that failure to comply will attract no penalty? Some of the other fine modal distinctions seem to be unnecessarily subtle. [E] Expresses probabilities as *percentages* rather than as "at all likely" etc (As suggested by Konrad). [F] Is *clear* and unambiguous, so that the director rarely needs to guess the law-maker's intention. [G] Includes illustrative *examples with the force of law* -- preferably in place - but the proposed appendix would be OK. (These would help directors make marginal judgements) [H] Is written in classical *Latin* or some other tighter language so that opportunities for sophistication and obfuscation were reduced. [I] Is an *expert system*. If the laws were written as decision tables / flowcharts etc (as suggested by Laval Du Breuil), then they could be embedded in an expert system. This would be easier to check for consistency, quicker for players to consult, and much easier to translate. Ed proposes a good test: back-translation to compare with the original; although Jerry is right that it might take several passes to reach a measure of agreement. [2007 TFLB Introduction] Established usage has been retained in regard to ?may? do (failure to do it is not wrong), ?does? (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized) ?should? do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor?s rights but not often penalized), ?shall? do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), ?must? do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again, ?must not? is the strongest prohibition, ?shall not? is strong but ?may not? is stronger ? just short of ?must not?. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 4 19:25:51 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:25:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <477E1604.3090000@ulb.ac.be> References: <22BCC94DE0984538B30F3A44639BA07D@BridgeNZL3> <477E1604.3090000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Jan 4, 2008, at 6:18 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Martin Oyston a ?crit : >> Ed Reppert a ?crit : >> >>> Once the opening lead is made, even if face down, it may only be >>> retracted on instruction of the director, so if a review of the >>> auction reveals he shouldn't have led, he can't just retract it. >> >> So please tell me what's the use of making one's lead face down ? >> >> [[MRO]] The use is that partner may now ask questions relating to the >> auction without it being seen to affect your lead. > > No Sir. In that case, the lead might be made openly and questions > asked > thereafter. L41A requires face down, but its footnote permits RAs to require face up. I don't know what the ACBL's official policy is, but its de facto policy is to allow players to choose either, requiring only that they be consistent over the course of a session. Would an RA regulation legitimizing that approach be illegal? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Jan 4 19:54:36 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 19:54:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The software translated this into French as, "Ind?pendamment de 1 pr?c?dant, si un d?fenseur essaye de conc?der un ou plusieurs tours et ses objets d'associ? imm?diatement, aucune concession ne s'est produite." Translating the French back into English produced, "Independently of 1 preceding, if a defender tries to concede one or more turns and his objects of immediately associated, no concession occurred." Translating it into Russian and back produced, "Regardless of 1 preceding, if defender asks it was inferior one or more tricks and his objects of participant immediately, then no concession not of proiskhodila." Japanese produced, "In order in spite even in 1 it precedes for the protection person to recognize the purpose of the trick and that partner of one or more immediately, if you tried, concession did not happen." I guess it's not so easy. Eric Landau ton: Thank you Eric, this was by far my biggest laugh in this new year, I am still giggling. Could you try Dutch? ton From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 4 20:01:53 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:01:53 -0600 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - RA's options. In-Reply-To: <002c01c84ef0$96412b30$f0c9403e@Mildred> References: <002c01c84ef0$96412b30$f0c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801041101hd8539e1h5f2bb70ebacd4fea@mail.gmail.com> [Grattan] 40B3 - A pair is not allowed to vary its understandings during the auction or playconsequent on a question asked by either side. A pair is allowed to vary its understandings during the auction or play by prior agreement consequent on a response by opponents to a question asked by this pair, but not consequent on a response by this pair to a question by opponents. A pair is allowed by prior agreemnt to vary its understandings during the auction or play consequent on an irregularity by either side. [Jerry] I wonder what "vary its understandings" means here. It seems quite different from what Richard Hills understood it to mean. Suppose that my partnership understanding is that my double of 1C is takeout if 1C was natural and it shows the majors if 1C was artificial. 1C is alerted so I ask to find out if it is artificial or not. Is this a case of varying our understandings? I am sure Richard would say it is not, because we have the rock-solid understanding that I mentioned in sentence two. I would think a clearer way to state this regulation (if I understand its intent) is to replace "its understandings" with "the meanings of its calls", and this is the result: 40B3 - A pair is not allowed to vary the meanings of its calls during the auction or play consequent on a question asked by either side. A pair is allowed to vary the meanings of its calls during the auction or play by prior agreement consequent on a response by opponents to a question asked by this pair, but not consequent on a response by this pair to a question by opponents. A pair is allowed by prior agreement to vary the meanings of its calls during the auction or play consequent on an irregularity by either side. Have I improved it? There is another reason for the changes I made: [Law 40A2:] Information conveyed to partner through such understandings must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal. ... [Jerry] I think Law 40A2 gives me the right to ask what 1C shows and use that to determine whether double is the best choice for my hand. (Sometimes an alerted 1C bid is still natural.) So I don't see the need for "A pair is allowed to vary the meanings of its calls during the auction or play by prior agreement consequent on a response by opponents to a question asked by this pair." On the other hand, I think the quoted phrase does harm. I was hoping that it is still illegal to *not* ask the meaning of 1C when I want my double to be takeout. It seems to me that the text of the law 40B3 election would allow such nefarious tactics. On the other hand, since the 40B3 election contains two misspellings, it may be that Grattan did not give us the exact language that will be used. I still would like to know what "vary its understandings" means. Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 4 20:08:13 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 14:08:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: <003101c84ed0$9a830120$cf890360$@com> References: <003101c84ed0$9a830120$cf890360$@com> Message-ID: On Jan 4, 2008, at 7:52 AM, David Burn wrote: > [TK] > > No we have not, which is a pity looking at the problems we have > created with > this wonderful L27C1. > > [DALB] > > A thought has struck me. Suppose my RHO opens 3D and I - thinking > for the > moment that he opened 2D - overcall 3C. In my methods, a 4C > overcall of 3D > shows clubs and a major, the convention known as "non-leaping > Michaels". My > hand is such that I would, having seen the opening bid correctly, > risk 5C > given that I can't bid four. > > Law 27C1 says: > > If the insufficient bid is replaced by a bid at the lowest legal > level or > double or pass that incorporates the information contained in the > insufficient bid, the auction and play continues with the information > arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides. > > Now: a 3C overcall shows a club suit. A 4C overcall that shows > clubs and > spades "incorporates" the information that I have clubs (at least, > according > to any definition of the word "incorporate" with which I am > familiar), but > presumably I am not allowed to bid 4C in the given circumstances to > show > only clubs (even though L27C1 actually says that I am). > > If I bid 5C, partner is barred. Is this what is intended? You can't bid 4C to show only clubs (which would, if you could, incur no penalty) because that's not what 4C shows in your methods. But you are allowed, as David notes above, to bid 4C to show clubs and spades without penalty. If you happen to have side spades with your clubs, you have lucked out and will have no further problems. But L40A means you are free to bid 4C to show clubs and spades even without spades. That presents you with a tactical choice between two potential roads to disaster: either bar your partner and guess, or grossly misdescribe your hand to an un-barred partner. Players faced with this situation will sometimes choose the latter, leading inevitably to forceful director calls and late nights for many AC members. Don't get me wrong: I prefer the new law to the old one. But it will raise jurisprudential issues that we have not seen before. David's point about barring partner with an "incorporating" (accurate) 5C bid is well taken. That "at the lowest legal level" in the new L27C1 seems less like it is consistent with the overall nature of the revision than like a leftover from 1997 that nobody thought to get rid of. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 4 20:28:10 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:28:10 -0600 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: References: <003101c84ed0$9a830120$cf890360$@com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801041128m1e9dc5a5y87e12635f47ebabc@mail.gmail.com> [Eric Landau] If you happen to have side spades with your clubs, you have lucked out and will have no further problems. [Jerry] Are you sure? Your partner has UI that your clubs are likely longer than they would have been had you made the sufficient bid in the first place. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 4 20:30:21 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 14:30:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - RA's options. In-Reply-To: <002c01c84ef0$96412b30$f0c9403e@Mildred> References: <002c01c84ef0$96412b30$f0c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4F524BDF-1A5E-4EEB-8FCF-B88B6CEA4E93@starpower.net> On Jan 4, 2008, at 11:00 AM, wrote: > +=+ I undertook to post here the English Bridge Union > decisions on options under the 2007 Laws. The proposed > date of implementation is 1st August. [snip] > A pair is allowed by prior agreemnt to vary its understandings > during the auction or play consequent on an irregularity by either > side. I would be very concerned that a naive reader of this statement (i.e. one far less knowledgeable about the laws than anyone on BLML) will fail to appreciate the extremely substantial extent to which the desired ability to vary one's understandings consequent on an irregularity by one's own side is constrained by L72B2. An (admittedly superfluous) "subject to" or "but see" or some such might be in order. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at irvine.com Fri Jan 4 20:52:21 2008 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:52:21 -0800 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Lawsand 2007Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:09:49 +0100." <20080104160957.926571AD20@larry.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200801041945.LAA15587@mailhub.irvine.com> David Burn wrote: > A thought has struck me. Suppose my RHO opens 3D and I - thinking for the > moment that he opened 2D - overcall 3C. In my methods, a 4C overcall of 3D > shows clubs and a major, the convention known as "non-leaping Michaels". My > hand is such that I would, having seen the opening bid correctly, risk 5C > given that I can't bid four. > > Law 27C1 says: > > If the insufficient bid is replaced by a bid at the lowest legal level or > double or pass that incorporates the information contained in the > insufficient bid, the auction and play continues with the information > arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides. > > Now: a 3C overcall shows a club suit. A 4C overcall that shows clubs and > spades "incorporates" the information that I have clubs (at least, according > to any definition of the word "incorporate" with which I am familiar), but > presumably I am not allowed to bid 4C in the given circumstances to show > only clubs (even though L27C1 actually says that I am). > > If I bid 5C, partner is barred. Is this what is intended? Ton wrote: > You are allowed to bid 4 clubs (what can we do if 27C1 says so?) and then > the auction continues normally. But a clever opponent might find your > reasoning leading to the bid of 5C. So if partner passes your 4C it could be > necessary to apply 27C2 if 5C doesn't make. Nice law don't you think? I'm quite bothered by this discussion. If I understand this discussion correctly (and some parts of it are somewhat confusing, so there's no guarantee that I do), the interpretation at least of some posters seems to be that you can correct your 3C to 4C with no penalty; and since 27C1 applies, the information from the withdrawn call is authorized for both sides. It seems that David has invented a way to have more bids available than your system allows. Suppose RHO opens 3D, and you have a club one-suiter. Your hand isn't good enough to bid 5C, and you can't bid 4C because that's conventional. But you can bid 3C, which would have shown a club one-suiter over a natural 2D; and then you can correct it to 4C, which, according to the logic of some, "incorporates" the meaning of the purported 3C overcall and thus is legal by 27C1. Now, if this helps your side get to a contract you couldn't have gotten to otherwise, 27C2 kicks in. But what if the opponents were always getting to 5D? Now 27C2 doesn't apply. Plus, you've given partner helpful information for the defense that you wouldn't have been able to give him otherwise---the information that you have long clubs---and according to 27C1, this information is authorized for him. Can this be right? -- Adam From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Jan 4 20:55:06 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 04 Jan 2008 20:55:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] from Vitold Message-ID: <20080104195506.11224146501F@f15.poczta.interia.pl> > Hi all:) Czesc Konradzie! > > I'd like to make little correction: it is possible to translate on Polish > difference between "should" and "shal": > > He should = Jemu trzeba (impersonal form only) > > He shall - On powinien > > He must - On musi (On zobowjazany) > > It doesn't work for Polish. "Jemu trzeba" + a verb doesn't sound well in Polish (unlike in Russian where "yemu dolzhno chto-to zdelat'" is much more common). It can be used from time to time but if you use it all the time (and "should" appears very, very often in the laws) it will make the laws unreadable. One of the suggestions from a member of our team is to try to use "nalezy". > > Real problem is negative form: shall not, must not etc. Same in Russian as > in Polish one should use rather strange but absolutely understandable > constructiom as > > "Jemy trzeba nie..." On powinien nie..." "On zobowiazany nie..." > > And on Polish it saunds more common than in Russian:) "Jemy trzeba nie..." sounds terrible in Polish, "On powinien nie..." is incorrect, too, the correct form is "on nie powinien" but this means "he shouldn't" not "he may not". "On jest zobowiazany nie..." is a nice try, it might be an option. I'll keep it in my mind. Thanks. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bedac w toalecie zagrala w ... Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1cbd From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 4 20:58:05 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 14:58:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 4, 2008, at 11:47 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > [swillner] I don't understand that. Wouldn't the play have gone > differently > -- you > would have finessed the other way -- if you had gotten a correct club > count? Surely that's at least "at all probable," though it seems > to me > not only "likely" (L12C2) but indeed all but certain. > > I think you would have a much weaker case if West had had only two > clubs. Then the revoke probably didn't change the play. > > [paul lamford] Then I misunderstand the rules: > > (64B) 4. After Non-offending Side Calls to Next Deal > if attention was first drawn to the revoke after a member of the > non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal. > 5. After Round Has Ended > if attention was first drawn to the revoke after the round has ended > > As I understand it, 64C allows the director to restore equity to > redress a > revoke that gains in some way, whether subject to penalty or not, > for which > the penalty provided by the laws is inadequate, but here the > penalty of one > trick allowing the contract to make without the heart guess IS > clearly adequate, > but the revoke was not pointed out in time. I see nothing in the > laws that > suggests that the purpose of 64C is to provide an extension to > 64B4 and 64B5. L64C doesn't "extend" L64B4-5; it operates independently of them. The "compensation" referred to in L64C is not the "penalty" derived in L64A, but the actual number of tricks transferred to the NOS after L64A-B have been applied in full. If that number tricks is insufficient to compensate for the actual damage, L64C requires full compensation via an adjusted score. Here that number of tricks is zero, and that's all that matters as far as L64C is concerned. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 4 21:47:55 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 15:47:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: <200801041753.JAA13838@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200801041753.JAA13838@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Jan 4, 2008, at 12:59 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Eric wrote: > >> Some day we may even be able to use automatic language-translation >> software. But not quite yet. I found a program on the net, and, >> since it's been so pertinent to one of our recent discussions, I fed >> it, "Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one >> or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has >> occurred." [from L68B2] >> >> The software translated this into French as, "Ind?pendamment de 1 >> pr?c?dant, si un d?fenseur essaye de conc?der un ou plusieurs tours >> et ses objets d'associ? imm?diatement, aucune concession ne s'est >> produite." >> >> Translating the French back into English produced, "Independently of >> 1 preceding, if a defender tries to concede one or more turns and his >> objects of immediately associated, no concession occurred." >> >> Translating it into Russian and back produced, "Regardless of 1 >> preceding, if defender asks it was inferior one or more tricks and >> his objects of participant immediately, then no concession not of >> proiskhodila." >> >> Japanese produced, "In order in spite even in 1 it precedes for the >> protection person to recognize the purpose of the trick and that >> partner of one or more immediately, if you tried, concession did not >> happen." >> >> I guess it's not so easy. > > Eric, what program is this? This actually sounds like something that > my kids and I might have fun playing with. It comes from Systran Language Translation Technologies (www.systransoft.com), which makes a number of different versions with different names. I have a Mac widget that talks to their on- line translation engine, but you can do the same right from their home page. I wish I could take credit for discovering this particular form of amusement, but Philip Dick thought of it first -- in 1969! ("Galactic Pot-Healer") Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 4 22:02:59 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:02:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: <6bnhj8$hg5voj@mx09.lnh.mail.rcn.net> References: <6bnhj8$hg5voj@mx09.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:54 PM, ton wrote: > Thank you Eric, this was by far my biggest laugh in this new year, > I am > still giggling. Could you try Dutch? Original: "Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred." Dutch translation: "Ongeacht 1 die, als een verdediger probeert om ??n of meerdere trucs en zijn partner onmiddellijk voorwerpen toe te staan voorafgaat, is geen concessie voorgekomen." (I wish I could read Dutch.) Re-translation back into English: "Irrespective of 1 that, if a verdediger tries one or several trucs and is to partner immediately permit objects precedes, no concession has been prevented." (Oh my!) Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 4 22:11:31 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:11:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <9433C106-0082-4AAC-B9EB-CC258DB3F7DB@starpower.net> References: <000001c84eb2$625c23d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <9433C106-0082-4AAC-B9EB-CC258DB3F7DB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <595E6915-0179-43D3-8766-A6D499653511@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > (2008) L68D: "If [the claim or concession] is doubted by *any player* > [emphasis mine]..., the Director must be summoned immediately and Law > 70 applies." (1997 L68D similarly). The 1997 Laws use the word "disputed" rather than "doubted". I had understood that to mean "disputed by a member of the opposing side" - so that a player could not "dispute" his partner's claim - though he could, and imo should - see 1997 Law 72A2, 2007 Law 79A2 (took me a while to find that) - point out that opponents should do so. IOW, the "dispute" or "doubt" is in opposition to "acquiescence", which IMO can only be given by the opposing side. I suppose it's a small nit, having the same effect in practice. Either way, the "dispute" or "doubt" in Law 68D is clearly a very different animal from the "objection" in Law 68B. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 4 22:23:55 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:23:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801041128m1e9dc5a5y87e12635f47ebabc@mail.gmail.com> References: <003101c84ed0$9a830120$cf890360$@com> <2b1e598b0801041128m1e9dc5a5y87e12635f47ebabc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <30859FE3-92A0-4E70-96F6-CF6633A080E3@starpower.net> On Jan 4, 2008, at 2:28 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Eric Landau] > > If you happen to have side spades with your clubs, you have lucked out > and will have no further problems. > > [Jerry] > > Are you sure? Your partner has UI that your clubs are likely longer > than they would have been had you made the sufficient bid in the first > place. I'm pretty sure that we don't want to interpret "information" in its probabilistic sense (information theory was bad enough; let's not go to quantum mechanics); so partner's knowledge that the maximum likelihood estimator of the length of your clubs is .674 cards longer for the one-suited overcall than the two-suited one doesn't matter. But your agreements do matter, so if the one-suited overcall *promises* six clubs while the two-suited overcall only promises five, then the knowledge of the sixth club is "unincorporated" and you are not so lucky. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 4 22:25:12 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:25:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <477E1604.3090000@ulb.ac.be> References: <22BCC94DE0984538B30F3A44639BA07D@BridgeNZL3> <477E1604.3090000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6FD127CE-BBB4-4E2B-817A-F7CD1DF19C17@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 4, 2008, at 6:18 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Martin Oyston a ?crit : >> Ed Reppert a ?crit : >> >>> Once the opening lead is made, even if face down, it may only be >>> retracted on instruction of the director, so if a review of the >>> auction reveals he shouldn't have led, he can't just retract it. >>> >>> >> So please tell me what's the use of making one's lead face down ? >> >> [[MRO]] The use is that partner may now ask questions relating to the >> auction without it being seen to affect your lead. >> >> > No Sir. In that case, the lead might be made openly and questions > asked > thereafter. If it turns out that there has been MI in the auction, then the last player of the non-offending side to have called may change his last call (see Law 21B2). Making the opening lead face down minimizes any UI that may accrue in such cases. I see several common procedural errors at the table: (1) opening leader's partner saying "no questions" prior to the lead being selected. (2) failure to ensure declarer has the opportunity to ask questions before the lead is faced. (If you don't believe that one, go read - carefully - Law 41B). (3) Leading face up. (4) A face up lead, followed by an immediate question about the auction from leader's partner. None of these are "life threatening" of course, but they *are* errors. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 4 22:28:46 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:28:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <000201c84eca$86cbe990$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000201c84eca$86cbe990$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Jan 4, 2008, at 7:08 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > I tend to rule that if this is the case, damage that could have > been avoided > had defending side used correct procedures, is self-inflected > rather than > caused by the misinformation. Well, ISTM the damage was still *caused* by the MI - what's different is that the defending side could have had some rectification under the laws which they forfeited by incorrectly making the lead face up. Same effect, but not the same cause. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 4 22:29:20 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:29:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <000801c84ed2$857141f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000801c84ed2$857141f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4CFD1C6F-7424-45CE-955C-4842434741C1@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 4, 2008, at 8:05 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > He may therefore > not ask any question after the opening lead is faced until after > dummy is > also faced. And a card played from dummy's hand. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 4 22:35:09 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:35:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: References: <22BCC94DE0984538B30F3A44639BA07D@BridgeNZL3> <477E1604.3090000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6B6E6073-E373-416C-8017-5919575C391A@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > I don't know what the ACBL's official policy is, but its de > facto policy is to allow players to choose either, requiring only > that they be consistent over the course of a session. Would an RA > regulation legitimizing that approach be illegal? "Face-down opening leads are required at all ACBL sanctioned events." - ACBL General Conditions of Contest, Item 9 under "PLAY". If ACBL TDs are condoning face-up opening leads, they are in violation of Law 81B2. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 4 22:43:24 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:43:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3E30EA42-901D-4D9A-85CA-2DAE592A3706@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 4, 2008, at 11:47 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > I can find nothing in either the 1997 or 2007 Laws which specifically > indicates that a defender must face all his cards after a claim, but > maybe I am not looking hard enough. I suspect you looked hard enough. :-) The only such requirement I can find is when TD requires all four hands to be faced when adjudicating a disputed claim (law 70B2). From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 4 23:14:19 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:14:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Lawsand 2007Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: <200801041945.LAA15587@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200801041945.LAA15587@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4816C0A4-BFD6-4B11-BD4C-1ED67F6F411F@starpower.net> On Jan 4, 2008, at 2:52 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > David Burn wrote: > >> A thought has struck me. Suppose my RHO opens 3D and I - thinking >> for the >> moment that he opened 2D - overcall 3C. In my methods, a 4C >> overcall of 3D >> shows clubs and a major, the convention known as "non-leaping >> Michaels". My >> hand is such that I would, having seen the opening bid correctly, >> risk 5C >> given that I can't bid four. >> >> Law 27C1 says: >> >> If the insufficient bid is replaced by a bid at the lowest legal >> level or >> double or pass that incorporates the information contained in the >> insufficient bid, the auction and play continues with the information >> arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides. >> >> Now: a 3C overcall shows a club suit. A 4C overcall that shows >> clubs and >> spades "incorporates" the information that I have clubs (at least, >> according >> to any definition of the word "incorporate" with which I am >> familiar), but >> presumably I am not allowed to bid 4C in the given circumstances >> to show >> only clubs (even though L27C1 actually says that I am). >> >> If I bid 5C, partner is barred. Is this what is intended? > > Ton wrote: > >> You are allowed to bid 4 clubs (what can we do if 27C1 says so?) >> and then >> the auction continues normally. But a clever opponent might find your >> reasoning leading to the bid of 5C. So if partner passes your 4C >> it could be >> necessary to apply 27C2 if 5C doesn't make. Nice law don't you think? > > I'm quite bothered by this discussion. If I understand this > discussion correctly (and some parts of it are somewhat confusing, so > there's no guarantee that I do), the interpretation at least of some > posters seems to be that you can correct your 3C to 4C with no > penalty; and since 27C1 applies, the information from the withdrawn > call is authorized for both sides. > > It seems that David has invented a way to have more bids available > than your system allows. Suppose RHO opens 3D, and you have a club > one-suiter. Your hand isn't good enough to bid 5C, and you can't bid > 4C because that's conventional. But you can bid 3C, which would have > shown a club one-suiter over a natural 2D; and then you can correct it > to 4C, which, according to the logic of some, "incorporates" the > meaning of the purported 3C overcall and thus is legal by 27C1. Or you could just bid 4C while scratching your left ear with your right hand to tell partner that it is one-suited rather than two- suited. L72B2 has not been repealed. > Now, if this helps your side get to a contract you couldn't have > gotten to otherwise, 27C2 kicks in. > > But what if the opponents were always getting to 5D? Now 27C2 doesn't > apply. Plus, you've given partner helpful information for the defense > that you wouldn't have been able to give him otherwise---the > information that you have long clubs---and according to 27C1, this > information is authorized for him. > > Can this be right? Sort of. But it overlooks that the substituted 4C, even though it incorporates the meaning of 3C (which shows clubs), shows clubs *and spades* (and so also shows clubs). It doesn't make the meaning of 4C morph into the meaning of 3C (unless you're cheating; see above), so partner must play you for clubs and spades; he may not infer from the IB that you might not have spades. The reference to L16D is parenthesized; it is a useful reminder that L16D does not negate the "authorizedness" of the incorporated information even though L16D might be (mis-) read to say that it does, but does not affect the meaning of the unparenthesized portion. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 4 23:25:53 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 23:25:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <6FD127CE-BBB4-4E2B-817A-F7CD1DF19C17@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000601c84f20$c4b36ca0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert ............. > > No Sir. In that case, the lead might be made openly and questions > > asked > > thereafter. > > If it turns out that there has been MI in the auction, then the last > player of the non-offending side to have called may change his last > call (see Law 21B2). Making the opening lead face down minimizes any > UI that may accrue in such cases. Law 21B is no longer available after the opening lead has been faced! (L41C) > I see several common procedural errors at the table: (1) opening > leader's partner saying "no questions" prior to the lead being > selected. (2) failure to ensure declarer has the opportunity to ask > questions before the lead is faced. (If you don't believe that one, > go read - carefully - Law 41B). (3) Leading face up. (4) A face up > lead, followed by an immediate question about the auction from > leader's partner. None of these are "life threatening" of course, but > they *are* errors. Indeed. Regards Sven From adam at irvine.com Fri Jan 4 23:33:15 2008 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:33:15 -0800 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Lawsand 2007Laws - Part Two In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:14:19 EST." <4816C0A4-BFD6-4B11-BD4C-1ED67F6F411F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <200801042226.OAA18509@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > > But what if the opponents were always getting to 5D? Now 27C2 doesn't > > apply. Plus, you've given partner helpful information for the defense > > that you wouldn't have been able to give him otherwise---the > > information that you have long clubs---and according to 27C1, this > > information is authorized for him. > > > > Can this be right? > > Sort of. But it overlooks that the substituted 4C, even though it > incorporates the meaning of 3C (which shows clubs), shows clubs *and > spades* (and so also shows clubs). It doesn't make the meaning of 4C > morph into the meaning of 3C (unless you're cheating; see above), so > partner must play you for clubs and spades; he may not infer from the > IB that you might not have spades. The reference to L16D is > parenthesized; it is a useful reminder that L16D does not negate the > "authorizedness" of the incorporated information even though L16D > might be (mis-) read to say that it does, but does not affect the > meaning of the unparenthesized portion. Hmmm... The only way that you can say "he may not infer", with reference to your partner, is if *something* about the situation is unauthorized; if there were no UI involved then partner could infer anything. So it sounds like the "correct" interpretation of this part of the sentence is that "the information from the withdrawn call that is incorporated into the meaning of the corrected call is authorized, but other information from the withdrawn call is still unauthorized, and the parenthesized clause that Law 16D does not apply applies only to this incorporated information and not to other information." That makes sense. Unfortunately, if that's what 27C1 really means, then it's not worded in a way that is conducive to someone figuring out the real meaning. This Law just says "Law 16D does not apply", and "the information from the withdrawn call is authorized"; how is anyone supposed to figure out that some of the information involved is still unauthorized and that Law 16D *does* apply? I suspect there will be trouble (i.e. a spate of wrong rulings) unless somebody publishes a clarifying explanation. -- Adam From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 4 23:39:08 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:39:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <000601c84f20$c4b36ca0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000601c84f20$c4b36ca0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Jan 4, 2008, at 5:25 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > Law 21B is no longer available after the opening lead has been > faced! (L41C) That was precisely my point. :-) From svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 5 01:32:27 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:32:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c84f32$73448a90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Jan 4, 2008, at 7:08 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > I tend to rule that if this is the case, damage that could have > > been avoided > > had defending side used correct procedures, is self-inflected > > rather than > > caused by the misinformation. > > Well, ISTM the damage was still *caused* by the MI - what's different > is that the defending side could have had some rectification under > the laws which they forfeited by incorrectly making the lead face up. > Same effect, but not the same cause. Well, we very seldom see faced opening leads in Norway, probably because we have repeatedly made it clear to the players how important it is to protect interests by making the opening lead face down. More common is the situation when I am called to a table too late to apply Law 21B when they in fact had become aware of the misinformation before the opening lead was faced. In such cases I invariably let the table result stand with no rectification if I find that at the time they became aware of the misinformation the player who had made the last call for the non-offending side most likely could have avoided any damage from the misinformation if he had been given the opportunity to replace that call by another call under Law 21B. Making a faced opening lead is IMO another reason for denying rectification that had not been needed had correct procedures been followed? Be aware that in either case I would not deny rectification unless I find that NOS had contributed to their own damage by not following correct procedures. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 5 01:37:07 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:37:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c84f33$1a979fd0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: 4. januar 2008 23:39 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Opening Lead > > > On Jan 4, 2008, at 5:25 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Law 21B is no longer available after the opening lead has been > > faced! (L41C) > > That was precisely my point. :-) Sorry, I was unaware of that. But my point is that if application of Law 21B could have reduced (or even completely avoided) damage from misinformation then making a faced opening lead shall be cause for denying any rectification for such damage that could have been avoided under Law 21B. Regards Sven From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Jan 5 02:24:03 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 19:24:03 -0600 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <000701c84f32$73448a90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000701c84f32$73448a90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801041724n4513c268ic8a0177c37f654de@mail.gmail.com> Sven Pran: > > Well, we very seldom see faced opening leads in Norway, probably because we > have repeatedly made it clear to the players how important it is to protect > interests by making the opening lead face down. > > More common is the situation when I am called to a table too late to apply > Law 21B when they in fact had become aware of the misinformation before the > opening lead was faced. > > In such cases I invariably let the table result stand with no rectification > if I find that at the time they became aware of the misinformation the > player who had made the last call for the non-offending side most likely > could have avoided any damage from the misinformation if he had been given > the opportunity to replace that call by another call under Law 21B. > > Making a faced opening lead is IMO another reason for denying rectification > that had not been needed had correct procedures been followed? > > Be aware that in either case I would not deny rectification unless I find > that NOS had contributed to their own damage by not following correct > procedures. > Your denial of rectification to the NOS does not preclude rectification to the OS. It seems to me that you should not wash your hands of the matter just because the NOS called you too late. The OS may still earn a penalty. In an IMP game, the too-late-to-call-you NOS should still get a partial rectification through an adjustment only to the OS score, right? Jerry Fusselman From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 5 02:30:53 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:30:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Lawsand2007Laws - Part Two References: <200801042226.OAA18509@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <005001c84f3a$a78ad450$afc9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Lawsand2007Laws - Part Two > The only way that you can say "he may not infer", with reference to > your partner, is if *something* about the situation is unauthorized; > if there were no UI involved then partner could infer anything. So it > sounds like the "correct" interpretation of this part of the sentence > is that "the information from the withdrawn call that is incorporated > into the meaning of the corrected call is authorized, but other > information from the withdrawn call is still unauthorized, and the > parenthesized clause that Law 16D does not apply applies only to this > incorporated information and not to other information." > > That makes sense. Unfortunately, if that's what 27C1 really means, > then it's not worded in a way that is conducive to someone figuring > out the real meaning. This Law just says "Law 16D does not apply", > and "the information from the withdrawn call is authorized"; how is > anyone supposed to figure out that some of the information involved is > still unauthorized and that Law 16D *does* apply? I suspect there > will be trouble (i.e. a spate of wrong rulings) unless somebody > publishes a clarifying explanation. > +=+ I have noted this potential exit from the dilemma and I am inviting colleagues to consider whether we can use it. Thank you, Adam. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 5 02:44:40 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:44:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - RA's options. References: <002c01c84ef0$96412b30$f0c9403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801041101hd8539e1h5f2bb70ebacd4fea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <008201c84f3d$5752e970$afc9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:01 PM Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - RA's options. > [Grattan] > > 40B3 - A pair is not allowed to vary its understandings > during the auction or playconsequent on a question asked by > either side. A pair is allowed to vary its understandings during the > auction or play by prior agreement consequent on a response by > opponents to a question asked by this pair, but not consequent on > a response by this pair to a question by opponents. > A pair is allowed by prior agreemnt to vary its understandings > during the auction or play consequent on an irregularity by either > side. > > [Jerry] > > I wonder what "vary its understandings" means here. It seems quite > different from what Richard Hills understood it to mean. Suppose that > my partnership understanding is that my double of 1C is takeout if 1C > was natural and it shows the majors if 1C was artificial. 1C is > alerted so I ask to find out if it is artificial or not. Is this a > case of varying our understandings? I am sure Richard would say it is > not, because we have the rock-solid understanding that I mentioned in > sentence two. > +=+ Since the variations are to be disclosed as a matter of partnership understanding, probably on the system card - such is the effect of 'by prior agreement' - the RA can in any case control the agreements under Law 40B1 and 40B2. As I have said previously 40B3 is in truth a 'belt and braces' law bringing together and stressing matters the RA is empowered to handle under other sections of Law 40. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 5 02:50:09 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:50:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke References: <3E30EA42-901D-4D9A-85CA-2DAE592A3706@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <008301c84f3d$583ef720$afc9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Correction of a revoke > > On Jan 4, 2008, at 11:47 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > >> I can find nothing in either the 1997 or 2007 Laws >> which specifically indicates that a defender must face >> all his cards after a claim, but maybe I am not looking >> hard enough. > > I suspect you looked hard enough. :-) The only such > requirement I can find is when TD requires all four > hands to be faced when adjudicating a disputed > claim (law 70B2). > +=+ In earlier years the received wisdom was that to require the facing of hands might be a tripwire that could be used to trip people up. ~G~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Jan 5 14:15:38 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:15:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] Legal experimentation Message-ID: <477F82FA.3050109@ntlworld.com> The WBF requires each jurisdiction to specify a set of regulations for aspects of the game, unregulated in the law-book. This poses a problem for players but provides the WBF with an opportunity to systematically try out variations in *all* the laws. Take claim law, for example. The current laws are hard to understand and implement. They are interpreted differently by different legislations. They are applied inconsistently by different directors. Hence, there have been numerous suggestions to "improve" claim laws. For example, Sven suggests that declarer should claim by exposing his cards, rapidly, one by one, in the order that he intends to play them. I prefer a variation of the on-line protocol - where declarer exposes his hand and specifies a number of tricks. To contest the claim, opponents simply insist that play continues. They play double-dummy while declarer must continue single-dummy. BLMLers have suggested other "improvements" to this and other laws. The WBF could use the fact that, currently, each jurisdiction plays bridge under different rules, to supervise controlled trials of such "improvements". For example, some jurisdictions might try out Sven's proposal. The WBF could poll players and directors views, before and after the change. If the WBF formally requested a jurisdiction to be a guinea-pig for a particular rule, I think it would usually comply. Perhaps out of the legal tower of Babel, a simple common set of rules would eventually emerge, to the delight of many players. From geller at nifty.com Sat Jan 5 14:45:16 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:45:16 +0900 Subject: [blml] Definition of "artificial call" - misprint and possible shortening In-Reply-To: <008201c84f3d$5752e970$afc9403e@Mildred> References: <008201c84f3d$5752e970$afc9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200801051345.AA11953@geller204.nifty.com> Dear BLMLers, In the definitions section (taken from the most recent pdf file on the ECATS Bridge web site) it appears to me that the words "if it" (set off by asterisks below) are a misprint (unless I'm missing something). Also (as long as we're considering this item) it appears to me that the words set off between ++ could and probably should be deleted. The first ("is") is for consistency of style, and the second is for shortening by eliminating unnecessary words. ####################### DEFINITION BELOW ############# 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. ####################################################### Cheers, Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From geller at nifty.com Sat Jan 5 14:50:20 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:50:20 +0900 Subject: [blml] Definition of "trick" In-Reply-To: <200801051345.AA11953@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200801051345.AA11953@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <200801051350.AA11954@geller204.nifty.com> Dear BLMLers, In the definitions section (taken from the most recent pdf file on the ECATS Bridge web site) it appears to me that the word "flawed" (set off by asterisks below) should be deleted and replaced by "defective." The reason is that a search of the pdf file shows that "flawed" is ONLY used in the definition of "trick" (and nowhere else) whereas "defective" is used everywhere else. It might be good to set off "unless defective" by commas while we're at it. ####################### OLD DEFINITION BELOW ############# Trick . the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless **flawed** of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead. Trick Points . points scored by declarer?s side ####################################################### Cheers, Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jan 5 15:40:52 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 09:40:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] L27 In-Reply-To: <200801041458.m04EwxnL022610@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801041458.m04EwxnL022610@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <477F96F4.9090408@nhcc.net> > From: "David Burn" > Suppose my RHO opens 3D and I - thinking for the > moment that he opened 2D - overcall 3C. In my methods, a 4C overcall of 3D > shows clubs and a major, the convention known as "non-leaping Michaels". > Law 27C1 says: ... > Now: a 3C overcall shows a club suit. A 4C overcall that shows clubs and > spades "incorporates" the information that I have clubs What would a 4C bid over 2D have shown? If it shows clubs and a major, your 3C bid _denies_ a major. This is information _not_ incorporated in the 4C bid over 3D, and therefore 4C will put us in L27D territory. (Partner will be barred.) If you don't play leaping Michaels over 2D, then I think the position is as you say. I think Adam's suggestion is reasonable but incompatible with the plain text of the Laws. > If I bid 5C, partner is barred. Is this what is intended? If the DSC's intention was to let auctions continue normally, what they should have done was allow any legal replacement call with the withdrawn call being UI to the OS. The present Law -- here I go again! -- is another problem caused by mixing mechanical and information penalties. While we're on the topic, what about L27C2? Suppose I make an IB that will bar partner. Having a balanced hand, I guess 3NT, which turns out to be a terrible contract. However, today is my lucky day, and with three finesses and a suit break, the contract makes. Under the 1997 Laws, I keep the lucky score. Will that change after the new Laws take effect? If so, this should be part of director training, and players need to be fully advised when the occasion arises. From schoderb at msn.com Sat Jan 5 16:23:57 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:23:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] L27 References: <200801041458.m04EwxnL022610@cfa.harvard.edu> <477F96F4.9090408@nhcc.net> Message-ID: > While we're on the topic, what about L27C2? Suppose I make an IB that > will bar partner. Having a balanced hand, I guess 3NT, which turns out > to be a terrible contract. However, today is my lucky day, and with > three finesses and a suit break, the contract makes. Under the 1997 > Laws, I keep the lucky score. Will that change after the new Laws take > effect? If so, this should be part of director training, and players > need to be fully advised when the occasion arises. The player making the 3NT bid was forced to make a guess by his LHO, got lucky, and is not subject, by any law, to have that result changed -- see Law 40. Take away that result and you can start by changing the name of the game to something like "Par Bridge". To take away the 3NT would be a travesty of the game. I'm aware there are those who feel that you can't win playing bad bridge or having good luck, or profiting from the opponents mistakes or infractions, or making slams off by two cashing aces, etc. These are part of its charm, part of its satisfaction, part of its allure. Getting a top score from an expert player, for whatever legal reason, brings in a lot of people and the $$$$. Kojak _______________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Sat Jan 5 16:23:57 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:23:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] L27 References: <200801041458.m04EwxnL022610@cfa.harvard.edu> <477F96F4.9090408@nhcc.net> Message-ID: > While we're on the topic, what about L27C2? Suppose I make an IB that > will bar partner. Having a balanced hand, I guess 3NT, which turns out > to be a terrible contract. However, today is my lucky day, and with > three finesses and a suit break, the contract makes. Under the 1997 > Laws, I keep the lucky score. Will that change after the new Laws take > effect? If so, this should be part of director training, and players > need to be fully advised when the occasion arises. The player making the 3NT bid was forced to make a guess by his LHO, got lucky, and is not subject, by any law, to have that result changed -- see Law 40. Take away that result and you can start by changing the name of the game to something like "Par Bridge". To take away the 3NT would be a travesty of the game. I'm aware there are those who feel that you can't win playing bad bridge or having good luck, or profiting from the opponents mistakes or infractions, or making slams off by two cashing aces, etc. These are part of its charm, part of its satisfaction, part of its allure. Getting a top score from an expert player, for whatever legal reason, brings in a lot of people and the $$$$. Kojak _______________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jan 5 16:42:48 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:42:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] L27 Message-ID: <477FA578.7020007@nhcc.net> SW> [Lucky 3NT guess after partner is barred] > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > The player making the 3NT bid was forced to make a guess by his LHO, got > lucky, and is not subject, by any law, to have that result changed -- see > Law 40. Take away that result and you can start by changing the name of the > game to something like "Par Bridge". > > To take away the 3NT would be a travesty of the game. While I certainly agree with the sentiment, I'm worried that the 2007 L27C2 says otherwise. What does it actually mean? From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Jan 5 20:11:23 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 19:11:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] L27 In-Reply-To: <477FA578.7020007@nhcc.net> References: <477FA578.7020007@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <004a01c84fce$c3d347c0$4b79d740$@com> [SW] While I certainly agree with the sentiment, I'm worried that the 2007 L27C2 says otherwise. What does it actually mean? [DALB] I don't think L27C2 applies to situations in which the insufficient bid is not accepted and the bidder has to take a stab at the final contract. I think it covers only those positions in which the IB is legally corrected (by a call that "incorporates" the information contained in the IB) but it is still considered that the IB assisted the offending side. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Jan 5 20:49:22 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 19:49:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] L27 In-Reply-To: <477F96F4.9090408@nhcc.net> References: <200801041458.m04EwxnL022610@cfa.harvard.edu> <477F96F4.9090408@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <004b01c84fd4$11ef84f0$35ce8ed0$@com> [SW] The present Law -- here I go again! -- is another problem caused by mixing mechanical and information penalties. [DALB] This "mixture" is a result of what I have always considered to be muddled thinking about the purpose of the laws of a game. A game is an artificial construct - it is not intended as a model or a reflection of correct ethical or social behaviour. What is legal may be done without moral censure attaching to whoever does it; what is not legal may not be done however "unjust" it may seem not to be able to do it. That is why the laws were originally what they were. They didn't presume that players were cads and bounders, nor did they presume that players were solid and upright citizens. They merely sought to make it unprofitable for cads and bounders to do what they might otherwise do. If you ruffed a trick when you could have followed suit, not only did you have to give that trick back, but you had to hand over another trick as well - the first by way of restitution, the second by way of penalty. If you illegally showed your partner one or more of your cards during the bidding or play, he might thereby obtain an advantage; the laws were constructed so that not only would he not obtain an advantage, your side would (usually) be disadvantaged. If you bid when it wasn't your turn, or did not bid enough when it was, similar considerations applied. The rules of all games except, nowadays, bridge, work as I have indicated above, and work very well. It is easy to state them. It is easy to apply them. And when players fall foul of them by mistake, they know that they are subject to the same penalties as if they had fallen foul of them on purpose, and they do not mind because they know that they are playing a game. For several years now, the laws of bridge have been subject to a process of watering down, to cater for the assumption that no one who plays bridge is actually a cad and a bounder. To exactly the extent that this watering-down process has taken place, the laws have become more confusing. If you gain no tricks by revoking, you are one or two tricks worse off than if you had not revoked. If you gain three tricks by revoking, you are no worse off than if you had not revoked. No one has a clue why this is - understandably, because it is irrational, so there is no "reason why" it is. Law 25 in the 1997 code was a catastrophic attempt to allow people not to have to face the consequences of their error in making the wrong bid at their turn. Law 27 in the 2007 code is an equally catastrophic attempt to allow people not to have to face the consequences of their error in making the wrong bid at their turn. No bridge player would mind in the least if the rules were "A call once made may not be changed", and no bridge player would mind in the least if the rules were "An insufficient bid bars partner for the remainder of the auction". What bridge players will mind - and mind very much - is the chaos and confusion that are bound to follow now that certain insufficient bids can be corrected to certain sufficient bids (or passes, or doubles, or redoubles - ye Gods!) while others cannot, and no one has a clue why this is. David Burn London, England From john at asimere.com Sat Jan 5 22:58:13 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 21:58:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead References: <000801c84f33$1a979fd0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <008901c84fe6$11bfbd30$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 12:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Opening Lead > >> On Behalf Of Ed Reppert >> Sent: 4. januar 2008 23:39 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blml] Opening Lead >> >> >> On Jan 4, 2008, at 5:25 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> > Law 21B is no longer available after the opening lead has been >> > faced! (L41C) >> >> That was precisely my point. :-) > > Sorry, I was unaware of that. But my point is that if application of Law > 21B > could have reduced (or even completely avoided) damage from misinformation > then making a faced opening lead shall be cause for denying any > rectification for such damage that could have been avoided under Law 21B. and what about the original offence by the declaring side and the requirement to draw attention to it BEFORE the opening lead? John > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cibor at poczta.fm Sun Jan 6 02:09:20 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 06 Jan 2008 02:09:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] L27 Message-ID: <20080106010920.C99D81E301E@f03.poczta.interia.pl> > For several years now, the laws of bridge have been subject to a process > of > watering down, to cater for the assumption that no one who plays bridge > is > actually a cad and a bounder. True. All this weighted adjusted score business means cheating in bridge has become a no-lose strategy. If, prior to the infraction committed by East-West (MI or UI) which made North-South stop in 2S, the probabilities of the North-South side getting to 4S and 3NT were 4S = 60% 3NT = 40% then the assigned adjusted score is 60% * 4S + 40% * 3NT. So where is the penalty? You commit an infraction and you get what you would otherwise have gotten. This means that people who cheat intentionally get an advantage because especially weaker pairs don't call the TD for UI rulings. If they do call the TD - makes no difference, cheaters will get the same score as their average expectancy was without the infraction. But if they don't call the TD - bonanza. This means players who knowingly use partner's hesitations or purposfully give muddled explanations gain big time over the rest of the field. Failing to acknowledge the existence of such players is sheer lunacy. I could give you names of a few - they have no problems coming up with huge scores in pairs tournaments for 300 pairs but somehow their skills seem to vanish when playing on screens against their peers. I remember once having heard a conversation between such players when one of them was saying that in a particular sequence his partner went into a tank and came up with a 3H bid. "Then I started thinking - what was he thinking about? And I this is how I figured that his hand was...". So the player in question openly admitted to cheating. Now what can you do against such a pair under the current laws? If I nail them when they are playing against me they will get the same score they would otherwise get. And weak pairs won't call the TD against them because weak pairs are unaible to catch all the inferences (sometimes very subtle) from hesitations. And please don't tell that I have to report them officailly - I have no hard proofs in my hand. No one has. And no one ever will. The only method to get rid of them would be to make them pay for using UI but the current laws offer no deterrent element for this. A general remark - people who created the laws are usually from the Anglo-Saxon cultures. And it is my impression that they naively think that the ethical standards they know are typical for the rest of the world. I remember an interview Zia once gave in one of the Polish biggest newspapers. When he was asked about cheating in bridge he said - bridge has always been a game of gentlemen there used to some problems in the past but not any more. If you cheat then your millieu excommunicates you and this is the highest punishment. O sancta simplicitas! Maybe in the US, may in Great Britain. But in principle the farther to the East the worse it is. I have an impression that the drafters have never seen a full blooded cheat of the deepest dye at the bridge table. I have - sometimes they were willing to tell stories about how they fooled some little old ladies unaware of anything. One of the Polish rising stars, a junior, in Montreal walks to the playing area, has a first time look at the pairs world championship facility, and comes back smiling - "Splendid, the tables are small" and winks. Another incident - declarer in 3NT takes nine tricks but she is persuaded by another junior that she went down. Dummy is not convinced but then the defender uses the decisive argument "but you didn't take the KD!". "No, indeed.", replies declarer. "So 8 tricks", concludes the defender. The opponents concede. Of course declarer took 9 tricks and the fact the he did indeed lose a trick for the KD had nothing to do with it - the remark about the KD was simply a psychological ploy. How do I know it was intentional? Because the defender in question was gloating about the cleverness of this trick and how often it worked for him in the lobby of the tournament. And the chap in question used to represent Poland in one of the world junior events. I'm not saying that people of this kind are a majority - in fact there are very, very few of them. And bridge players generally know who they are. But in order to work the current system requires 100% of honest players, 99% is not enough. No one has enough time and resources to record every single deal played by other player to gather enough condemning stuff and initiate a disciplinary process. Those who do cheat get a huge advantage. If the laws of the game made using UI unprofitable then they wouldn't start getting caught every single time, of course, but if they had to suffer the most unfavorable result that was even remotely possible every time they cheated then it would seriously limit their effectiveness especially in open no-screens tourneys. As it is - they have been given a free run. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mamy worek pelen prezentow. Te prezenty sa dla Ciebie. Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1cbf From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 6 03:30:40 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 02:30:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] WBF Drafting Sub-Committee. Message-ID: <007401c8500c$31759c00$bdc9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> <004d01c8436e$c1c18d50$38cb403e@Mildred> <000101c8438b$409bda10$c1d38e30$@com> <477C4060.7040106@ntlworld.com> <1A47716C-36B1-425F-A70E-E0A99AA54AE8@rochester.rr.com> <477D150C.7020909@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <47806390.5050908@ntlworld.com> [Konrad Ciborowski] For several years now, the laws of bridge have been subject to a process of watering down, to cater for the assumption that no one who plays bridge is actually a cad and a bounder. True. All this weighted adjusted score business means cheating in bridge has become a no-lose strategy. If, prior to the infraction committed by East-West (MI or UI) which made North-South stop in 2S, the probabilities of the North-South side getting to 4S and 3NT were 4S = 60% 3NT = 40% then the assigned adjusted score is 60% * 4S + 40% * 3NT. So where is the penalty? You commit an infraction and you get what you would otherwise have gotten. This means that people who cheat intentionally get an advantage because especially weaker pairs don't call the TD for UI rulings. If they do call the TD - makes no difference, cheaters will get the same score as their average expectancy was without the infraction. But if they don't call the TD - bonanza. This means players who knowingly use partner's hesitations or purposefully give muddled explanations gain big time over the rest of the field. Failing to acknowledge the existence of such players is sheer lunacy. I could give you names of a few - they have no problems coming up with huge scores in pairs tournaments for 300 pairs but somehow their skills seem to vanish when playing on screens against their peers. I remember once having heard a conversation between such players when one of them was saying that in a particular sequence his partner went into a tank and came up with a 3H bid. "Then I started thinking - what was he thinking about? And I this is how I figured that his hand was...". So the player in question openly admitted to cheating. Now what can you do against such a pair under the current laws? If I nail them when they are playing against me they will get the same score they would otherwise get. And weak pairs won't call the TD against them because weak pairs are unable to catch all the inferences (sometimes very subtle) from hesitations. And please don't tell that I have to report them officailly - I have no hard proofs in my hand. No one has. And no one ever will. The only method to get rid of them would be to make them pay for using UI but the current laws offer no deterrent element for this. A general remark - people who created the laws are usually from the Anglo-Saxon cultures. And it is my impression that they naively think that the ethical standards they know are typical for the rest of the world. I remember an interview Zia once gave in one of the Polish biggest newspapers. When he was asked about cheating in bridge he said - bridge has always been a game of gentlemen there used to some problems in the past but not any more. If you cheat then your millieu excommunicates you and this is the highest punishment. O sancta simplicitas! Maybe in the US, may in Great Britain. But in principle the farther to the East the worse it is. I have an impression that the drafters have never seen a full blooded cheat of the deepest dye at the bridge table. I have - sometimes they were willing to tell stories about how they fooled some little old ladies unaware of anything. One of the Polish rising stars, a junior, in Montreal walks to the playing area, has a first time look at the pairs world championship facility, and comes back smiling - "Splendid, the tables are small" and winks. Another incident - declarer in 3NT takes nine tricks but she is persuaded by another junior that she went down. Dummy is not convinced but then the defender uses the decisive argument "but you didn't take the KD!". "No, indeed.", replies declarer. "So 8 tricks", concludes the defender. The opponents concede. Of course declarer took 9 tricks and the fact the he did indeed lose a trick for the KD had nothing to do withit - the remark about the KD was simply a psychological ploy. How do I know it was intentional? Because the defender in question was gloating about the cleverness of this trick and how often it worked for him in the lobby of the tournament. And the chap in question used to represent Poland in one of the world junior events. I'm not saying that people of this kind are a majority - in fact there are very, very few of them. And bridge players generally know who they are. But in order to work the current system requires 100% of honest players, 99% is not enough. No one has enough time and resources to record every single deal played by other player to gather enough condemning stuff and initiate a disciplinary process. Those who do cheat get a huge advantage. If the laws of the game made using UI unprofitable then they wouldn't start getting caught every single time, of course, but if they had to suffer the most unfavorable result that was even remotely possible every time they cheated then it would seriously limit their effectiveness especially in open no-screens tourneys. As it is - they have been given a free run. [David Burn] A game is an artificial construct - it is not intended as a model or a reflection of correct ethical or social behaviour. What is legal may be done without moral censure attaching to whoever does it; what is not legal may not be done however "unjust" it may seem not to be able to do it. That is why the laws were originally what they were. They didn't presume that players were cads and bounders, nor did they presume that players were solid and upright citizens. They merely sought to make it unprofitable for cads and bounders to do what they might otherwise do. If you ruffed a trick when you could have followed suit, not only did you have to give that trick back, but you had to hand over another trick as well - the first by way of restitution, the second by way of penalty. If you illegally showed your partner one or more of your cards during the bidding or play, he might thereby obtain an advantage; the laws were constructed so that not only would he not obtain an advantage, your side would (usually) be disadvantaged. If you bid when it wasn't your turn, or did not bid enough when it was, similar considerations applied. The rules of all games except, nowadays, bridge, work as I have indicated above, and work very well. It is easy to state them. It is easy to apply them. And when players fall foul of them by mistake, they know that they are subject to the same penalties as if they had fallen foul of them on purpose, and they do not mind because they know that they are playing a game. For several years now, the laws of bridge have been subject to a process of watering down, to cater for the assumption that no one who plays bridge is actually a cad and a bounder. To exactly the extent that this watering-down process has taken place, the laws have become more confusing. If you gain no tricks by revoking, you are one or two tricks worse off than if you had not revoked. If you gain three tricks by revoking, you are no worse off than if you had not revoked. No one has a clue why this is - understandably, because it is irrational, so there is no "reason why" it is. Law 25 in the 1997 code was a catastrophic attempt to allow people not to have to face the consequences of their error in making the wrong bid at their turn. Law 27 in the 2007 code is an equally catastrophic attempt to allow people not to have to face the consequences of their error in making the wrong bid at their turn. No bridge player would mind in the least if the rules were "A call once made may not be changed", and no bridge player would mind in the least if the rules were "An insufficient bid bars partner for the remainder of the auction". What bridge players will mind - and mind very much - is the chaos and confusion that are bound to follow now that certain insufficient bids can be corrected to certain sufficient bids (or passes, or doubles, or redoubles - ye Gods!) while others cannot, and no one has a clue why this is. [Nigel] I've hijacked the above comments from the L27 thread. Konrad highlights a widespread problem and David specifies at least a partial solution. I have a small quibble with Konrad's analysis -- because I know no deliberate cheats. Nevertheless, the laws are subjective, sophisticated, fragmented and arcane. As Grattan recently pointed out, many BLML directors misinterpret the laws. Even fewer ordinary directors and players understand them. The laws also render law-breaking so profitable that an increasing number of ordinary respectable players rationalise law-breaking. Konrad and David indicate why. IMO To deter law-breakers and to reduce the frustration of those who still try to conform to the rules, a greater element of deterrence should be introduced. Also, as David Burn hints, you can prevent some kinds of law-breaking by simplifying the law without imposing draconian penalties. My favourite example is the explanation "no agreement". When I claim that this is often prevarication, BLMLers accuse me of paranoia. If the law-book endorsed Richard Hill's protocol, it would be easy to establish whether I am. Richard's suggestion allows ordinary club bridge to benefit from one of the advantages conferred by screens. Richard proposes that when an opponent says he does not know what his partner's call means, you should be able to send him away from the table and ask his partner what the systemic meaning is. What I think is really beautiful about the introduction of this simple rule is that it would almost never need to be invoked. In my opinion, players' memories would undergo an immediate and dramatic improvement. From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Jan 6 12:43:00 2008 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 11:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <200801021539.m02Fdbwt008238@mta10.mx.cix.co.uk> Message-ID: Ton wrote: > Coming back to my example: declarer leads in trick 10 and LHO says: > 'this is your last trick'. RHO objects and play has to be continued. Is this a "concession thereby etc.."? Answer "yes". Did pard object immediately? Answer "yes". L68b2 says the concession is cancelled. Because the concession has ceased to exist the "claim" (which existed only as a dependent of the concession) can also be said to have ceased to exist. > Are you really trying to tell me that with: 'I take the last 3 > tricks' and partner objecting play can't be continued? Ton, are you seriously suggesting that "I take the last 3 tricks" is anything other than a claim as defined in Law68a? Is it claim because there was "a concession thereby..". Answer NO. Does L68b2 (or the 2001 minute) address the matter of cancelling *explicit* claims. Answer "NO". Does any law address what must happen after there is a claim *or* concession which has *not* been cancelled? Answer "YES" - L68D. What does L698D unequivocally state: "PLAY CEASES". Now personally I couldn't give a rat's a**e as to whether, philosophically, play should/shouldn't cease after a claim/concession. What really pi**es me off is when those who are supposed to be responsible for the laws keep telling me I'm wrong because they have FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE PLAIN ENGLISH IN WHICH THE WORDS ARE WRITTEN. THEREBY requires CAUSALITY. If a claim has not been CAUSED by a concession it is NOT a subject of the 2001 minute. Please feel free to consult a lawyer or an English linguistic specialist. I am not wrong about what the minute covers regardless of what the author of the minute intended. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Jan 6 12:43:00 2008 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 11:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000201c84d62$3fe846e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: > *From:* "Sven Pran" > *To:* "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > *Date:* Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:09:34 +0100 > > > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > ................. > > Explicit claims are a different matter. The WBF minute never > > applied to > > explicit claims (even those where the claim was for a specific > > number of > > tricks THEREBY conceding the remainder). > > You should know better than producing false statements like that. > > Here is the text of that minute; it simply states that neither any > concession nor any claim has been made when partner to a defender > making a concession immediately objects. That is untrue. > There is nothing in that > minute to specify that it matters whether the concession was made > one way or the other. I can't believe this. You provide the full text of the minute: > "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, .." "I get two tricks and you get the last three" is not a case of a concession THEREBY claiming. It is explicitly both a claim AND a concession. "OK, I get my two hearts" is an explicit claim and, if more than two tricks remain, it is a "claim THEREBY conceding the remainder. Will Sven, Ton, and Grattan please read: Main Entry: there?by Pronunciation: \ther-'bi, 'ther-?\ Function: adverb Date: before 12th century 1 : by that : by that means (Merriam Webster) The structure of the sentence does not support the alternative meaning. Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 6 13:04:44 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:04:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Penalize or Rectify? References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> <004d01c8436e$c1c18d50$38cb403e@Mildred> <000101c8438b$409bda10$c1d38e30$@com> <477C4060.7040106@ntlworld.com> <1A47716C-36B1-425F-A70E-E0A99AA54AE8@rochester.rr.com><477D150C.7020909@ntlworld.com> <47806390.5050908@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <003d01c8505c$5e7ef110$77ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 5:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Penalize or Rectify? > [David Burn] > A game is an artificial construct - it is not intended as a > model or a reflection of correct ethical or social behaviour. > What is legal may be done without moral censure attaching > to whoever does it; what is not legal may not be done > however "unjust" it may seem not to be able to do it. > +=+ Exactly. This is the argument I propound when suggesting that players should stop arguing about the laws when they are established and just get on with playing the game in accordance with them. It is fair to question interpretation of a law but debating the fact that the law is what it is merely kicks air. . On the general point made by the hawks in this thread, a distinction is made between 'rectifiy' and 'penalize'. For long enough the lawbooks have been asserting that "the laws are not primarily designed as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage". The drafters have acted in accordance with this longstanding principle, separating redress through mandatory rectification from punishment by means of discretionary penalties. Where the screws have been tightened in the 2007 laws is in allowing less scope for recovery from error once committed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun Jan 6 13:18:30 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:18:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: References: <200801021539.m02Fdbwt008238@mta10.mx.cix.co.uk> Message-ID: <004c01c8505e$40114280$c033c780$@com> [TWM] THEREBY requires CAUSALITY. If a claim has not been CAUSED by a concession it is NOT a subject of the 2001 minute. Please feel free to consult a lawyer or an English linguistic specialist. [DALB] thereby, adv. [3] Besides, together with, or in addition to that Oxford English Dictionary David Burn London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 6 13:32:49 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:32:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] concession References: Message-ID: <000a01c85068$010d5150$e8cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] concession > *From:* "Sven Pran" > *To:* "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > *Date:* Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:09:34 +0100 > > "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, .." "I get two tricks and you get the last three" is not a case of a concession THEREBY claiming. It is explicitly both a claim AND a concession. "OK, I get my two hearts" is an explicit claim and, if more than two tricks remain, it is a "claim THEREBY conceding the remainder. +=+ In my opinion that statement and the statement that "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder" are reciprocal and "you can't have one without the other". What is clear is that play continues and the only question is whether the claimer is or is not free to play as he wishes. That is a matter for interpretation. Personally I would say that if we had meant the player to be constrained to play in a particular way Law 68B2 would have said so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 6 13:32:49 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:32:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] concession References: Message-ID: <000a01c85068$010d5150$e8cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] concession > *From:* "Sven Pran" > *To:* "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > *Date:* Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:09:34 +0100 > > "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, .." "I get two tricks and you get the last three" is not a case of a concession THEREBY claiming. It is explicitly both a claim AND a concession. "OK, I get my two hearts" is an explicit claim and, if more than two tricks remain, it is a "claim THEREBY conceding the remainder. +=+ In my opinion that statement and the statement that "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder" are reciprocal and "you can't have one without the other". What is clear is that play continues and the only question is whether the claimer is or is not free to play as he wishes. That is a matter for interpretation. Personally I would say that if we had meant the player to be constrained to play in a particular way Law 68B2 would have said so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 6 14:03:45 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 13:03:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] concession References: Message-ID: <000b01c85068$021aa2a0$e8cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] concession > > > THEREBY requires CAUSALITY. If a claim has > not been CAUSED by a concession it is NOT a subject > of the 2001 minute. Please feel free to consult a lawyer > or an English linguistic specialist.I am not wrong about > what the minute covers regardless of what the author > of the minute intended. > +=+ We are not short of legal advice in the WBF Laws Committee (one judge and sundry advocates) and in the WBF Drafting Subcommittee (one advocate). We also comprise, by definition, some 19 linguistic specialists of several diverse first languages :-). However, I take it that you are arguing that the 2001 minute is not concerned with the situation in which the concession is the complement of a claim. On this basis, if the LC agrees with you we will have to produce a further interpretation of the law to cover the situation. No doubt we can do this. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 6 14:03:45 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 13:03:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] concession References: Message-ID: <000b01c85068$021aa2a0$e8cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] concession > > > THEREBY requires CAUSALITY. If a claim has > not been CAUSED by a concession it is NOT a subject > of the 2001 minute. Please feel free to consult a lawyer > or an English linguistic specialist.I am not wrong about > what the minute covers regardless of what the author > of the minute intended. > +=+ We are not short of legal advice in the WBF Laws Committee (one judge and sundry advocates) and in the WBF Drafting Subcommittee (one advocate). We also comprise, by definition, some 19 linguistic specialists of several diverse first languages :-). However, I take it that you are arguing that the 2001 minute is not concerned with the situation in which the concession is the complement of a claim. On this basis, if the LC agrees with you we will have to produce a further interpretation of the law to cover the situation. No doubt we can do this. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Sun Jan 6 14:38:49 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 14:38:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c85069$788c7c00$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ................ > "I get two tricks and you get the last three" is not a case of a > concession THEREBY claiming. It is explicitly both a claim AND a > concession. > > "OK, I get my two hearts" is an explicit claim and, if more than two > tricks remain, it is a "claim THEREBY conceding the remainder. > > Will Sven, Ton, and Grattan please read: > > Main Entry: there.by > Pronunciation: \ther-'bi, 'ther-?\ > Function: adverb > Date: before 12th century > 1 : by that : by that means > > (Merriam Webster) > The structure of the sentence does not support the alternative meaning. And why not my Webster's alternative 2: Connected with that or as pointed out by David Burns (from Oxford): [3] Besides, together with, or in addition to that Is it your firm conviction that the same reality shall be ruled upon by widely incompatible rules just because of randomly different words used? Example with five tricks left to play: 1: OK, you get three (also a claim of two as defined in Law 68A) 2: I get two (also a concession of three as defined in Law 68B1) 3: You get three and I get two 4: I get two and you get three Sven From Gampas at aol.com Sun Jan 6 16:29:47 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:29:47 EST Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke Message-ID: In a message dated 04/01/2008 19:58:45 GMT Standard Time, ehaa at starpower.net writes: L64C doesn't "extend" L64B4-5; it operates independently of them. The "compensation" referred to in L64C is not the "penalty" derived in L64A, but the actual number of tricks transferred to the NOS after L64A-B have been applied in full. If that number tricks is insufficient to compensate for the actual damage, L64C requires full compensation via an adjusted score. Here that number of tricks is zero, and that's all that matters as far as L64C is concerned. [paul lamford] This doesn't accord with the normal way time limits are applied. On your basis you would argue that any revoke can be "drawn attention to" up to 30 minutes after the end of the session, or within such other period as the SO decrees, provided that any player would have done better had that revoke not occurred. I can certainly see some players not being able to remember whether they followed to the third round of clubs 23 boards ago! From john at asimere.com Sun Jan 6 17:41:04 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:41:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Penalize or Rectify? References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> <004d01c8436e$c1c18d50$38cb403e@Mildred> <000101c8438b$409bda10$c1d38e30$@com> <477C4060.7040106@ntlworld.com> <1A47716C-36B1-425F-A70E-E0A99AA54AE8@rochester.rr.com><477D150C.7020909@ntlworld.com> <47806390.5050908@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <002201c85082$ef4c6170$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 5:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Penalize or Rectify? > > Richard proposes that when an opponent says he does not know what his > partner's call means, you should be able to send him away from the > table and ask his partner what the systemic meaning is. What I think > is really beautiful about the introduction of this simple rule is that > it would almost never need to be invoked. In my opinion, players' > memories would undergo an immediate and dramatic improvement. > "It means X": after the hand "but I psyched it" > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sun Jan 6 17:52:37 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:52:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] concession References: <000001c85069$788c7c00$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <002701c85084$8c0d0db0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] concession > > Example with five tricks left to play: > > 1: OK, you get three (also a claim of two as defined in Law 68A) > > 2: I get two (also a concession of three as defined in Law 68B1) > > 3: You get three and I get two > > 4: I get two and you get three If partner immediately objects, play continues. They're all the same. John > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Jan 6 18:07:43 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:07:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] opening lead Message-ID: <47810ADF.3050102@aol.com> Although I am an experienced TD I seem to be simpleminded. The situation described often occurs in games I have directed (or in which I have played). As a general rule the player making the opening lead face down asks generally (the table, not a specific player) if he may now face the card ("my lead?"). My reaction as TD to the case mentioned (but remember that I seem to be simpleminded) would be to ask why anyone objects to answering the question and tell them to do so (answer the question). What puzzles me as well is the unfriendliness and impoliteness of anyone refusing to answer such a simple and, to my way of thinking, harmless, question. Are the players so unfriendly when the rest of you direct or play? Am I missing something? The question seems harmless to me. A classic case of making a mountain out of a molehill. Or I am missing something. JE From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Jan 6 18:49:56 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:49:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] opening lead In-Reply-To: <47810ADF.3050102@aol.com> References: <47810ADF.3050102@aol.com> Message-ID: <1C6AC55D-9C57-4235-9044-457F7062DC94@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 6, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Although I am an experienced TD I seem to be simpleminded. The > situation described often occurs in games I have directed (or in > which I > have played). As a general rule the player making the opening lead > face > down asks generally (the table, not a specific player) if he may now > face the card ("my lead?"). My reaction as TD to the case mentioned > (but remember that I seem to be simpleminded) would be to ask why > anyone > objects to answering the question and tell them to do so (answer the > question). What puzzles me as well is the unfriendliness and > impoliteness of anyone refusing to answer such a simple and, to my way > of thinking, harmless, question. Are the players so unfriendly > when the > rest of you direct or play? Am I missing something? The question > seems > harmless to me. A classic case of making a mountain out of a molehill. > Or I am missing something. JE The problem is that players don't know the rules - they only know what they're used to doing or seeing. When they misunderstand a rule you tend, IME, to get situations like this. Around here, what I mostly see is a face down opening lead, followed by "any questions, partner?" Players are very surprised, even in a complex competitive auction, when I also separately ask the declarer if *he* has any questions. Separately, because I know damn well that 99% of the players around here aren't aware that declarer can ask questions at this point. The player in this thread didn't do that, so his opponent probably thinks something fishy is going on, and is trying to avoid falling into leader's "trap". Even though there probably isn't one. Many people think a face down opening lead isn't actually led yet - that is, they aren't constrained by it until they turn it over. They can pick it back up and pick another lead. Some of them even think they can do this even after partner asks questions! Some are aware that if it's not their lead, the TD will *tell* them to pick it back up and put it in their hand. "No harm, no foul," they think, and "what the heck do we need a director for? I'll just do it myself." This is why I said the "right" answer to the original question ("may I lead?") is "you already did". It's one of my feeble attempts to educate players. As to "unfriendliness and impoliteness", I suppose it's a matter of the (bridge) culture. I never saw anything unfriendly or impolite at the bridge table in the three years I lived in England, but I see plenty of it here in the Northeastern US. We're trying to stamp it out, with our neighbor's "Zero Tolerance" policy (it was originated in the Toronto area) which has since, at least in theory, been established ACBL wide. Unfortunately, in practice at the clubs around here, club owners will *say* "we have a ZT policy here", but when push comes to shove, they are *not* issuing DPs - that might drive away paying customers! So the policy has no teeth. So players, being human, will continue being rude and unfriendly, because they can. Still, I agree that it's probably a harmless question, that the laws say he can ask it, and don't say anything about of whom he should ask it. So what he's done is completely legal, and his opponent should just answer the question and get on with the game. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jan 6 18:53:00 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:53:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <002701c85084$8c0d0db0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000701c8508c$fa9aed80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of John Probst ................. > > Example with five tricks left to play: > > > > 1: OK, you get three (also a claim of two as defined in Law 68A) > > > > 2: I get two (also a concession of three as defined in Law 68B1) > > > > 3: You get three and I get two > > > > 4: I get two and you get three > > If partner immediately objects, play continues. They're all the same. > John That is exactly my opinion as well, but Tim apparently thinks otherwise? He seems to say that when a player begins his statement with the word "I get" (or words to that effect) then it is primarily a claim for which Law 68B2 cannot apply. If I have understood him correct his opinion is that play can only continue under Law 68B2 with examples 1 and 3 above. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Jan 6 18:58:33 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:58:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] opening lead In-Reply-To: <47810ADF.3050102@aol.com> Message-ID: <000801c8508d$c1a31380$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > Although I am an experienced TD I seem to be simpleminded. The > situation described often occurs in games I have directed (or in which I > have played). As a general rule the player making the opening lead face > down asks generally (the table, not a specific player) if he may now > face the card ("my lead?"). My reaction as TD to the case mentioned > (but remember that I seem to be simpleminded) would be to ask why anyone > objects to answering the question and tell them to do so (answer the > question). What puzzles me as well is the unfriendliness and > impoliteness of anyone refusing to answer such a simple and, to my way > of thinking, harmless, question. Are the players so unfriendly when the > rest of you direct or play? Am I missing something? The question seems > harmless to me. A classic case of making a mountain out of a molehill. > Or I am missing something. JE You are missing the point that it is none of presumed declaring side's business to give the opening leader permission to face his opening lead. Such permission is to be given by his partner as a confirmation that he has no (more) questions to ask. That much said it is not acceptable for any player in any situation to act unfriendly or impolite at the table (Law 74A2) Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Jan 6 19:07:10 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 13:07:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] opening lead In-Reply-To: <000801c8508d$c1a31380$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000801c8508d$c1a31380$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Jan 6, 2008, at 12:58 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > You are missing the point that it is none of presumed declaring side's > business to give the opening leader permission to face his opening > lead. True. > Such permission is to be given by his partner as a confirmation > that he has > no (more) questions to ask. Nonsense. The purpose of the face down lead procedure is twofold: it allows both leader's partner *and declarer* to ask questions about the auction, and it minimizes potential problems when it turns out there has been MI or that the person who made the face down lead was not actually the one who should have done so. There is nothing in the laws about "permission", and if there were, leader would need it from *both* his partner and declarer. > That much said it is not acceptable for any player in any situation > to act > unfriendly or impolite at the table (Law 74A2) With this much I agree completely. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Jan 7 02:37:14 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:37:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?opening_lead=B2?= Message-ID: <4781824A.70603@aol.com> May I attempt a clarification? (Unfortunately I have deleted the original posting with the problem but I think I have a decent recollection of it.) First: I think there are two possible questions/enquiries and although the difference is slight it does, IMHO, have some effect. A player who believes he has to make the opening lead should place a card face down on the table. He has no need to ask anyone anything; he simply waits for his partner to agree (says "okay" or whatever) or someone to object. (If the partner doesn't react he can, of course, ask directly.) That is the first situation and I think proper procedure is as I have described it; no questions. Naturally it is clear that it is the partner who gives him permission to face his lead. The second situation is when a player is not certain that he has to make the opening lead. He can/should then ask if he is on lead. Naturally there is no reason for him to place a card facedown as well but we should not make a federal case of it. If he asks if he is on lead any player can and should respond (again, IMHO). I am not quite sure from the original posting which of these actually was the case. We all play in clubs in which many players do not know the laws and habitually misconstruen or violate them. It often happens that a player asks me (as defender) if he can face his opening lead. Is this a serious problem? I doubt it. Either I (politely and in a friendly tone) inform him that only his partner can answer his question or I make some sort of motion to indicate this. If I am the partner of someone asking an opponent if he can face his card I tell him that he can (or can't because I want to ask a question) although he didn't ask me. As Richard says, "what's the problem?". (Or is it "where is the problem?"?) Is there any serious objection to this behaviour/procedure? What bothered me in the original posting (and I waited to see if anyone would pick up on it) was the behaviour of the player who refused to answer. She was experienced enough to know the rule (that she shouldn't have been asked) and surely realised that the opponent wasn't, since he didn't seem to know it. So why the confrontational attitude? As TD I'd have pointed out ?74A1 & ?74A2 (as well as zero tolerance) and told her that she was not observing them and could be penalised. I'd also warn her to, in the future, avoid confrontational, discourteous reactions that might cause annoyance to another player or interfere with the enjoyment of the game. I'd also demand that she (or someone else) answer the question and not overreact to such meaningless errors. The fact that, according to the laws, she was not the proper person to ask, does not justify her reaction (IMHO). JE From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 7 05:18:07 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:18:07 +1100 Subject: [blml] Definition of "trick" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200801051350.AA11954@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Robert Geller: [snip] >the word "flawed" (set off by asterisks below) should be >deleted and replaced by "defective." The reason is that a >search of the pdf file shows that "flawed" is ONLY used in the >definition of "trick" (and nowhere else) whereas "defective" >is used everywhere else. > >It might be good to set off "unless defective" by commas while >we're at it. [snip] Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". Richard Hills: I am likewise a "little mind", since when I was proofreading a draft of the 2007 Lawbook I made notes of inconsistencies in inverted commas - sometimes double inverted commas, sometimes single. My suggestion for consistency in inverted commas was rejected, perhaps for the same reason that a Bukhara carpet has a small deliberate flaw. 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 Mon Jan 7 06:07:04 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:07:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?opening_lead=B2?= In-Reply-To: <4781824A.70603@aol.com> References: <4781824A.70603@aol.com> Message-ID: <28F56298-2FD8-4344-97B2-0DDA4656D101@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 6, 2008, at 8:37 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Naturally it is clear that it is the partner who gives > him permission to face his lead. Not so. Read the first sentence of Law 41B (both 1997 and 2007 versions) carefully, please. In particular, note the words "presumed declarer" in that sentence. From martino at bridgenz.co.nz Thu Jan 3 12:27:17 2008 From: martino at bridgenz.co.nz (Martin Oyston) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 00:27:17 +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: 4448 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080104/a99c618a/attachment-0001.bin From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Sat Jan 5 12:16:47 2008 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?=) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 12:16:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited Message-ID: <54D4F18E08F645AD94CA6508ABBEE1AD@FK27.local> West has to follow suit to a heart trick. While pulling the three of hearts from his hand, the king of hearts drops on the table. Is this a case for Law 58B2 or not, or: does the TD have to investigate whether the king actually dropped, or that the player held two cards in his hand when he faced them? Similar cases have been discussed in the past, but please indulge me ;-) To my surprise the new Laws have not altered Law 58B2, so seemingly the answer to my question is obvious. Forgive my slow mind... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080105/a3b11c5d/attachment-0001.htm From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Sat Jan 5 12:32:50 2008 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?=) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 12:32:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited Message-ID: EDIT: West is a defender! West has to follow suit to a heart trick. While pulling the three of hearts from his hand, the king of hearts drops on the table. Is this a case for Law 58B2 or not, or: does the TD have to investigate whether the king actually dropped, or that the player held two cards in his hand when he faced them? Similar cases have been discussed in the past, but please indulge me ;-) To my surprise the new Laws have not altered Law 58B2, so seemingly the answer to my question is obvious. Forgive my slow mind... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080105/98c1b13a/attachment-0001.htm From nancy at dressing.org Sat Jan 5 23:20:02 2008 From: nancy at dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:20:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main> References: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main> Message-ID: <000a01c84fe9$1e267430$0201a8c0@main> I think we all have agreed that Law 20C1 applies. Now how do we handle the refusal of the person to answer the question. A belated part of the argument was that she was the dummy, but of course, she is not yet the dummy. Tactfully naturally, but how do we eliminate the argument "I am not responsible to tell him that he could lead"? Nancy _____ From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Nancy T Dressing Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 9:49 PM To: 'Bridge Laws' Subject: [blml] Opening Lead Recently at the club, at the end of the auction, a player removed a card from his hand, placed it face down on the table and asked LHO "May I lead?". LHO refused to answer the question stating she did not feel that she was responsible for telling him that he could lead. She suggested he ask his partner if he could lead. The person about to lead then said, :I am asking you, because if my partner gives me the wrong information, I will be penalized but if I ask you, I won't be." A stalemate was now reached and neither opponent offered the information that he was the correct leader. The director was called. What ruling should be made in this situation? LHO also later stated that she was the dummy and therefore could not answer the question. Two rounds later, the same player followed the same procedure asking the same question and his RHO said, "No, it is not your lead". Nancy T Dressing No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1206 - Release Date: 1/1/2008 12:09 PM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008 11:29 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1210 - Release Date: 1/5/2008 11:46 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080105/77e4b74f/attachment-0002.htm From nancy at dressing.org Sat Jan 5 23:20:02 2008 From: nancy at dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:20:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main> References: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main> Message-ID: <000a01c84fe9$1e267430$0201a8c0@main> I think we all have agreed that Law 20C1 applies. Now how do we handle the refusal of the person to answer the question. A belated part of the argument was that she was the dummy, but of course, she is not yet the dummy. Tactfully naturally, but how do we eliminate the argument "I am not responsible to tell him that he could lead"? Nancy _____ From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Nancy T Dressing Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 9:49 PM To: 'Bridge Laws' Subject: [blml] Opening Lead Recently at the club, at the end of the auction, a player removed a card from his hand, placed it face down on the table and asked LHO "May I lead?". LHO refused to answer the question stating she did not feel that she was responsible for telling him that he could lead. She suggested he ask his partner if he could lead. The person about to lead then said, :I am asking you, because if my partner gives me the wrong information, I will be penalized but if I ask you, I won't be." A stalemate was now reached and neither opponent offered the information that he was the correct leader. The director was called. What ruling should be made in this situation? LHO also later stated that she was the dummy and therefore could not answer the question. Two rounds later, the same player followed the same procedure asking the same question and his RHO said, "No, it is not your lead". Nancy T Dressing No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1206 - Release Date: 1/1/2008 12:09 PM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008 11:29 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1210 - Release Date: 1/5/2008 11:46 AM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080105/77e4b74f/attachment-0003.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 7 10:15:26 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:15:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000a01c85068$010d5150$e8cd403e@Mildred> References: <000a01c85068$010d5150$e8cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4781EDAE.3090108@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************** > "In nature there are neither > rewards nor punishments - > there are consequences. > [R.G.Ingersoll] > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-Meads" > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:43 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] concession > > >> *From:* "Sven Pran" >> *To:* "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" >> *Date:* Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:09:34 +0100 >> > > "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, .." > > "I get two tricks and you get the last three" is not a case of a > concession THEREBY claiming. It is explicitly both a claim AND a > concession. > > "OK, I get my two hearts" is an explicit claim and, if more than two > tricks remain, it is a "claim THEREBY conceding the remainder. > > +=+ In my opinion that statement and the statement that > "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the > remainder" are reciprocal and "you can't have one without > the other". What is clear is that play continues and the only > question is whether the claimer is or is not free to play as > he wishes. That is a matter for interpretation. Personally > I would say that if we had meant the player to be constrained > to play in a particular way Law 68B2 would have said so. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I believe some things are obvious: "Play continues" means play continues. Play continues means the defender shall put a card on the table. One card, not all of them. Any card, not one that has been mentioned. Play continues. Isn't that obvious? Now I gather that some people wish to hold the claiming defender to his "claim" statement. More so than the merely conceding defender. I think that is a superfluous wish. After all, the objection must be considered as UI to the original claimer. That means that he is no longer allowed to play the suggested card, if there is a logical alternative to it. This is a very strict regulation. Many cards in his hand will be dissalowed now. If, on top of that, the nitpicking TD's from this thread will also want to rule on his claim, they will need to find the least successful of all his "normal" cards. Do you not think that the UI restrictions are just equally severe as the claim ruling? So why not simply do what the lawbook instructs: PLAY CONTINUES The only time this is really important is when there is still a trick to be won by partner, but depending on the lead by original claimer. Say partner has an unexpected trump, and a void. Declarer has the one other, higher trump, and high cards in both other suits. If claimer picks the voided suit, partner makes another trick, otherwise not. Of course claimer has cards in both suits, and partner has not yet shown out. If there is now no way the objection points to one suit or the other, then should we not allow claimer to pick? Of course if there is any way the claimer can reason it out, he should not be allowed to "have a rethink". But if there is no way by reason? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 7 11:29:52 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:29:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001c01c85118$3d338270$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> On Behalf Of Andre Steffens EDIT: West is a defender! ? West has to follow suit to a heart trick. While pulling the three of hearts from his hand, the king of hearts drops on the table. ? Is this a case for Law 58B2 or not, or: does the TD have to investigate whether the king actually dropped, or that the player held two cards in his hand when he faced them? ? Similar cases have been discussed in the past, but please indulge me ;-) To my surprise the new Laws have not altered Law 58B2, so seemingly the answer to my question is obvious. Forgive my slow mind... Sven: Law 58B applies regardless of how the situation occurred. If only one card is visible then apply Law 58B1, if both cards are visible then apply Law 58B2. Be aware that the player is not bound by his possibly original intention to play the three; he is allowed to "designate" the King as "the card he proposes to play". If he designates the three to be played the King automatically becomes a major penalty card (because of its rank), but if he designates the King to be played then (see Law 50B: "as in playing two cards to a trick") the three becomes a minor penalty card (unless he already has another penalty card)! Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jan 7 12:12:00 2008 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:12 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000701c8508c$fa9aed80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > > Example with five tricks left to play: > > > > > > 1: OK, you get three (also a claim of two as defined in Law 68A) > > > > > > 2: I get two (also a concession of three as defined in Law 68B1) > > > > > > 3: You get three and I get two > > > > > > 4: I get two and you get three > > > > If partner immediately objects, play continues. They're all the > > same. > > John > > That is exactly my opinion as well, but Tim apparently thinks > otherwise? > > He seems to say that when a player begins his statement with the > word "I get" (or words to that effect) then it is primarily a claim It doesn't matter how the statement begins - it matters only what the statement contains. Only in 1) above has the player conceded resulting in a concession. In the other 3 there has been an explicit claim as per L68A and regardless of L68b1/2 we must apply L68D. That's exactly the same law we would apply in case 1) were the objection slower than "immediate". Had the lawmakers wished to group all concessions together they should have written L68b2: "Regardless of L68A or 1 preceding..." and left in the words "or claim" (they didn't thus there is no provision to cancel a claim as defined in L68A). The 2001 footnote might have read: It was agreed that when a both a concession and claim have occurred, if the defender's partner immediately objects to the concession, under Law 68B both the concession and claim are cancelled. As I pointed out in an earlier message I am perfectly aware of the alternative (and more archaic) meaning of thereby but the construction of the sentence simply does not justify that interpretation. Tim From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jan 7 12:39:05 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:39:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalize or Rectify? In-Reply-To: <003d01c8505c$5e7ef110$77ca403e@Mildred> References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> <004d01c8436e$c1c18d50$38cb403e@Mildred> <000101c8438b$409bda10$c1d38e30$@com> <477C4060.7040106@ntlworld.com> <1A47716C-36B1-425F-A70E-E0A99AA54AE8@rochester.rr.com><477D150C.7020909@ntlworld.com> <47806390.5050908@ntlworld.com> <003d01c8505c$5e7ef110$77ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47820F59.9040100@ntlworld.com> [David Burn] A game is an artificial construct - it is not intended as a model or a reflection of correct ethical or social behaviour. What is legal may be done without moral censure attaching to whoever does it; what is not legal may not be done however "unjust" it may seem not to be able to do it. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Exactly. This is the argument I propound when suggesting that players should stop arguing about the laws when they are established and just get on with playing the game in accordance with them. It is fair to question interpretation of a law but debating the fact that the law is what it is merely kicks air. . On the general point made by the hawks in this thread, a distinction is made between 'rectify' and 'penalize'. For long enough the lawbooks have been asserting that "the laws are not primarily designed as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage". The drafters have acted in accordance with this longstanding principle, separating redress through mandatory rectification from punishment by means of discretionary penalties. Where the screws have been tightened in the 2007 laws is in allowing less scope for recovery from error once committed. [Nige1] Grattan is right that *fundamental* criticism of Bridge-rules is unlikely to have much effect just after a new edition of the law-book. Nevertheless, legal reform is a perennial interest for BLMLers and these improvements(?) have been suggested many times in the past. Grattan is also right that understanding the current rules is of more importance to most BLMLers. Perhaps that should entail immediate *minor* changes to the new law-book because there is so much controversy over its interpretation. Although Ton's illustrative cases would be a welcome addition to the law-book, arguably, the first priority should be to tighten up and clarify the wording in the body of the text. From cibor at poczta.fm Mon Jan 7 13:48:15 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 07 Jan 2008 13:48:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] L13Db - why artificial? Message-ID: <20080107124815.DBE155C200C@f40.poczta.interia.pl> When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board contained an incorrect number of cards and a player has seen one or more cards of another player’s hand, if the Director deems that the unauthorized information gained thereby is of sufficient importance to interfere with normal bidding or play the Director shall award an ARTIFICIAL adjusted score and may penalize an offender. Let us suppose that in a team match I go down for 1100 on a partscore deal. I then put (accidently or otherwise) my ace of spades face up in my pocket of the board (but not on top). Because of that everyone will see this ace of spades at the other table when the player with my hand pulls his cards from the pocket board and starts counting them. Now it looks that the TD has no option but to rule that my opponents get 3 IMPs for the board instead of 14 or so. Sure he might give me a PP but this is as far as he can go. Was this intended? Or is it just a ommission and L13Db was supposed to let the TD also assign a non-artificial adjusted score? -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wybierasz si? na narty? Sprawdz warunki na stokach! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cc7 From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 7 13:58:29 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:58:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478221F5.7020207@skynet.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > > Had the lawmakers wished to group all concessions together they should > have written L68b2: > > "Regardless of L68A or 1 preceding..." and left in the words "or claim" > (they didn't thus there is no provision to cancel a claim as defined in > L68A). > But they did not decide to leave it in! See the 1997L68B! It was added in a draft, and they decided not to put it in, because they deemed it was not needed. Putting it in would have meant they had changed something in this law, which they decided they did not want to do. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From vitoldbr at yandex.ru Mon Jan 7 15:02:01 2008 From: vitoldbr at yandex.ru (vitoldbr) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:02:01 +0300 Subject: [blml] L13Db - why artificial? Message-ID: <42771199714521@webmail26.yandex.ru> Hi all:) It is rather L23 Regards Vitold From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 7 17:53:41 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:53:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] L27 In-Reply-To: <477F96F4.9090408@nhcc.net> References: <200801041458.m04EwxnL022610@cfa.harvard.edu> <477F96F4.9090408@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <17808E51-C4F7-47E0-BB9E-2CAE27B4F8DC@starpower.net> On Jan 5, 2008, at 9:40 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > While we're on the topic, what about L27C2? Suppose I make an IB that > will bar partner. Having a balanced hand, I guess 3NT, which turns > out > to be a terrible contract. However, today is my lucky day, and with > three finesses and a suit break, the contract makes. Under the 1997 > Laws, I keep the lucky score. Will that change after the new Laws > take > effect? If so, this should be part of director training, and players > need to be fully advised when the occasion arises. I can't imagine that the authors intended to create a situation where a player is forced to guess at a final contract with no chance of keeping his good score if he makes a successful guess; that just wouldn't make sense. I think they intended L27C to be read as though the "if" clause in L27C1 preceded the "1". Just one more case where an outside copyreader would have helped. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Mon Jan 7 17:59:07 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:59:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead References: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main> <000a01c84fe9$1e267430$0201a8c0@main> Message-ID: <003c01c8514e$9e541a70$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" ; "'Bridge Laws'" Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Opening Lead >I think we all have agreed that Law 20C1 applies. Now how do we handle the > refusal of the person to answer the question. A belated part of the > argument was that she was the dummy, but of course, she is not yet the > dummy. Tactfully naturally, but how do we eliminate the argument "I am > not > responsible to tell him that he could lead"? "I'm afraid it's not in the interest of the declaring side to answer that question, sorry" :) John > > Nancy > From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 7 19:49:38 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 13:49:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000b01c85068$021aa2a0$e8cd403e@Mildred> References: <000b01c85068$021aa2a0$e8cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <5B9FE239-143F-478F-9A70-9EF2ECADBC9D@starpower.net> On Jan 6, 2008, at 8:03 AM, wrote: > From: "Tim West-Meads" > >> THEREBY requires CAUSALITY. If a claim has >> not been CAUSED by a concession it is NOT a subject >> of the 2001 minute. Please feel free to consult a lawyer >> or an English linguistic specialist.I am not wrong about >> what the minute covers regardless of what the author >> of the minute intended. >> > +=+ We are not short of legal advice in the WBF Laws > Committee (one judge and sundry advocates) and in the > WBF Drafting Subcommittee (one advocate). We also > comprise, by definition, some 19 linguistic specialists of > several diverse first languages :-). > However, I take it that you are arguing that the 2001 > minute is not concerned with the situation in which the > concession is the complement of a claim. On this basis, > if the LC agrees with you we will have to produce a > further interpretation of the law to cover the situation. > No doubt we can do this. I can't seem to get this across, but I'll try once more. Tim is arguing that the 2001 minute is not concerned with the situation in which the concession is the *consequence* of a claim. It does, however, apply, explicitly and incontrovertably, to the situaton in which the claim is the consequence of a concession. Grattan uses the word "complement", which is applicable to *either* situation, suggesting that he fails to appreciate the distinction Tim (along with myself and others) makes, which is critical to understanding his argument. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 7 20:25:45 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:25:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 6, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 04/01/2008 19:58:45 GMT Standard Time, > ehaa at starpower.net > writes: > > L64C doesn't "extend" L64B4-5; it operates independently of them. > The "compensation" referred to in L64C is not the "penalty" derived > in L64A, but the actual number of tricks transferred to the NOS after > L64A-B have been applied in full. If that number tricks is > insufficient to compensate for the actual damage, L64C requires full > compensation via an adjusted score. Here that number of tricks is > zero, and that's all that matters as far as L64C is concerned. > > [paul lamford] This doesn't accord with the normal way time limits > are > applied. On your basis you would argue that any revoke can be > "drawn attention to" > up to 30 minutes after the end of the session, or within such > other period > as the SO decrees, provided that any player would have done better > had that > revoke not occurred. That is my understanding, with the quibble that "the NOS" be substituted for "any player". The NOS will no longer have any adjustment available under L64A, but may still receive one under L64C. > I can certainly see some players not being able to remember whether > they > followed to the third round of clubs 23 boards ago! There are any number of reasons why players may be asked by a TD (operating under L81C6) to reconstruct the play of an early hand at the end of a session; it happens all the time. Checking out an alleged revoke is just one of many. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 7 21:36:15 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:36:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000701c8508c$fa9aed80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000701c8508c$fa9aed80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Jan 6, 2008, at 12:53 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of John Probst > ................. >>> Example with five tricks left to play: >>> >>> 1: OK, you get three (also a claim of two as defined in Law 68A) I don't find that "as defined" anywhere. It certainly isn't in L68A, which is concerned exclusively with explicit claims. >>> 2: I get two (also a concession of three as defined in Law 68B1) >>> >>> 3: You get three and I get two >>> >>> 4: I get two and you get three >> >> If partner immediately objects, play continues. They're all the same. >> John > > That is exactly my opinion as well, but Tim apparently thinks > otherwise? That's because he has some sense of the history of these laws, because he reads English unincumbered by preconceptions about what a particular law is supposed to mean by weight of authority (or repetition), and because he doesn't find imaginary definitions that aren't there. > He seems to say that when a player begins his statement with the > word "I > get" (or words to that effect) then it is primarily a claim for > which Law > 68B2 cannot apply. If I have understood him correct his opinion is > that play > can only continue under Law 68B2 with examples 1 and 3 above. You have misunderstood him; his opinion is that the play of the cards can continue only in #1. Tim notes that "any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim" per L68A, and therefore any statement with the words "I get two" is governed by L68A and must be dealt with as a claim. The state of play after a claim is dealt with by L68D. It is not affected by L68B; we can rule in these situations as if L68B did not exist. The presumtive claim in #1, if it existed, would be different in any case. It would not be a claim under L68A, and would not be governed by it as the others are. If L68B had created it, L68B would govern it. But, as it happens, it doesn't even do that. Tim's views are quite clear if you don't get hung up by assuming the contrary conclusion (viz. "they're all the same") up front, and supported by the actual words of L68. They can be argued for without the need to invent principles (such as the one from which Sven deduces that "you get three" is "also a claim of two") or entities (such as "synchronous and inseparable" hybrid claim/concession thingies) that are nowhere to be found in TFLB. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 7 22:07:44 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:07:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] L13Db - why artificial? In-Reply-To: <20080107124815.DBE155C200C@f40.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20080107124815.DBE155C200C@f40.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <72E6C51B-F416-4EAD-83E5-3A87256D1528@starpower.net> On Jan 7, 2008, at 7:48 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board > contained an incorrect number of cards and a player has seen one or > more > cards of another player’s hand, if the Director deems > that the unauthorized information gained thereby is of sufficient > importance to interfere with normal bidding or play the Director shall > award an ARTIFICIAL adjusted score and may penalize an offender. > > Let us suppose that in a team match I go down for 1100 > on a partscore deal. I then put (accidently or otherwise) > my ace of spades face up in my pocket of the board > (but not on top). > Because of that everyone will see this ace of spades > at the other table when the player with my hand pulls > his cards from the pocket board and starts counting them. > > Now it looks that the TD has no option but to rule that > my opponents get 3 IMPs for the board instead of 14 or so. > > Sure he might give me a PP but this is as far as he can go. > > Was this intended? Or is it just a ommission and L13Db > was supposed to let the TD also assign a non-artificial > adjusted score? It has been fixed; when the new FLB goes into effect the TD will have the option of adjusting the score to 14 or so. L86D. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 7 23:44:09 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 23:44:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c8517e$d1dd9cb0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ........................ > Tim notes that "any statement to the effect > that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim" > per L68A, and therefore any statement with the words "I get two" is > governed by L68A and must be dealt with as a claim. A statement that a player concedes some but not all the remaining tricks is also a statement to the effect that he "will win a specific number of tricks", namely the tricks that he does not concede. Therefore also my sample statement "You get three tricks" when there are five more to play is a claim (of the two other tricks) as good as any. So the only way Tim's logic can survive is if he argues that Law 68B2 only applies when a defender concedes all the remaining tricks and his partner immediately objects. But this is incompatible with the words "concede one or more tricks" as used in Law 68B2, instead we would have seen the words "concede all the remaining tricks" if that had been the intention. Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 8 01:58:54 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 00:58:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] L13Db - why artificial? References: <20080107124815.DBE155C200C@f40.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <002601c85191$adc202e0$a1d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 12:48 PM Subject: [blml] L13Db - why artificial? When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board contained an incorrect number of cards and a player has seen one or more cards of another player’s hand, if the Director deems that the unauthorized information gained thereby is of sufficient importance to interfere with normal bidding or play the Director shall award an ARTIFICIAL adjusted score and may penalize an offender. Let us suppose that in a team match I go down for 1100 on a partscore deal. I then put (accidently or otherwise) my ace of spades face up in my pocket of the board (but not on top). Because of that everyone will see this ace of spades at the other table when the player with my hand pulls his cards from the pocket board and starts counting them. Now it looks that the TD has no option but to rule that my opponents get 3 IMPs for the board instead of 14 or so. Sure he might give me a PP but this is as far as he can go. Was this intended? Or is it just a ommission and L13Db was supposed to let the TD also assign a non-artificial adjusted score? +=+ The Director may refer to Law 86D and is not limited to +3 imps. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jan 8 03:06:51 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:06:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] L27 In-Reply-To: <200801071715.m07HF2rH001405@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801071715.m07HF2rH001405@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4782DABB.8010309@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > ... [authors] intended L27C to be read as though > the "if" clause in L27C1 preceded the "1". Just one more case where > an outside copyreader would have helped. Thanks, Eric (and David). This is very reassuring. Grattan: if this is indeed correct, and if an Appendix is produced, please make sure this is in it. I don't think one would necessarily come to this conclusion just by reading the text. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jan 8 03:12:54 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:12:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] L13Db - why artificial? In-Reply-To: <200801071720.m07HKA5a002616@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801071720.m07HKA5a002616@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4782DC26.5010401@nhcc.net> From: Konrad Ciborowski > Let us suppose that in a team match I go down for 1100 > on a partscore deal. I then put (accidently or otherwise) > my ace of spades face up in my pocket of the board In 1997, we had L72B1 (an important innovation). That has now (slightly rephrased) become L23, and in addition L86D explicitly allows an assigned score. P.S. In the last few months, I've gotten into the habit of counting my cards below the edge of the table. In only one session has it made a difference, but there was a face-up card twice in that session. I guess the player "ahead" of me that evening was careless; in retrospect, I should have found out who it was. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jan 8 03:17:07 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:17:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited In-Reply-To: <200801071709.m07H99SO000004@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801071709.m07H99SO000004@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4782DD23.7020107@nhcc.net> AS> [a defender] has to follow suit to a heart trick. AS> While pulling the three of hearts from his hand, the king of hearts drops on AS> the table. > From: "Sven Pran" > Law 58B applies regardless of how the situation occurred. > > If only one card is visible then apply Law 58B1, if both cards are visible > then apply Law 58B2. I think all will agree so far. > Be aware that the player is not bound by his possibly original intention to > play the three; he is allowed to "designate" the King as "the card he > proposes to play". This question was the subject of considerable discussion last time it came up on BLML. I personally agree with Sven, and his answer is what the literal Laws text says, but there was another bloc who believed the player's original intent mattered. (I hope they are good mind readers if they are ever called to rule a practical case.) From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jan 8 03:20:29 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:20:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Tartan or Weak In-Reply-To: <200801071618.m07GIDdw016669@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801071618.m07GIDdw016669@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4782DDED.5080704@nhcc.net> > From: "Martin Oyston" > 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. If there's misinformation, adjust the score in accordance with L12C2 (and perhaps 12C3). Why is this a problem? If both bidding and play were affected, in general give the NOS the benefit of any doubt as to exactly when the MI might have been corrected. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jan 8 03:30:32 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:30:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <200801041719.m04HJ5fY024751@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801041719.m04HJ5fY024751@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4782E048.2010501@nhcc.net> > From: Gampas at aol.com > I remain unconvinced that the director is empowered to award an adjusted > score. Why do you think L92B does not apply to L64C rulings? (Note "request" in the L92B text.) L64B4 does indeed set a time limit for penalty ("rectification") tricks, but that has nothing to do with L64C. As Eric says, determining the facts should be no more nor less difficult than for any other ruling requested late. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jan 8 03:44:53 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:44:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <200801041710.m04HAbEA022539@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801041710.m04HAbEA022539@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4782E3A5.50202@nhcc.net> I'm still confused. > From: Eric Landau > There are three different positions that need to be sorted out. But > all agree that in the first case, L68B applies in its full maje I seem to be classifying them differently than you. Let's try this way: Case 1. Defender concedes all tricks. Case 2. Defender concedes some but not all tricks, possibly with a claim as well. There seem to be two subcases here, depending on the exact language the defender uses. Case 3. Defender claims all tricks. I think all are agreed on 1: if the other defender immediately objects, play continues. I would have thought all agreed on 3 that play stops, but Ton seems to think it may continue. If there's disagreement, I'd expect the TD to rule as on any other claim. There is considerable disagreement on 2. Some say the exact language matters, while others say it doesn't. I'm lost! But do I at least have 1 and 3 right? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 8 05:48:06 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:48:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 23 (was L13Db - why artificial?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4782DC26.5010401@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >.....In 1997, we had L72B1 (an important innovation). >That has now (slightly rephrased) become L23..... Richard Hills: If Steve Willner were not American, I would accuse him of English stiff-upper-lip understatement by writing "slightly rephrased". 1997 Law 72B1: Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non- offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. 2007 Law 23: Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*. * as, for example, by partner's enforced pass. Richard Hills: In my opinion the 1997 phrase "could have known" was somewhat ambiguous. Anecdotally there were some gung-ho Directors who overused the 1997 Law 72B1 by arguing that a player "could" have known anything. The new 2007 phrase "could have been aware" is much harder for a gung-ho Director to misinterpret. Plus the 1997 phrase "likely to damage" has the very ambiguous word "likely". Again anecdotally some gung- ho Directors over-used Law 72B1 by arguing that after an infraction it was always "likely" that the infractor would benefit. Again, the new 2007 phrase "could well damage" (with the key modifier "well") is much harder for a gung-ho Director to misinterpret. 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 >I recommend that any Director who has the time >should download and read the "parallel texts" version >of the 1997 / 2007 Lawbooks. The "parallel texts" comparison of the old and new Lawbooks is currently available on Anna Gudge's Ecats website only in "tracked changes" form, so as to assist translators who had started translating an earlier version of the 2007 Laws a year ago. The downside is that Directors and other interested parties find the "parallel texts" harder to read and so less useful. However, I have put together a Zipped file of Word documents containing the "parallel texts" _without_ the tracked changes, and am happy to email it on request. Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Jan 9 01:04:05 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:04:05 -0800 Subject: [blml] L27 In-Reply-To: <4782DABB.8010309@nhcc.net> References: <200801071715.m07HF2rH001405@cfa.harvard.edu> <4782DABB.8010309@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080108160032.04353ae8@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 06:06 PM 7/01/2008, you wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > ... [authors] intended L27C to be read as though > > the "if" clause in L27C1 preceded the "1". Just one more case where > > an outside copyreader would have helped. > Steve Willner: >Thanks, Eric (and David). This is very reassuring. > >Grattan: if this is indeed correct, and if an Appendix is produced, >please make sure this is in it. I don't think one would necessarily >come to this conclusion just by reading the text. > Despite the fact that we think we know what they meant, I don't think that is the way L27 reads. I would hope for about half a dozen examples of its application in the Appendix. Unfortunately, I think that the promised appendix may turn out to be just that Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 8 07:23:21 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:23:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] L27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080108160032.04353ae8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>... [authors] intended L27C to be read as though >>the "if" clause in L27C1 preceded the "1". Just >>one more case where an outside copyreader would >>have helped. Tony Musgrove: >Despite the fact that we think we know what they >meant, I don't think that is the way L27 reads. Introduction: "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law," Richard Hills: So the Law 27C heading does not limit the scope of Law 27C2. Ergo, while I agree with Kojak that it would be a "travesty of the game" to take away a lucky 3NT when an insufficient bid barred partner, the actual words of Law 27C2 seem to allow it. The only way out that I can see is in the final phrase of Law 27C1 "but see 2 following". I argue that because of that phrase 27C1 and 27C2 are not two independent laws, but rather one law split into two paragraphs for easy reading. Ergo, if that interpretation is adopted by the WBF LC, a Law 27C2 ruling is relevant only to a prior Law 27C1 situation. 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 Tue Jan 8 02:49:46 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 01:49:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] concession References: <000b01c85068$021aa2a0$e8cd403e@Mildred> <5B9FE239-143F-478F-9A70-9EF2ECADBC9D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000801c851d4$7eff0d20$51cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] concession > I can't seem to get this across, but I'll try once more. > > Tim is arguing that the 2001 minute is not concerned with the > situation in which the concession is the *consequence* of a claim. > It does, however, apply, explicitly and incontrovertably, to the > situaton in which the claim is the consequence of a concession. > Grattan uses the word "complement", which is applicable to *either* > situation, suggesting that he fails to appreciate the distinction Tim > (along with myself and others) makes, which is critical to > understanding his argument. > +=+ I understand exactly what argument Tim is making. It is my opinion that it was not the intention of the DSC that such should be the case. But we will no doubt review the intention afresh and deal with the question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 8 02:56:25 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 01:56:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] L27 References: <200801041458.m04EwxnL022610@cfa.harvard.edu><477F96F4.9090408@nhcc.net> <17808E51-C4F7-47E0-BB9E-2CAE27B4F8DC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000901c851d4$80730f80$51cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L27 > On Jan 5, 2008, at 9:40 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > >> While we're on the topic, what about L27C2? Suppose >> I make an IB that will bar partner. Having a balanced hand, >> I guess 3NT, which turns out to be a terrible contract. >> However, today is my lucky day, and with three finesses >> and a suit break, the contract makes. Under the 1997 >> Laws, I keep the lucky score. Will that change after the >> new Laws take effect? If so, this should be part of director >> training, and players need to be fully advised when the >> occasion arises. > > I can't imagine that the authors intended to create a situation > where a player is forced to guess at a final contract with no > chance of keeping his good score if he makes a successful > guess; that just wouldn't make sense. I think they intended > L27C to be read as though the "if" clause in L27C1 preceded > the "1". Just one more case where an outside copyreader > would have helped. > +=+ We reduced to an extent the number of cases where the player is obliged to choose a final contract. As in 1997 situations in which his partner is obliged to pass may lead to an adjusted score if that obligation to pass damages the NOS. In the 2007 laws these situations are handled under Law 27D, not 27C. Eric offers a lay view as to the DSC's intention. I believe Law 27D conveys the DSC's intention exactly: a player is not to be left with his score if the Director considers that in making the IB he could have been aware that in manipulating the situation to stay in the contract of his choice this could well damage opponents. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Tue Jan 8 10:52:45 2008 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 10:52:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claude Michaud References: <000b01c85068$021aa2a0$e8cd403e@Mildred><5B9FE239-143F-478F-9A70-9EF2ECADBC9D@starpower.net> <000801c851d4$7eff0d20$51cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <016401c851dc$38811de0$0a01a8c0@cbbolivier> A bad new to start this year, Claude Michaud, the french TD, died the 31-12-2007 in Paris Olivier From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Jan 8 11:49:00 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:49:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion Message-ID: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> It is a long story but I tried to keep it interesting so I'd appreciate if you took your time and read it. I know how it sounds ("and now, ladies and gentlemen, I am going to entertain you with my poems...") but if you have nothing better to do then you might as well read it. When going through the old issues of the Polish "Bryd?" magazine I ran into a deal from the Polish First Division that was played 15 years ago. Before I get to it a short systemic explanation is needed. In the Polish Club the 1D response to the 1C opening is artificial showing either 0-6 with any shape or unbalanced hands in the 7-11 zone with no 4 card major. Some pairs add one more meaning - 16+, balanced with no 4M. Then if responder jumps to 2NT on the next round eg. 1C 1D 1H/S 2NT he shows this hand type: 16+, BAL, no 4M. The pair from the story below decided to adopt this toy. So playing in the First Division (screens were used) opener held KQxx Axxx Qx AKJ He opened 1C and over the 1D response he rebid 1NT showing 18-21 BAL. 99.99% pairs in Poland use the very same methods in this sequence as they do after the 1NT opening - it is a solution that is both easy to remember and theoretically sound. The pair in question was no exception. Over 1NT responder bid 2C - Stayman (guaranteeing a 4-card major or a slammish balanced hand), opener dutifully rebid 2H, the tray returned with 2S and the problems began. Over the 1NT opening this sequence was an artificial relay showing a slammish hand. However here in the context of the 1D response things started to look weird. As responder could only have a 4-card major in the 0-6 zone for his 1D response his 2S meant... what exactly? The only slammish, balanced hand he could have for his 1D response was 16+ BAL, no 4M. And although this was, in itself, not impossible it looked horribly unlikely given that opener himself had a 19 count. Already worried opener decided, however, that he would proceed as if partner's 2S bid was a relay, as it should have been. He bid 3D showing the 4=4=2=3 distribution (exactly). Partner now jumped to 4H. In relay auctions after distribution was known this pair was using Slawinski's method of suits setting - 3NT was a sign off, 4D was the End Signal (partner was required to bid 4H and pass the next bid) while other bids were RKCB setting suits in the length order. So over 3D 3H would be RKCB with hearts agreed, 3S would be RKCB with spades agreed, 3NT would be a sign-off, 4C would be RKCB with clubs agreed, 4D would be the End Signal. 4H was, thus, RKCB agreeing diamonds. Now obviously this was not possible. Partner couldn't have even 5D for his sequence or else he would have responded 2D to the 1C opening in the first place (2D being a GF hand with 5+D). If partner really has 16+ BAL then 1, It is very improbable in the first place 2. Why doesn't he simply bid 6/7NT instead of all this relaying leading to nowhere 3. why, having denied a 5-card diamond suit, would he set as trumps a suit in which he knows we hold only 2 cards? This is simply impossible. So partner's hand has to be something like Kxxx xxxx Qxx xx and, having learnt about 4 hearts he was bidding naturally his 4-card suit in spades looking for a 4-4 fit in a suit where he himself had better trumps. Now obviously he took our 3D bid naturally so he now jumped to 4H because he didn't found 4 spades in our hand as he had hoped. Opener, however, was afraid to convert now to 4S because, having bid 3D (which he now knew partner treated naturally) over 2S the 4S follow-up might sound very confusing to his partner. So opener took the safe route and passed 4H - this contract would be played on a 4-4 fit after all, so it was OK, too. So opener passed 4H. Partner tabled a balanced 18 count with 4 diamonds and 2 hearts. He did have his bidding, it turned out, and he needed two things for the grand slam - aces and the queen of diamonds. This was why he temporarily set diamonds as trumps to learn about these values with RKCB. At the other table 7NT was reached and so stopping in 4H on a 4-2 fit was a big loss. What is my point? This disaster could never happen without screens for a pair playing a traditoinal school (as opposed to de Wael school). Let's get back to the critical moment of the auction 1C 1D 1NT 2C 2H 2S 3D Opener would alert 2S and responder _would alert 3D_. This alert would be a confirmation for opener that his partner remembered the system and, however improbable this might sound, he had a strong 16+ BAL hand for his bidding. If responder had Kxxx xxxx Qxx xx then for him the 3D bid would be natural (just like his own 2S bid) so responder wouldn't alert 3D (as the traditional school prohibits him to do so). But this time he would alert 3D all right so opener would know that the wheels haven't come off. He would know that 4H over 3D is the next asking bid so he would confidently bid 5D over 4H showing 2 key cards + the queen of diamonds. Responder would then jump to 7NT. The depicted scenario is a very common one in real life. Players do need this information from alerts that confirm that partner remembers the system and that it is safe for them to a) assume that partner has his bidding b) to trot out the next bid of their their 4-tier X-alpha relay scheme without fear Playing behind screens players lose this reassuring confidence and disasters like the one described above are common. These don't have to be spectacular disasters like this one - very often players are afraid to investigate and search for the best contract with their machinery and jump to 3NT out of fear that partner is not on the same wavelength. I could see this very vell when I was playing in the Third Division and screens were introduced for the first time. On simple auctions bids asking for kings started becoming final contracts. And this was happening to pairs who were not cheats, this was happening to everyone. This was happening to me - I wasn't a dWS follower at the time. Now for a pair playing dWS the lack of screens wouldn't be a protection. Let's have a look: 1C 1D 1NT 2C 2H 2S 3D 4H ??? Now opener would have the very same guess as he had in real life. Yes, responder did alert the 3D bid but when you play dWS it means nothing. He still might have Kxxx xxxx Qxx xx He bid 2S naturally, heard us alert this, thought to himself "Oh, shit, this idiot thinks I am 16+" and, playing dWS, alerted 3D to avoid creating UI. So opener would be in the very same position as he was behind screens in real life. And he would pass 4H just the same following the same reasoning he followed behind screens in real life. So as you can see dWS limits UI. I know what you are going to say - dWS creates MI instead. However this is nowhere near equivalent - first of all MI frquently can be corrected. You can correct it before dummy goes down, especially in one-way acutions chances of damaging the opponents are minimal. More importantly - if the opponents are damaged every MI infractions gets redressed. Even beginners can catch it - a player explains that his partner holds hand X while in reality he holds hand Y. Everyone can see the discrepancy. Director! UI infractions, on the other hand, are often very subtle and often require a lot of knowledge to detect them not to mention redressing. Beginners are unable to catch about 75% or UI infractions or more. Also - sometimes the use UI is not redressable. If, being a beginner, you see a discrepancy between the explanation and the hand - you call the TD. On the other hand even if you are a top expert and see your oppoents bid 1C 1D 1NT 2C 2H 2S 3D 4H 5D 7NT pass 2S = relay 3D = 4=4=3=2 4H = RKCB, D agreed 5D = 2KC + DQ and you strongly suspect that your opponents needed the UI from the alerts (the information being "partner, we are on the same wavelength" - and we've just seen a real life example of a pair who needed this information as without it they landed in 4H as one of them lost confidence) you have absolutely no grounds for redress. What would you tell the TD? All bids were in tempo, all were properly alerted and explained, the explanations matched both the hands and the system... What would you tell the TD? "Sir, please put these two clowns behind screens and they won't be able to repeat this auction?" - the TD would get a good laugh but he would have no grounds to adjust. This is why dWS is superior to traditional school. Pairs playing traditional school gain an important advantage over the ones playing dWS. The former can use a certain kind of UI ("partner - we are on the same wavelength") freely. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chcesz kupic aparat? Sprawdz, ktory jest najlepszy! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cd3 From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Jan 9 07:50:07 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:50:07 -0800 Subject: [blml] Revoking Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080108180912.04369220@mail.optusnet.com.au> Under the old laws, I might jocularly have suggested "You have revoked, but if you manage not to win a trick with the card you should have played, you may get off with just the one trick penalty" Now I suppose I will have to say "you may be able to get away with just 1 trick penalty even if you win a trick with the card you should have played" Tony (Sydney) From schoderb at msn.com Tue Jan 8 14:43:50 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:43:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] L27 References: <200801041458.m04EwxnL022610@cfa.harvard.edu><477F96F4.9090408@nhcc.net><17808E51-C4F7-47E0-BB9E-2CAE27B4F8DC@starpower.net> <000901c851d4$80730f80$51cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Of course in Grattan's scenario below it would be necessary for the player to be assured that his LHO did NOT accept the IB. How do you do that? Missing logic I think. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L27 > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************** > "In nature there are neither > rewards nor punishments - > there are consequences. > [R.G.Ingersoll] > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:53 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] L27 > > > > On Jan 5, 2008, at 9:40 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > > > >> While we're on the topic, what about L27C2? Suppose > >> I make an IB that will bar partner. Having a balanced hand, > >> I guess 3NT, which turns out to be a terrible contract. > >> However, today is my lucky day, and with three finesses > >> and a suit break, the contract makes. Under the 1997 > >> Laws, I keep the lucky score. Will that change after the > >> new Laws take effect? If so, this should be part of director > >> training, and players need to be fully advised when the > >> occasion arises. > > > > I can't imagine that the authors intended to create a situation > > where a player is forced to guess at a final contract with no > > chance of keeping his good score if he makes a successful > > guess; that just wouldn't make sense. I think they intended > > L27C to be read as though the "if" clause in L27C1 preceded > > the "1". Just one more case where an outside copyreader > > would have helped. > > > +=+ We reduced to an extent the number of cases where > the player is obliged to choose a final contract. As in 1997 > situations in which his partner is obliged to pass may lead > to an adjusted score if that obligation to pass damages the > NOS. In the 2007 laws these situations are handled under > Law 27D, not 27C. Eric offers a lay view as to the DSC's > intention. I believe Law 27D conveys the DSC's intention > exactly: a player is not to be left with his score if the > Director considers that in making the IB he could have > been aware that in manipulating the situation to stay > in the contract of his choice this could well damage > opponents. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Jan 8 14:51:17 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:51:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoking In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080108180912.04369220@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080108180912.04369220@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <47837FD5.1060602@meteo.fr> Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > Under the old laws, I might jocularly have suggested > > "You have revoked, but if you manage not to win a trick > with the card you should have played, you may get off > with just the one trick penalty" > > Now I suppose I will have to say "you may be able to > get away with just 1 trick penalty even if you win a > trick with the card you should have played" and you might add: "don't worry to forget to follow suit when declarer attempts to remove trumps, it can't hurt you to ruff later" jpr > > 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 nancy at dressing.org Tue Jan 8 14:58:29 2008 From: nancy at dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:58:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <003c01c8514e$9e541a70$0701a8c0@john> References: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main><000a01c84fe9$1e267430$0201a8c0@main> <003c01c8514e$9e541a70$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <001201c851fe$8c86d9d0$0201a8c0@main> Nor is it in the interest of the defending side to answer the question! Pard, if I say "yes, it is your lead" , I have such and such. If I say "Lead on", I hold this....., If I say.... there are so many ways to pass info to partner. However, if the opponents answer, all these doors are closed. Quietly and politely. Nancy -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of John Probst Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 11:59 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Opening Lead ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy T Dressing" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" ; "'Bridge Laws'" Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Opening Lead >I think we all have agreed that Law 20C1 applies. Now how do we handle the > refusal of the person to answer the question. A belated part of the > argument was that she was the dummy, but of course, she is not yet the > dummy. Tactfully naturally, but how do we eliminate the argument "I am > not > responsible to tell him that he could lead"? "I'm afraid it's not in the interest of the declaring side to answer that question, sorry" :) John > > Nancy > _______________________________________________ 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: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1212 - Release Date: 1/6/2008 10:55 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1213 - Release Date: 1/7/2008 9:14 AM From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 8 15:12:33 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:12:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <478384D1.9010200@ntlworld.com> [Konrad Ciborowski] It is a long story but I tried to keep it interesting so I'd appreciate if you took your time and read it. I know how it sounds ("and now, ladies and gentlemen, I am going to entertain you with my poems...") but if you have nothing better to do then you might as well read it. When going through the old issues of the Polish "Bryd?" magazine I ran into a deal from the Polish First Division that was played 15 years ago. Before I get to it a short systemic explanation is needed. In the Polish Club the 1D response to the 1C opening is artificial showing either 0-6 with any shape or unbalanced hands in the 7-11 zone with no 4 card major. Some pairs add one more meaning - 16+, balanced with no 4M. Then if responder jumps to 2NT on the next round eg. 1C 1D 1H/S 2NT he shows this hand type: 16+, BAL, no 4M. The pair from the story below decided to adopt this toy. So playing in the First Division (screens were used) opener held S:KQxx H:Axxx D:Qx C:AKJ He opened 1C and over the 1D response he rebid 1NT showing 18-21 BAL. 99.99% pairs in Poland use the very same methods in this sequence as they do after the 1NT opening - it is a solution that is both easy to remember and theoretically sound. The pair in question was no exception. Over 1NT responder bid 2C - Stayman (guaranteeing a 4-card major or a slammish balanced hand), opener dutifully rebid 2H, the tray returned with 2S and the problems began. Over the 1NT opening this sequence was an artificial relay showing a slammish hand. However here in the context of the 1D response things started to look weird. As responder could only have a 4-card major in the 0-6 zone for his 1D response his 2S meamt... what exactly? The only slammish, balanced hand he could have for his 1D response was 16+ BAL, no 4M. And although this was, in itself, not impossible it looked horribly unlikely given that opener himself had a 19 count. Already worried opener decided, however, that he would proceed as if partner's 2S bid was a relay, as it should have been. He bid 3D showing the 4=4=2=3 distribution (exactly). Partner now jumped to 4H. In relay auctions after distribution was known this pair was using Slawinski's method of suits setting - 3NT was a sign off, 4D was the End Signal (partner was required to bid 4H and pass the next bid) while other bids were RKCB setting suits in the length order. So over 3D 3H would be RKCB with hearts agreed, 3S would be RKCB with spades agreed, 3NT would be a sign-off, 4C would be RKCB with clubs agreed, 4D would be the End Signal. 4H was, thus, RKCB agreeing diamonds. Now obviously this was not possible. Partner couldn't have even 5D for his sequence or else he would have responded 2D to the 1C opening in the first place (2D being a GF hand with 5+D). If partner really has 16+ BAL then 1, It is very improbable in the first place 2. Why doesn't he simply bid 6/7NT instead of all this relaying leading to nowhere 3. why, having denied a 5-card diamond suit, would he set as trumps a suit in which he knows we hold only 2 cards? This is simply impossible. So partner's hand has to be something like S:Kxxx H:xxxx D:Qxx C:xx and, having learnt about 4 hearts he was bidding naturally his 4-card suit in spades looking for a 4-4 fit in a suit where he himself had better trumps. Now obviously he took our 3D bid naturally so he now jumped to 4H because he didn't found 4 spades in our hand as he had hoped. Opener, however, was afraid to convert now to 4S because, having bid 3D (which he now knew partner treated naturally) over 2S the 4S follow-up might sound very confusing to his partner. So opener took the safe route and passed 4H - this contract would be played on a 4-4 fit after all, so it was OK, too. So opener passed 4H. Partner tabled a balanced 18 count with 4 diamonds and 2 hearts. He did have his bidding, it turned out, and he needed two things for the grand slam - aces and the queen of diamonds. This was why he temporarily set diamonds as trumps to learn about these values with RKCB. At the other table 7NT was reached and so stopping in 4H on a 4-2 fit was a big loss. What is my point? This disaster could never happen without screens for a pair playing a traditoinal school (as opposed to de Wael school). Let's get back to the critical moment of the auction 1C 1D 1NT 2C 2H 2S 3D Opener would alert 2S and responder _would alert 3D_. This alert would be a confirmation for opener that his partner remembered the system and, however improbable this might sound, he had a strong 16+ BAL hand for his bidding. If responder had S:Kxxx H:xxxx D:Qxx C:xx then for him the 3D bid would be natural (just like his own 2S bid) so responder wouldn't alert 3D (as the traditional school prohibits him to do so). But this time he would alert 3D all right so opener would know that the wheels haven't come off. He would know that 4H over 3D is the next asking bid so he would confidently bid 5D over 4H showing 2 key cards + the queen of diamonds. Responder would then jump to 7NT. The depicted scenario is a very common one in real life. Players do need this information from alerts that confirm that partner remembers the system and that it is safe for them to a) assume that partner has his bidding b) to trot out the next bid of their their 4-tier X-alpha relay scheme without fear Playing behind screens players lose this reassuring confidence and disasters like the one described above are common. These don't have to be spectacular disasters like this one - very often players are afraid to investigate and search for the best contract with their machinery and jump to 3NT out of fear that partner is not on the same wavelength. I could see this very vell when I was playing in the Third Division and screens were introduced for the first time. On simple auctions bids asking for kings started becoming final contracts. And this was happening to pairs who were not cheats, this was happening to everyone. This was happening to me - I wasn't a dWS follower at the time. Now for a pair playing dWS the lack of screens wouldn't be a protection. Let's have a look: 1C 1D 1NT 2C 2H 2S 3D 4H ??? Now opener would have the very same guess as he had in real life. Yes, responder did alert the 3D bid but when you play dWS it means nothing. He still might have S:Kxxx H:xxxx D:Qxx C:xx He bid 2S naturally, heard us alert this, thought to himself "Oh, shit, this idiot thinks I am 16+" and, playing dWS, alerted 3D to avoid creating UI. So opener would be in the very same position as he was behind screens in real life. And he would pass 4H just the same following the same reasoning he followed behind screens in real life. So as you can see dWS limits UI. I know what you are going to say - dWS creates MI instead. However this is nowhere near equivalent - first of all MI frequently can be corrected. You can correct it before dummy goes down, especially in one-way auctions chances of damaging the opponents are minimal. More importantly - if the opponents are damaged every MI infractions gets redressed. Even beginners can catch it - a player explains that his partner holds hand X while in reality he holds hand Y. Everyone can see the discrepancy. Director! UI infractions, on the other hand, are often very subtle and often require a lot of knowledge to detect them not to mention redressing. Beginners are unable to catch about 75% or UI infractions or more. Also - sometimes the use UI is not redressable. If, being a beginner, you see a discrepancy between the explanation and the hand - you call the TD. On the other hand even if you are a top expert and see your oppoents bid 1C 1D 1NT 2C 2H 2S 3D 4H 5D 7NT pass 2S = relay 3D = 4=4=3=2 4H = RKCB, D agreed 5D = 2KC + DQ and you strongly suspect that your opponents needed the UI from the alerts (the information being "partner, we are on the same wavelength" - and we've just seen a real life example of a pair who needed this information as without it they landed in 4H as one of them lost confidence) you have absolutely no grounds for redress. What would you tell the TD? All bids were in tempo, all were properly alerted and explained, the explanations matched both the hands and the system... What would you tell the TD? "Sir, please put these two clowns behind screens and they won't be able to repeat this auction?" - the TD would get a good laugh but he would have no grounds to adjust. This is why dWS is superior to traditional school. Pairs playing traditional school gain an important advantage over the ones playing dWS. The former can use a certain kind of UI ("partner - we are on the same wavelength") freely. [Nige1] Great stuff, Konrad! The Herman's protocol is one way of avoiding some unauthorised information from alerts. A simpler alternative is to allow you the option of preventing opposing partnerships from alerting/announcing. The UK has the same problem with alerts that Konrad describes in Poland. When alerts were introduced in the UK, many partnerships quickly came to rely upon them to remind/confirm their conventional treatments. Initially law-makers allowed other players a reprieve: there was an option to ask opponents *not to alert*. Naturally, some partnerships exercised that option. Of course, their poor opponents suffered horrendous misunderstandings. Unfortunately, law-makers took pity on those partnerships who had come to rely on the alert crutch. The law was changed to prevent their opponents' from switching off alerts. Recently, however, the EBU has banned most alerts above 3N. Again, some high-level auctions spiral out of control. It would be even more satisfying if many partnerships had not adopted the obvious remedy: Start to alert and then apologise. I confess we all collude in this fiasco by failing to call the director when this happens; In the spirit of "equity", we might get no redress; but we should still go through the motions. From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jan 8 15:30:00 2008 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 14:30 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <478221F5.7020207@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > > Had the lawmakers wished to group all concessions together they > > should > > have written L68b2: > > > > "Regardless of L68A or 1 preceding..." and left in the words "or > > claim" > > (they didn't thus there is no provision to cancel a claim as > > defined in > > L68A). > It was added in a draft, and they decided not to put it in, because > they deemed it was not needed. Putting it in would have meant they > had changed something in this law, which they decided they did not > want to do. Sorry if I was unclear - I meant "Left in the final version as they had it in the draft". And yes that *would* have changed the law (as interpreted by the minute) and I'm sure that many of those on the committee both realised that and did indeed decide not to make the change. And we are doing what is said in the lawbook. Neither L68A nor L68D are affected in any way by L68b2. L68b2 requires that we disregard L68B1 so it doesn't matter whether there may, or may not, have been a concession (cancelled or otherwise). If there WAS a claim under 68A there will still be claim and play must cease. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jan 8 15:30:00 2008 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 14:30 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000001c8517e$d1dd9cb0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > A statement that a player concedes some but not all the remaining > tricks is also a statement to the effect that he "will win a > specific number of tricks", namely the tricks that he does not > concede. It may sometimes have that effect (due to basic mathematical principles) but it is far from an absolute. The statement "Ok you get the rest of your hearts, how many tricks do we get?" is undoubtedly a concession but I don't believe it is a claim as per L68A. If the partner objected ("but I have a heart trick") I would allow play to continue. > Therefore also my sample statement "You get three tricks" when > there are five more to play is a claim (of the two other tricks) as > good as any. But it isn't a claim according to L68A. Again I see no problem with allowing play to continue because I can "delete" the words "You get 3 tricks" and having done so there is NO claim. If the statement had been "You get 3 tricks and I get the last two." and I deleted the concession words I would *still* have a claim to deal with under L68A. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 8 15:50:47 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:50:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000001c8517e$d1dd9cb0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c8517e$d1dd9cb0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <60103E4A-4D9F-462D-8B14-B9E22FD6E982@starpower.net> On Jan 7, 2008, at 5:44 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > ........................ >> Tim notes that "any statement to the effect >> that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim" >> per L68A, and therefore any statement with the words "I get two" is >> governed by L68A and must be dealt with as a claim. > > A statement that a player concedes some but not all the remaining > tricks is > also a statement to the effect that he "will win a specific number of > tricks", namely the tricks that he does not concede. > > Therefore also my sample statement "You get three tricks" when > there are > five more to play is a claim (of the two other tricks) as good as any. TFLB says explicitly that "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder". Sven's argument is based on "assuming the converse" (a well-known logical fallacy), which would be that "a concession of some number of tricks is a claim of the remainder". I don't find that anywhere in TFLB. Sven and others seem to be taking both statements as self-evident truths, using them as axioms from which to develop their conclusions. I would remind them that a claim of some number of tricks *was not* a concession of the remainder until the 1975 laws made it so. > So the only way Tim's logic can survive is if he argues that Law > 68B2 only > applies when a defender concedes all the remaining tricks and his > partner > immediately objects. > > But this is incompatible with the words "concede one or more > tricks" as used > in Law 68B2, instead we would have seen the words "concede all the > remaining > tricks" if that had been the intention. Sven continues to misunderstand Tim's logic. Right or wrong, L68B2 apples whenever a player makes "any statement to the effect that [he] will lose a specific number of tricks" [L68B1] and "his partner immediately objects" [L68B2] -- *unless* he has also made a "statement to the effect that [he] will win a specific number of tricks" [L68A], because then we would have followed L68A and never gotten to L68B. Perhaps we can illustrate the argument by playing a little game... Match the lettered items on the left (from Sven's post of 1/6) with the corresponding numbered items on the right (from TFLB): A. "OK, you get three." 1. "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks" B. "I get two." 2. "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks" Tim's logic is based on the assumption that the correct answer to the above is A2/B1. Sven's logic is based on the assumption that there is no wrong answer. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Gampas at aol.com Tue Jan 8 16:25:56 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 10:25:56 EST Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke Message-ID: In a message dated 08/01/2008 02:31:09 GMT Standard Time, swillner at nhcc.net writes: Why do you think L92B does not apply to L64C rulings? (Note "request" in the L92B text.) L64B4 does indeed set a time limit for penalty ("rectification") tricks, but that has nothing to do with L64C. [paul lamford] L92B is not in dispute. Of course the player is entitled to ask for a ruling when he discovers the infraction. The point I am making is that the declarer is not "insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused". If L64C said "WAS insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused.", then I might agree with you, but it says "IS insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused", which implies that the compensation provided by the law is sufficient, whether declarer obtained it or not. The one trick penalty provided by the Law IS more than enough compensation. Declarer WAS insufficiently compensated because he did not draw attention to the revoke within the time limit prescribed in L64B4, not because of some failure to compensate, inherent in the law, such as occurs with the Alcatraz Coup. Lo and behold, I had these hands again yesterday: S AK5 H AT9 D AK2 C AQJ2 S 432 H KJ8 D QJ3 C KT97 This time, in 6NT I won the spade lead, cashed two diamonds, all following, and the ace and king of clubs, on which all followed. I cashed the ten of clubs on which West showed out, and East played, I presumed, the thirteenth club, (I did not look at it carefully to check), but looking at the hand records afterwards showed that it must have been a spade, as West had the third club. Again I ran the jack of hearts and conceded one down when it lost. Now declarer IS sufficiently compensated by the Law in this case, and he could have noticed the revoke. On your basis you would adjust again,(as, if West had followed, declarer would have taken the heart finesse the correct way)? If so, then the time limits in L64B4 are only there to avoid correction of revokes that had no effect on equity. From Gampas at aol.com Tue Jan 8 16:44:02 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 10:44:02 EST Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion Message-ID: In a message dated 08/01/2008 10:49:29 GMT Standard Time, cibor at poczta.fm writes: And he would pass 4H just the same following the same reasoning he followed behind screens in real life. [paul lamford] And the astute director, reading all the system notes carefully, will then adjust to 7NT doubled -3. With screens, one can guess to pass 4H. Without screens one may have UI. Under dWS or standard. A solution is to provide a device which each player presses with a foot which provides a silent vibration in a concealed device held by each opponent in their pockets whenever an alert is made. Now alerts are only communicated to the opponents not partner. However, avant garde devices, like goal-line technology in soccer and Hawkeye in cricket, are opposed by the authorities. Every time a miscarriage of justice occurs they are discussed again. And they will be rejected on the basis of cost, correctly in the case of the idea for alerts above. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 8 16:54:54 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 10:54:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <4782E3A5.50202@nhcc.net> References: <200801041710.m04HAbEA022539@cfa.harvard.edu> <4782E3A5.50202@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:44 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > I'm still confused. > >> From: Eric Landau >> There are three different positions that need to be sorted out. But >> all agree that in the first case, L68B applies in its full maje Sorry for the confusion. "Positions" above meant "sides to the argument", not "situations at the table". > I seem to be classifying them differently than you. Let's try this > way: > > Case 1. Defender concedes all tricks. > > Case 2. Defender concedes some but not all tricks, possibly with a > claim > as well. There seem to be two subcases here, depending on the exact > language the defender uses. There are indeed two subcases. The difference isn't some subtle distinction based on the exact language, but exactly what Steve suggests: whether or not there was "a claim as well". > Case 3. Defender claims all tricks. > > I think all are agreed on 1: if the other defender immediately > objects, > play continues. > > I would have thought all agreed on 3 that play stops, but Ton seems to > think it may continue. If there's disagreement, I'd expect the TD to > rule as on any other claim. > > There is considerable disagreement on 2. Some say the exact language > matters, while others say it doesn't. I'm lost! But do I at least > have > 1 and 3 right? We need to clearly differentiate between a "claim (concession) statement", i.e. "any statement to the effect that a contestant will win (lose) a specific number of tricks", and the claim (concession) itself. Confusing the statement with the result risks assuming the conclusion (as we've seen here repeatedly). We need a different three-way breakdown of the possibilities from Steve's: 1. Defender makes a claim statement. 2. Defender makes a concession statement. 3. Defender makes both a claim statement and a concession statement. If the defender made a concession statement, and his partner immediately objected, the concession statement has "disappeared", and we proceed as if no concession statement had been made. Which reduces the three situations above to: 1. Defender made a claim statement. 2. Nothing happened. 3. Defender made a claim statement. To proceed as if no concession statement had been made, we rule on the claim in cases 1 and 3, and direct that play continue in case 2. None of this depends on whether defender's claim and/or concession statement concerned some of the remaining tricks or or all or them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 8 17:31:21 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:31:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <33CFA7BF-1704-4421-B1C7-FDF90E440F4D@starpower.net> On Jan 8, 2008, at 5:49 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > It is a long story but I tried to keep > it interesting so I'd appreciate if you took > your time and read it. I know how it sounds > ("and now, ladies and gentlemen, I am going > to entertain you with my poems...") but > if you have nothing better to do then > you might as well read it. > > When going through the old issues of the > Polish "Bryd?" magazine I ran into a deal > from the Polish First Division that was played > 15 years ago. Before I get > to it a short systemic explanation is needed. > In the Polish Club the 1D response to the 1C > opening is artificial showing either 0-6 with > any shape or unbalanced hands in the 7-11 > zone with no 4 card major. Some pairs add > one more meaning - 16+, balanced with no 4M. > Then if responder jumps to 2NT on the next round > eg. > > 1C 1D > 1H/S 2NT > > he shows this hand type: 16+, BAL, no 4M. > The pair from the story below decided to adopt > this toy. > > So playing in the First Division (screens were > used) opener held > > KQxx > Axxx > Qx > AKJ > > He opened 1C and over the 1D response he rebid > 1NT showing 18-21 BAL. 99.99% pairs in Poland > use the very same methods in this sequence as > they do after the 1NT opening - it is a solution > that is both easy to remember and theoretically > sound. The pair in question was no exception. > Over 1NT responder bid 2C - Stayman > (guaranteeing a 4-card major or a slammish balanced > hand), opener dutifully rebid 2H, the tray returned > with 2S and the problems began. Over the 1NT opening > this sequence was an artificial relay showing > a slammish hand. However here in the context > of the 1D response things started to look weird. > As responder could > only have a 4-card major in the 0-6 zone for his 1D > response his 2S meant... what exactly? The only > slammish, balanced hand he could have for his 1D > response was 16+ BAL, no 4M. And although this was, > in itself, not impossible it looked horribly unlikely > given that opener himself had a 19 count. Already > worried opener decided, however, that he would proceed > as if partner's 2S bid was a relay, as it should have > been. He bid 3D showing the 4=4=2=3 distribution > (exactly). Partner now jumped to 4H. > In relay auctions after distribution was known > this pair was using Slawinski's method of suits > setting - 3NT was a sign off, 4D was the End Signal > (partner was required to bid 4H and pass the next bid) > while other bids were RKCB setting suits in the > length order. So over 3D 3H would be RKCB with > hearts agreed, 3S would be RKCB with spades agreed, > 3NT would be a sign-off, 4C would be RKCB with clubs > agreed, 4D would be the End Signal. 4H was, thus, RKCB > agreeing diamonds. > Now obviously this was not possible. Partner > couldn't have even 5D for his sequence or else he would > have responded 2D to the 1C opening in the first > place (2D being a GF hand with 5+D). If partner really > has 16+ BAL then > > 1, It is very improbable in the first place > 2. Why doesn't he simply bid 6/7NT instead > of all this relaying leading to nowhere > 3. why, having denied a 5-card diamond suit, would > he set as trumps a suit in which he knows we hold > only 2 cards? This is simply impossible. > > So partner's hand has to be something like > > Kxxx > xxxx > Qxx > xx > > and, having learnt about 4 hearts he was bidding > naturally his 4-card suit in spades looking for > a 4-4 fit in a suit where he himself had better trumps. > Now obviously he took our 3D bid naturally so he now > jumped to 4H because he didn't found 4 spades in > our hand as he had hoped. > Opener, however, was afraid to convert now to 4S > because, having bid 3D (which he now knew partner treated > naturally) over 2S the 4S follow-up might sound very > confusing to his partner. So opener took the safe route > and passed 4H - this contract would be played on a 4-4 > fit after all, so it was OK, too. > So opener passed 4H. Partner tabled a balanced 18 count > with 4 diamonds and 2 hearts. He did have his bidding, > it turned out, and he needed two things for the grand > slam - aces and the queen of diamonds. This was why > he temporarily set diamonds as trumps to learn about > these values with RKCB. > At the other table 7NT was reached and so stopping > in 4H on a 4-2 fit was a big loss. > What is my point? > This disaster could never happen without screens > for a pair playing a traditoinal school (as opposed to > de Wael school). Let's get back to the critical moment > of the auction > > 1C 1D > 1NT 2C > 2H 2S > 3D > > Opener would alert 2S and responder _would alert 3D_. > This alert would be a confirmation for opener that his > partner remembered the system and, however > improbable this might sound, he had a strong 16+ BAL > hand for his bidding. If responder had > > Kxxx > xxxx > Qxx > xx > > then for him the 3D bid would be natural (just like > his own 2S bid) so responder wouldn't alert 3D (as the > traditional school prohibits him to do so). > But this time he would alert 3D all right so opener would > know that the wheels haven't come off. He > would know that 4H over 3D is the next asking > bid so he would confidently bid 5D over 4H showing > 2 key cards + the queen of diamonds. Responder would > then jump to 7NT. > The depicted scenario is a very common one in > real life. Players do need this information from > alerts that confirm that partner remembers the > system and that it is safe for them to > > a) assume that partner has his bidding > b) to trot out the next bid of their their > 4-tier X-alpha relay scheme without fear > > Playing behind screens players lose this > reassuring confidence and disasters like the one > described above are common. These don't have to be > spectacular disasters like this one - very often > players are afraid to investigate and search for > the best contract with their machinery and jump > to 3NT out of fear that partner is not on the > same wavelength. I could see this very vell when I > was playing in the Third Division and screens were > introduced for the first time. On simple auctions > bids asking for kings started becoming final > contracts. And this was happening to pairs who > were not cheats, this was happening to everyone. > This was happening to me - I wasn't a dWS follower > at the time. > Now for a pair playing dWS the lack of screens > wouldn't be a protection. Let's have a look: > > 1C 1D > 1NT 2C > 2H 2S > 3D 4H > ??? > > Now opener would have the very same guess as he had > in real life. Yes, responder did alert the 3D bid but > when you play dWS it means nothing. He still might > have > > Kxxx > xxxx > Qxx > xx > > He bid 2S naturally, heard us alert this, thought to > himself "Oh, shit, this idiot thinks I am 16+" and, > playing dWS, alerted 3D to avoid creating UI. > So opener would be in the > very same position as he was behind screens in real > life. And he would pass 4H just the same following > the same reasoning he followed behind screens in real > life. > > So as you can see dWS limits UI. I know what you > are going to say - dWS creates MI instead. However > this is nowhere near equivalent - first of all MI > frquently can be corrected. You can correct it before > dummy goes down, especially in one-way acutions chances > of damaging the opponents are minimal. More > importantly - if the opponents are damaged every MI > infractions gets redressed. Even beginners can catch > it - a player explains that his partner holds hand X > while in reality he holds hand Y. Everyone can see > the discrepancy. Director! > UI infractions, on the other hand, are often very > subtle and often require a lot of knowledge to detect > them not to mention redressing. Beginners are unable to > catch about 75% or UI infractions or more. Also - > sometimes the use UI is not redressable. If, being > a beginner, you see a discrepancy between the > explanation and the hand - you call the TD. On > the other hand even if you are a top expert and > see your oppoents bid > > 1C 1D > 1NT 2C > 2H 2S > 3D 4H > 5D 7NT > pass > > 2S = relay > 3D = 4=4=3=2 > 4H = RKCB, D agreed > 5D = 2KC + DQ > > and you strongly suspect that your opponents needed > the UI from the alerts (the information being "partner, > we are on the same wavelength" - and we've just seen > a real life example of a pair who needed this > information as without it they landed in 4H as one > of them lost confidence) you have absolutely no > grounds for redress. What would you tell the TD? > All bids were in tempo, all were properly alerted and > explained, the explanations matched both the hands > and the system... What would you tell the TD? "Sir, > please put these two clowns behind screens and they > won't be able to repeat this auction?" - the TD would > get a good laugh but he would have no grounds to adjust. > > This is why dWS is superior to traditional school. > Pairs playing traditional school gain an important > advantage over the ones playing dWS. The former can use > a certain kind of UI ("partner - we are on the same > wavelength") freely. That's a nice story, but, read carefully, it shows a fatal flaw in the "dWS" argument. You know your system (or think you do). You make a bid which has a definite meaning in your system. But partner's alert (or lack of alert) tells you that he thinks it means something else, something different, something which is not covered by your agreements. The dWS would have you alert and explain, from that point forward, in accordance with what partner thought your bid actually meant. But the dWS does not explain how you're supposed to know what that is. It's all well and good to imagine a player, who has just bid 2S thinking it was the correct systemic call on a 5-count with 4-4 in the majors, hearing partner's alert and immediately saying to himself, "Oh my goodness, he must think I have a balanced 16+ HCP with no four-card major," but in real life he is saying to himself, "What the hell?!" Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jan 8 17:33:51 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:33:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <60103E4A-4D9F-462D-8B14-B9E22FD6E982@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric: TFLB says explicitly that "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder". Sven's argument is based on "assuming the converse" (a well-known logical fallacy), which would be that "a concession of some number of tricks is a claim of the remainder". I don't find that anywhere in TFLB. ton: With the arithmatical education I had almost 60 years ago I am able to solve the problem of 37 + 215 = ? even when I have never seen this problem before. I am trying to convince Eric that it is not always necessary to explicitely state procedures, agreements, whatever and still being able to understand what has to be done. Yes, when a claim of some is a concession of the other then a concession of some is a claim of the other. Don't try to convince me that there is (should be) a difference in treatment between a defender with four tricks to go saying 'you get one' instead of 'I take three'. And if this was the case before '75 forget it. Some developments are improvements. ton From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 8 11:26:06 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 10:26:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 23 (was L13Db - why artificial?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <007201c85217$65d03b10$11d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 23 (was L13Db - why artificial?) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Steve Willner: > >>.....In 1997, we had L72B1 (an important innovation). >>That has now (slightly rephrased) become L23..... > > Richard Hills: > > If Steve Willner were not American, I would accuse him > of English stiff-upper-lip understatement by writing > "slightly rephrased". > > 1997 Law 72B1: > > Whenever the Director deems that an offender could > have known at the time of his irregularity that the > irregularity would be likely to damage the non- > offending side, he shall require the auction and play > to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if > he considers that the offending side gained an > advantage through the irregularity. > > 2007 Law 23: > > Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender > could have been aware at the time of his irregularity > that this could well damage the non-offending side, he > shall require the auction and play to continue (if not > completed). When the play has been completed the > Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the > offending side has gained an advantage through the > irregularity*. > > * as, for example, by partner's enforced pass. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion the 1997 phrase "could have known" was > somewhat ambiguous. Anecdotally there were some > gung-ho Directors who overused the 1997 Law 72B1 by > arguing that a player "could" have known anything. > > The new 2007 phrase "could have been aware" is much > harder for a gung-ho Director to misinterpret. > > Plus the 1997 phrase "likely to damage" has the very > ambiguous word "likely". Again anecdotally some gung- > ho Directors over-used Law 72B1 by arguing that after > an infraction it was always "likely" that the infractor > would benefit. > > Again, the new 2007 phrase "could well damage" (with > the key modifier "well") is much harder for a gung-ho > Director to misinterpret. > +=+ Richard's remarks reflect closely the exchanges within the DSC that I have on record. The application of Law 23 places the bridge judgements in the hands of the Director, who should consult appropriately wherever possible, and the appeals committee. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 8 11:41:19 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 10:41:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] concession References: <200801041710.m04HAbEA022539@cfa.harvard.edu> <4782E3A5.50202@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <007301c85217$6c684f80$11d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] concession > I'm still confused. > >> From: Eric Landau >> There are three different positions that need to be sorted out. But >> all agree that in the first case, L68B applies in its full maje > > I seem to be classifying them differently than you. Let's try this way: > > Case 1. Defender concedes all tricks. > > Case 2. Defender concedes some but not all tricks, possibly with a claim > as well. There seem to be two subcases here, depending on the exact > language the defender uses. > > Case 3. Defender claims all tricks. > > I think all are agreed on 1: if the other defender immediately objects, > play continues. > > I would have thought all agreed on 3 that play stops, but Ton seems to > think it may continue. If there's disagreement, I'd expect the TD to > rule as on any other claim. > > There is considerable disagreement on 2. Some say the exact language > matters, while others say it doesn't. I'm lost! But do I at least have > 1 and 3 right? > +=+ In case 2, whether the player claims a number of tricks or concedes a number of tricks, he has made both a claim and a concession of some number of tricks. The latter fact brings the case within the scope of Law 68B2. There is no doubt therefore that 'play continues'. Law 68B2 does not qualify in any way the statement 'Play continues'. In the absence of such qualification it is my opinion that the law provides for play to continue without restriction on any player's choice of plays, other than relates to use of UI as specified in the law. (The fact that 68B2 does specify the exclusion of use of UI supports, in my view, my point concerning omission of any other limitation upon the players.) The law will require formal interpretation, by Zone, NBO, or Director in the absence of a WBFLC pronouncement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 8 11:41:19 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 10:41:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] concession References: <200801041710.m04HAbEA022539@cfa.harvard.edu> <4782E3A5.50202@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <007301c85217$6c684f80$11d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] concession > I'm still confused. > >> From: Eric Landau >> There are three different positions that need to be sorted out. But >> all agree that in the first case, L68B applies in its full maje > > I seem to be classifying them differently than you. Let's try this way: > > Case 1. Defender concedes all tricks. > > Case 2. Defender concedes some but not all tricks, possibly with a claim > as well. There seem to be two subcases here, depending on the exact > language the defender uses. > > Case 3. Defender claims all tricks. > > I think all are agreed on 1: if the other defender immediately objects, > play continues. > > I would have thought all agreed on 3 that play stops, but Ton seems to > think it may continue. If there's disagreement, I'd expect the TD to > rule as on any other claim. > > There is considerable disagreement on 2. Some say the exact language > matters, while others say it doesn't. I'm lost! But do I at least have > 1 and 3 right? > +=+ In case 2, whether the player claims a number of tricks or concedes a number of tricks, he has made both a claim and a concession of some number of tricks. The latter fact brings the case within the scope of Law 68B2. There is no doubt therefore that 'play continues'. Law 68B2 does not qualify in any way the statement 'Play continues'. In the absence of such qualification it is my opinion that the law provides for play to continue without restriction on any player's choice of plays, other than relates to use of UI as specified in the law. (The fact that 68B2 does specify the exclusion of use of UI supports, in my view, my point concerning omission of any other limitation upon the players.) The law will require formal interpretation, by Zone, NBO, or Director in the absence of a WBFLC pronouncement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 8 12:25:47 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:25:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] L13Db - why artificial? References: <200801071720.m07HKA5a002616@cfa.harvard.edu> <4782DC26.5010401@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <007401c85217$6e0bed60$11d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L13Db - why artificial? > In 1997, we had L72B1 (an important innovation). That has now (slightly > rephrased) become L23, and in addition L86D explicitly allows an > assigned score. > +=+ Or, as it may be, an artificial adjusted score in excess of 3 imps. Note the word 'normally' in Law 12 and note in Law 86D the words 'an adjusted score' embracing both assigned and artificial adjustments. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 8 12:25:47 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:25:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] L13Db - why artificial? References: <200801071720.m07HKA5a002616@cfa.harvard.edu> <4782DC26.5010401@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <007401c85217$6e0bed60$11d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L13Db - why artificial? > In 1997, we had L72B1 (an important innovation). That has now (slightly > rephrased) become L23, and in addition L86D explicitly allows an > assigned score. > +=+ Or, as it may be, an artificial adjusted score in excess of 3 imps. Note the word 'normally' in Law 12 and note in Law 86D the words 'an adjusted score' embracing both assigned and artificial adjustments. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 8 12:48:59 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:48:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Definition of "trick" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <007501c85217$6f385f70$11d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Definition of "trick" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Robert Geller: > > [snip] > >>the word "flawed" (set off by asterisks below) should be >>deleted and replaced by "defective." The reason is that a >>search of the pdf file shows that "flawed" is ONLY used in the >>definition of "trick" (and nowhere else) whereas "defective" >>is used everywhere else. >> >>It might be good to set off "unless defective" by commas while >>we're at it. > > [snip] > > Ralph Waldo Emerson: > > "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". > > Richard Hills: > > I am likewise a "little mind", since when I was proofreading a > draft of the 2007 Lawbook I made notes of inconsistencies in > inverted commas - sometimes double inverted commas, sometimes > single. > > My suggestion for consistency in inverted commas was rejected, > perhaps for the same reason that a Bukhara carpet has a small > deliberate flaw. > +=+ I don't know what you are all going on about. Is the meaning of 'flawed' in any way in doubt? Or is the conversation merely to reflect a crotchety, pernickety daintiness on the part of subscribers? As to inverted commas, perhaps a consistency exists that Richard has failed to perceive - give or take an occasional error, there was adherence to a principle when to use the one and when the two. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 8 12:57:26 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:57:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited References: <200801071709.m07H99SO000004@cfa.harvard.edu> <4782DD23.7020107@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <007601c85217$70b5d7b0$11d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited > AS> [a defender] has to follow suit to a heart trick. > AS> While pulling the three of hearts from his hand, the king of hearts > drops on > AS> the table. > > >> From: "Sven Pran" >> Law 58B applies regardless of how the situation occurred. >> >> If only one card is visible then apply Law 58B1, if both cards are >> visible >> then apply Law 58B2. > > I think all will agree so far. > >> Be aware that the player is not bound by his possibly original intention >> to >> play the three; he is allowed to "designate" the King as "the card he >> proposes to play". > > This question was the subject of considerable discussion last time it > came up on BLML. I personally agree with Sven, and his answer is what > the literal Laws text says, but there was another bloc who believed the > player's original intent mattered. (I hope they are good mind readers > if they are ever called to rule a practical case.) > +=+ "which card he proposes to play" - no mention there of intention, and "proposes" is in the present tense, i.e. proposes to play at the time when the Director requires him to choose. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 8 12:57:26 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:57:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited References: <200801071709.m07H99SO000004@cfa.harvard.edu> <4782DD23.7020107@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <007601c85217$70b5d7b0$11d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited > AS> [a defender] has to follow suit to a heart trick. > AS> While pulling the three of hearts from his hand, the king of hearts > drops on > AS> the table. > > >> From: "Sven Pran" >> Law 58B applies regardless of how the situation occurred. >> >> If only one card is visible then apply Law 58B1, if both cards are >> visible >> then apply Law 58B2. > > I think all will agree so far. > >> Be aware that the player is not bound by his possibly original intention >> to >> play the three; he is allowed to "designate" the King as "the card he >> proposes to play". > > This question was the subject of considerable discussion last time it > came up on BLML. I personally agree with Sven, and his answer is what > the literal Laws text says, but there was another bloc who believed the > player's original intent mattered. (I hope they are good mind readers > if they are ever called to rule a practical case.) > +=+ "which card he proposes to play" - no mention there of intention, and "proposes" is in the present tense, i.e. proposes to play at the time when the Director requires him to choose. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 8 17:36:01 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:36:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Penalize or Rectify? References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> <004d01c8436e$c1c18d50$38cb403e@Mildred> <000101c8438b$409bda10$c1d38e30$@com> <477C4060.7040106@ntlworld.com> <1A47716C-36B1-425F-A70E-E0A99AA54AE8@rochester.rr.com><477D150C.7020909@ntlworld.com> <47806390.5050908@ntlworld.com><003d01c8505c$5e7ef110$77ca403e@Mildred> <47820F59.9040100@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <007701c85217$72142f30$11d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Penalize or Rectify? > [Nige1] > Grattan is right that *fundamental* criticism of > Bridge-rules is unlikely to have much effect just > after a new edition of the law-book. Nevertheless, > legal reform is a perennial interest for BLMLers > and these improvements(?) have been suggested > many times in the past. > > Grattan is also right that understanding the current > rules is of more importance to most BLMLers. > Perhaps that should entail immediate *minor* > changes to the new law-book because there is so > much controversy over its interpretation. Although > Ton's illustrative cases would be a welcome > addition to the law-book, arguably, the first > priority should be to tighten up and clarify the > wording in the body of the text. > +=+ ".....suggested many times in the past". Just so, and blmlers should not think that such suggestions were not examined by the DSC. Where they were not adopted, that was the outcome of the discussion. As to changes of the agreed text, ratified by the WBF Executive Council, there would be an extreme reluctance to make changes. Various authorities are producing copies of the laws in English and in other languages. We would not be willing to make the law books out-of-date even before they appeared on the bookstalls. Past performance is not evidence of future... etc etc, but previously any change, however slight has been rare and has usually taken the form of a slight adjustment to a footnote or the insertion of a footnote. We are looking at devising a few examples of matters that may be obscure in the 2007 laws and placing them in the planned appendix. We may then invite RAs, as an interim arrangement, to include in their regulations a statement that the WBF Appendix stands part of the Conditions of Contest for their tournaments. I am also in discussion with the WBF President concerning the updating of the Code of Practice under the aegis of the Standing Appeals Committee. In the text of the latest draft update the following provision appears: "After issue the WBF Appendix to the 2007 Laws stands part of this Code." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jan 8 17:58:44 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:58:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: <4783ABC4.2060901@t-online.de> Konrad Ciborowski schrieb: > It is a long story but I tried to keep > it interesting so I'd appreciate if you took > your time and read it. I know how it sounds > ("and now, ladies and gentlemen, I am going > to entertain you with my poems...") but > if you have nothing better to do then > you might as well read it. > > > < snipped> > This disaster could never happen without screens > for a pair playing a traditoinal school (as opposed to > de Wael school). Let's get back to the critical moment > of the auction > > 1C 1D > 1NT 2C > 2H 2S > 3D > > Opener would alert 2S and responder _would alert 3D_. > This alert would be a confirmation for opener that his > partner remembered the system and, however > improbable this might sound, he had a strong 16+ BAL > hand for his bidding. If responder had > > Kxxx > xxxx > Qxx > xx > > then for him the 3D bid would be natural (just like > his own 2S bid) so responder wouldn't alert 3D (as the > traditional school prohibits him to do so). > But this time he would alert 3D all right so opener would > know that the wheels haven't come off. He > would know that 4H over 3D is the next asking > bid so he would confidently bid 5D over 4H showing > 2 key cards + the queen of diamonds. Responder would > then jump to 7NT. > The depicted scenario is a very common one in > real life. Players do need this information from > alerts that confirm that partner remembers the > system and that it is safe for them to > > a) assume that partner has his bidding > b) to trot out the next bid of their their > 4-tier X-alpha relay scheme without fear > > Playing behind screens players lose this > reassuring confidence and disasters like the one > described above are common. These don't have to be > spectacular disasters like this one - very often > players are afraid to investigate and search for > the best contract with their machinery and jump > to 3NT out of fear that partner is not on the > same wavelength. I could see this very vell when I > was playing in the Third Division and screens were > introduced for the first time. On simple auctions > bids asking for kings started becoming final > contracts. And this was happening to pairs who > were not cheats, this was happening to everyone. > This was happening to me - I wasn't a dWS follower > at the time. > Now for a pair playing dWS the lack of screens > wouldn't be a protection. Let's have a look: > > > 1C 1D > 1NT 2C > 2H 2S > 3D 4H > ??? > > Now opener would have the very same guess as he had > in real life. Yes, responder did alert the 3D bid but > when you play dWS it means nothing. Come again? I cannot believe that opener will alert 2S in tempo (let alone explain it confidently as relay, 16+, if asked), nor will he bid 3D in tempo. There will be lots of UI the other way already. And now you want me to believe that responder alerts 3D without hesitation and will have adapted to the situation fast enough to have an expanation ready without giving the show away? Pretty unlikely, i`d say. > He still might > have > > Kxxx > xxxx > Qxx > xx > > He bid 2S naturally, heard us alert this, thought to > himself "Oh, shit, this idiot thinks I am 16+" and, > playing dWS, alerted 3D to avoid creating UI. > So opener would be in the > very same position as he was behind screens in real > life. And he would pass 4H just the same following > the same reasoning he followed behind screens in real > life. > So you want us to buy the notion that opener will pass 4H after responder alerted 3D? Get serious. Opener is only human after all. > So as you can see dWS limits UI. I know what you > are going to say - dWS creates MI instead. However > this is nowhere near equivalent - first of all MI > frquently can be corrected. You can correct it before > dummy goes down, especially in one-way acutions chances > of damaging the opponents are minimal. More > importantly - if the opponents are damaged every MI > infractions gets redressed. Even beginners can catch > it - a player explains that his partner holds hand X > while in reality he holds hand Y. Everyone can see > the discrepancy. Director! > UI infractions, on the other hand, are often very > subtle and often require a lot of knowledge to detect > them not to mention redressing. Beginners are unable to > catch about 75% or UI infractions or more. Also - > sometimes the use UI is not redressable. If, being > a beginner, you see a discrepancy between the > explanation and the hand - you call the TD. On > the other hand even if you are a top expert and > see your oppoents bid > > 1C 1D > 1NT 2C > 2H 2S > 3D 4H > 5D 7NT > pass > > 2S = relay > 3D = 4=4=3=2 > 4H = RKCB, D agreed > 5D = 2KC + DQ > > and you strongly suspect that your opponents needed > the UI from the alerts (the information being "partner, > we are on the same wavelength" - and we've just seen > a real life example of a pair who needed this > information as without it they landed in 4H as one > of them lost confidence) So what you need to keep on bidding after 4H is not so much an alert but more confidence in partner, is it? Or maybe firmer agreements, and probably both. > you have absolutely no > grounds for redress. What would you tell the TD? > All bids were in tempo, all were properly alerted and > explained, the explanations matched both the hands > and the system... What would you tell the TD? "Sir, > please put these two clowns behind screens and they > won't be able to repeat this auction?" - the TD would > get a good laugh but he would have no grounds to adjust. > > > This is why dWS is superior to traditional school. > Pairs playing traditional school gain an important > advantage over the ones playing dWS. The former can use > a certain kind of UI ("partner - we are on the same > wavelength") freely. > Players playing according to what you call the traditional school are actually playing by the rules. This occasionally leads to problems, as you observed. I do not deny that the phenomenon you described exists, but the remedy for this is not dWs, it is screens, because the players with enough knowledge about their obligations to handle certain UI problems withou screens usually are the ones who play with screens anyway, while the ones having problems with UI are the ones who wouldn't play Bridge if they had to do so at screens (not ecause they want to cheat, but because screens sre contrary to the basic idea of a club, which is to pass your time with people sharing your hobby, having a chat when the round is not called, and so on. as you said, discrepancies between hand and description are caught at least 99% of the time, so there is no suspicion of cheating. A baby could have noticed. But voluntarly giving MI? That is a different kettle of fish altogether. Let us assume players who know the rules and their ethical obligations. They could play "traditional", see that they have UI, and do the right thing, not using the UI, going down 1100 or something. Or they could play dWs, not using UI, correcting the MI and so on, and going off 1100 in a different contract. The problem is that more than 95% of players couldn`t do either, and it is much easier to cheat using dWs than "traditional", because the case you described (which exists, no doubt about it) is very rare, while chances to survive by giving MI and hope nobody notices are penty. The only time the dWs may have an advantage is when the dWs player has a partner whom he does not trust to handle UI. So why not educate him? If my knowledge of the rules is that much better, and if my ethics aloow me to use either "method" without cheating, why not teach partner to do it, too? And everyone else, while I am at it. Then anyone could play by the rules and be done with it. But do you trust everyone to correct the MI in time when it may go unnoticed? I wouldn't, because anyone who cannot handle UI cannot handle giving deliberate MI either, but is usually more difficult to detect, your pretty spectacular example nonwithstanding. If people could handle UI perfectly we would not be having this discussion. So why should they be able to handle MI? I found your observations very interesting, and some conclusions correct, but your final answer to the problem is IMO wrong. Best regards Matthias > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Chcesz kupic aparat? Sprawdz, ktory jest najlepszy! > Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cd3 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Jan 8 18:11:48 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 08 Jan 2008 18:11:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion Message-ID: <20080108171148.4C93156F851@f24.poczta.interia.pl> > In a message dated 08/01/2008 10:49:29 GMT Standard Time, cibor at poczta.fm > > writes: > > And he would pass 4H just the same following > the same reasoning he followed behind screens in real > life. > > [paul lamford] And the astute director, reading all the system notes > carefully, will then adjust to 7NT doubled -3. On what grounds? What UI does opener have playing dWS? Partner alerted his 3D just as opener expected. So where is the UI? Opener would have one if responder didn't alert 3D - but this can happen only when you play traditional school. Playing dWS responder always alerts 3D even if his 2S was not a relay in his mind. BTW 7NT was making, not -3. So passing 4H would yield a poor score. The point is that even if responder remembers the system opener, playing dWS, doesn't know it as he has no UI at all. So he has a pure guess - did partner remember the system (in which case it is best to bid 5D) or did forget (in which case it is best to pass). Playing traditional school if responder remembers the system then opener can be 100% sure of that (from the fact of the alert of 3D). That's the difference between the two schools. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sprawdz, ktore komorki sa najmodniejsze! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cd4 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 8 18:12:49 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:12:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <001201c851fe$8c86d9d0$0201a8c0@main> References: <000601c84db3$3ac653e0$0201a8c0@main><000a01c84fe9$1e267430$0201a8c0@main> <003c01c8514e$9e541a70$0701a8c0@john> <001201c851fe$8c86d9d0$0201a8c0@main> Message-ID: On Jan 8, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > Nor is it in the interest of the defending side to answer the > question! > Pard, if I say "yes, it is your lead" , I have such and such. If I > say > "Lead on", I hold this....., If I say.... there are so many ways to > pass > info to partner. However, if the opponents answer, all these doors > are > closed. Quietly and politely. There are as many ways to cheat at bridge as there are names of God. You can scratch your ear, wrinkle your nose, clear your throat, direct your gaze, move your convention card, blink your eyes, cross your knees,... OK, you get the point. It seems a bit silly to single out one's reply to a question that won't necessarily be asked as the place to draw the line on potential ways to cheat. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 8 18:39:45 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:39:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <200801081634.OKW17341@mr05.lnh.mail.rcn.net> References: <200801081634.OKW17341@mr05.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: On Jan 8, 2008, at 11:33 AM, ton wrote: > Yes, when a claim of some is a concession of the other then a > concession of > some is a claim of the other. > Don't try to convince me that there is (should be) a difference in > treatment > between a defender with four tricks to go saying 'you get one' > instead of 'I > take three'. The laws make a very clear distinction between a "statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks" and a "statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks". Lingustically, they are exact opposites (they differ only by the difference between "win" and "lose", which are exact opposites), which is a bit different from being exactly the same thing. They are even mentioned in (and thus covered by) entirely separate laws! If Ton cannot be convinced that "you get one" is a "statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks" whilst "I take three" is ""statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks", not the other way around, so be it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 8 18:44:35 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:44:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Penalize or Rectify? In-Reply-To: <007701c85217$72142f30$11d4403e@Mildred> References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> <004d01c8436e$c1c18d50$38cb403e@Mildred> <000101c8438b$409bda10$c1d38e30$@com> <477C4060.7040106@ntlworld.com> <1A47716C-36B1-425F-A70E-E0A99AA54AE8@rochester.rr.com><477D150C.7020909@ntlworld.com> <47806390.5050908@ntlworld.com><003d01c8505c$5e7ef110$77ca403e@Mildred> <47820F59.9040100@ntlworld.com> <007701c85217$72142f30$11d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Jan 8, 2008, at 11:36 AM, wrote: >> [Nige1] >> >> Grattan is also right that understanding the current >> rules is of more importance to most BLMLers. >> Perhaps that should entail immediate *minor* >> changes to the new law-book because there is so >> much controversy over its interpretation. Although >> Ton's illustrative cases would be a welcome >> addition to the law-book, arguably, the first >> priority should be to tighten up and clarify the >> wording in the body of the text. >> > +=+ ".....suggested many times in the past". Just so, > and blmlers should not think that such suggestions > were not examined by the DSC. Where they were > not adopted, that was the outcome of the discussion. I can imagine it... "All those in favor of making the laws tighter and clearer raise your hand... All opposed... Motion defeated." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Gampas at aol.com Tue Jan 8 19:09:34 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 13:09:34 EST Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion Message-ID: In a message dated 08/01/2008 17:12:11 GMT Standard Time, cibor at poczta.fm writes: > [paul lamford] And the astute director, reading all the system notes > carefully, will then adjust to 7NT doubled -3. On what grounds? What UI does opener have playing dWS? [paul lamford] I understood from your original post that 4H was systemically RKCB for diamonds. However, the alert of 3D tells the opener that it is not. Responding and showing the number of keycards is therefore a logical alternative. Of course, the director will only adjust to some higher contract which fails when the responder does have the weak hand you thought possible. It would appear that dWS would tend to generate the same UI problems as standard methods; of course in individual cases one or other might give less UI, but I am not sure that is a valid reasoning for supporting one method over another. From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Tue Jan 8 19:25:41 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:25:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D0939B3@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> > +=+ "which card he proposes to play" - no mention there of intention, > and "proposes" is in the present tense, i.e. proposes to play at the time > when the Director requires him to choose. Those who are argue, do not argue that the player's choice of card to play is affected by the original intention. Instead, they argue that the disposition of the remaining exposed card (not the one that is finally played) that is affected by the original intention. If the remaining card is the card the player originally intended to play then that card was exposed deliberately (as in playing to a trick) and is a major penalty card, regardless of rank. 3 intended to played, K3 exposed, 3 played, K remains as major penalty card. 3 intended to played, K3 exposed, K played, 3 remains as major penalty card. K intended to played, K3 exposed, 3 played, K remains as major penalty card. K intended to played, K3 exposed, K played, 3 remains as minor penalty card. (Or so say those who argue.) Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Tue Jan 8 19:25:41 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:25:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D0939B3@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> > +=+ "which card he proposes to play" - no mention there of intention, > and "proposes" is in the present tense, i.e. proposes to play at the time > when the Director requires him to choose. Those who are argue, do not argue that the player's choice of card to play is affected by the original intention. Instead, they argue that the disposition of the remaining exposed card (not the one that is finally played) that is affected by the original intention. If the remaining card is the card the player originally intended to play then that card was exposed deliberately (as in playing to a trick) and is a major penalty card, regardless of rank. 3 intended to played, K3 exposed, 3 played, K remains as major penalty card. 3 intended to played, K3 exposed, K played, 3 remains as major penalty card. K intended to played, K3 exposed, 3 played, K remains as major penalty card. K intended to played, K3 exposed, K played, 3 remains as minor penalty card. (Or so say those who argue.) Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 8 19:59:28 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:59:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D0939B3@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <001901c85235$08ed1a80$a8d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited >> +=+ "which card he proposes to play" - no mention there of intention, >> and "proposes" is in the present tense, i.e. proposes to play at the time >> when the Director requires him to choose. > > Those who are argue, do not argue that the player's choice of card to play > is affected by the original intention. Instead, they argue that the > disposition of the remaining exposed card (not the one that is finally > played) that is affected by the original intention. If the remaining card > is the card the player originally intended to play then that card was > exposed deliberately (as in playing to a trick) and is a major penalty > card, regardless of rank. > > 3 intended to played, K3 exposed, 3 played, K remains as major penalty > card. > 3 intended to played, K3 exposed, K played, 3 remains as major penalty > card. > K intended to played, K3 exposed, 3 played, K remains as major penalty > card. > K intended to played, K3 exposed, K played, 3 remains as minor penalty > card. > > (Or so say those who argue.) > > Robin >> +=+ Yes, Robin, and so? Is that not how it was last year, too? If nothing has changed, we have yielded to the glib and specious lure of the street cry "If it ain't broke don't fix it". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 8 19:59:28 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:59:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D0939B3@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <001901c85235$08ed1a80$a8d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited >> +=+ "which card he proposes to play" - no mention there of intention, >> and "proposes" is in the present tense, i.e. proposes to play at the time >> when the Director requires him to choose. > > Those who are argue, do not argue that the player's choice of card to play > is affected by the original intention. Instead, they argue that the > disposition of the remaining exposed card (not the one that is finally > played) that is affected by the original intention. If the remaining card > is the card the player originally intended to play then that card was > exposed deliberately (as in playing to a trick) and is a major penalty > card, regardless of rank. > > 3 intended to played, K3 exposed, 3 played, K remains as major penalty > card. > 3 intended to played, K3 exposed, K played, 3 remains as major penalty > card. > K intended to played, K3 exposed, 3 played, K remains as major penalty > card. > K intended to played, K3 exposed, K played, 3 remains as minor penalty > card. > > (Or so say those who argue.) > > Robin >> +=+ Yes, Robin, and so? Is that not how it was last year, too? If nothing has changed, we have yielded to the glib and specious lure of the street cry "If it ain't broke don't fix it". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Tue Jan 8 21:29:35 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:29:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D0939B3@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <008601c85235$2f15eed0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited >> +=+ "which card he proposes to play" - no mention there of intention, >> and "proposes" is in the present tense, i.e. proposes to play at the time >> when the Director requires him to choose. > > Those who are argue, do not argue that the player's choice of card to play > is affected by the original intention. Instead, they argue that the > disposition of the remaining exposed card (not the one that is finally > played) that is affected by the original intention. If the remaining card > is the card the player originally intended to play then that card was > exposed deliberately (as in playing to a trick) and is a major penalty > card, regardless of rank. > > 3 intended to played, K3 exposed, 3 played, K remains as major penalty > card. > 3 intended to played, K3 exposed, K played, 3 remains as major penalty > card. > K intended to played, K3 exposed, 3 played, K remains as major penalty > card. > K intended to played, K3 exposed, K played, 3 remains as minor penalty > card. > > (Or so say those who argue.) Having been howled down by EBU practice, i remain resolutely opposed to seeking intention. John > > Robin > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or > privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. > If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or > disclose such information. > > NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any > attachments are free from viruses. > > NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 > Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, > Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Jan 8 21:43:44 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 08 Jan 2008 21:43:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion Message-ID: <20080108204344.BCCCB597C3A@f05.poczta.interia.pl> > That's a nice story, but, read carefully, it shows a fatal flaw in > the "dWS" argument. > > You know your system (or think you do). You make a bid which has a > definite meaning in your system. But partner's alert (or lack of > alert) tells you that he thinks it means something else, something > different, something which is not covered by your agreements. The > dWS would have you alert and explain, from that point forward, in > accordance with what partner thought your bid actually meant. > > But the dWS does not explain how you're supposed to know what that is. > > It's all well and good to imagine a player, who has just bid 2S > thinking it was the correct systemic call on a 5-count with 4-4 in > the majors, hearing partner's alert and immediately saying to > himself, "Oh my goodness, he must think I have a balanced 16+ HCP > with no four-card major," but in real life he is saying to himself, > "What the hell?!" I assume that you wrote your post in haste. Because I just cannot believe you can be so comepletely off base when it comes to describing reality. Come on. If you and your partner agree to some artificial treatment and you forget then an unexpected alert is more than enough for you to remind you of the convention you have agreed to. Think about the pair in question. Opener bid 3D with a diamond doubleton holding 4=4=2=3. Do you think he invented this bid at the table? Of course not - this pair agreed to play the artificial relay Stayman, agreed on the step responses, agreed on the method of suit setting and everything. This time responder remembered this very well but even if he forgot and bid 2S naturally it is obvious that the alert of this bid would immediately remind him that he has just bid the relay. This is the scenario that occurs almost every single time with unexpected alerts. Whenever a pair agrees to play a convention or some treatment and one of the players forgets then an alert is more that enough to remind him immediately about everything. If you reluctantly agree to play Ghestem and then you overcall the 1S opening with 3C holding long clubs and partner alerts - do you need anything more? Do you really want to convince me that you say to yourself ""What the hell?!" and have no clue about what partner expects you to have for 3C? Nonsense - you realize in half a second that you agreed to play Ghestem. This applies to irrgeular partnerships just the same. Even if you play with someone you have never played with before then in 95% of cases there are some local habits, schools or the like. If I sit down with a Polish partner and the bidding goes 1C 1S 2D and if he suddenly alerts my reverse then I immediately know that he plays for a strong hand (19+) with 3+S ("odwrotka") because it is the only other option. And I know this even if I have never played with him before. Situations when one player's unexpected alert comes as a true shock to his partner who has no clue why his bid has been alerted are truely rare - maybe 5% or even less often. Almost every time partner can immediately deduce what his bid means according to his partner. In those very rare cases when you really have no clue you can always explain "I don't know" just as you do playing traditional school. Where is the fatal flaw? -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rozdajemy nagrody! Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1cbf From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 8 22:38:38 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:38:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <20080108204344.BCCCB597C3A@f05.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20080108204344.BCCCB597C3A@f05.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <4E6D4046-A613-45B5-BEBC-E783EA2BB5B4@starpower.net> On Jan 8, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> You know your system (or think you do). You make a bid which has a >> definite meaning in your system. But partner's alert (or lack of >> alert) tells you that he thinks it means something else, something >> different, something which is not covered by your agreements. The >> dWS would have you alert and explain, from that point forward, in >> accordance with what partner thought your bid actually meant. >> >> But the dWS does not explain how you're supposed to know what that >> is. >> >> It's all well and good to imagine a player, who has just bid 2S >> thinking it was the correct systemic call on a 5-count with 4-4 in >> the majors, hearing partner's alert and immediately saying to >> himself, "Oh my goodness, he must think I have a balanced 16+ HCP >> with no four-card major," but in real life he is saying to himself, >> "What the hell?!" > > I assume that you wrote your post in haste. Because > I just cannot believe you can be so comepletely off base > when it comes to describing reality. Come on. > > If you and your partner agree to some artificial treatment and > you forget then an unexpected alert is more than enough for you > to remind you of the convention you have agreed to. > > Think about the pair in question. Opener bid 3D with a diamond > doubleton holding 4=4=2=3. Do you think he invented this bid > at the table? Of course not - this pair agreed to play > the artificial relay Stayman, agreed on the step responses, > agreed on the method of suit setting and everything. > This time responder remembered this very well but even if > he forgot and bid 2S naturally it is obvious that > the alert of this bid would immediately remind him that > he has just bid the relay. Sure, the dWS works particularly well in Konrad's particularly well- chosen example. But look what Konrad is expecting the dWS follower to do. He makes an alertable (or non-alertable) bid which he believes is the correct call in his system. But partner doesn't alert (or does). In the time it takes the auction to reach his partner, he must determine *correctly* that partner's failure to alert was due to partner's having misunderstood his call, rather than, say, to unfamiliarity with the alert procedures, or simple inattention, he must determine *correctly* what partner thought his call meant, he must determine *correctly* what methods partner believes himself to be playing that include the agreement he thinks you are using, which may not, in fact, have anything to do with your system at all, he must determine *correctly* in that context what partner thinks partner's response to his call means, he must make a determination whether what partner thinks partner's call means is or isn't alertable, and he must do this all absolutely smoothly, without the least hitch or hesitation that might reveal that he and his partner may be having a miscommunication, lest the whole point of following the dWS be lost. I don't think that "comes to describing reality" very well most of the time. Admittedly, in Konrad's example it might, but I don't see how we can generalize from that example to the entire dWS. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 8 22:41:43 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 22:41:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c8523f$42c408e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads ................ > > Therefore also my sample statement "You get three tricks" when > > there are five more to play is a claim (of the two other tricks) as > > good as any. > > But it isn't a claim according to L68A. If that statement isn't a statement to the effect that the player will take two of the remaining five tricks I do not know the meaning of the words "to the effect that". And I am pretty sure that I do indeed know the meaning of these words. > Again I see no problem with > allowing play to continue because I can "delete" the words "You get 3 > tricks" and having done so there is NO claim. If the statement had been > "You get 3 tricks and I get the last two." and I deleted the concession > words I would *still* have a claim to deal with under L68A. Sure you can obtain whatever you want if you are permitted to manipulate and delete parts of statements at your own discretion. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 8 23:05:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:05:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] Definition of "trick" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007501c85217$6f385f70$11d4403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>perhaps for the same reason that a Bukhara carpet has a >>small deliberate flaw. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I don't know what you are all going on about. Is the >meaning of 'flawed' in any way in doubt? Or is the >conversation merely to reflect a crotchety, pernickety >daintiness on the part of subscribers? [snip] Richard Hills: Precisely my point. The reason that the Bukhara carpet- weavers insert small deliberate flaws into the patterns of their carpets is to avoid the sin of hubris, since only Allah can produce a perfect carpet. But a carpet with a small pernickety flaw is good enough for practical use as a floor covering. And a 2007 Lawbook with some small pernickety flaws is good enough for practical use as a Director's manual. 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 Tue Jan 8 23:39:07 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 23:39:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion References: <20080108204344.BCCCB597C3A@f05.poczta.interia.pl> <4E6D4046-A613-45B5-BEBC-E783EA2BB5B4@starpower.net> Message-ID: <01cc01c85247$47dc3a70$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 10:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > On Jan 8, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >>> You know your system (or think you do). You make a bid which has a >>> definite meaning in your system. But partner's alert (or lack of >>> alert) tells you that he thinks it means something else, something >>> different, something which is not covered by your agreements. The >>> dWS would have you alert and explain, from that point forward, in >>> accordance with what partner thought your bid actually meant. >>> >>> But the dWS does not explain how you're supposed to know what that >>> is. >>> >>> It's all well and good to imagine a player, who has just bid 2S >>> thinking it was the correct systemic call on a 5-count with 4-4 in >>> the majors, hearing partner's alert and immediately saying to >>> himself, "Oh my goodness, he must think I have a balanced 16+ HCP >>> with no four-card major," but in real life he is saying to himself, >>> "What the hell?!" >> >> I assume that you wrote your post in haste. Because >> I just cannot believe you can be so comepletely off base >> when it comes to describing reality. Come on. >> >> If you and your partner agree to some artificial treatment and >> you forget then an unexpected alert is more than enough for you >> to remind you of the convention you have agreed to. >> >> Think about the pair in question. Opener bid 3D with a diamond >> doubleton holding 4=4=2=3. Do you think he invented this bid >> at the table? Of course not - this pair agreed to play >> the artificial relay Stayman, agreed on the step responses, >> agreed on the method of suit setting and everything. >> This time responder remembered this very well but even if >> he forgot and bid 2S naturally it is obvious that >> the alert of this bid would immediately remind him that >> he has just bid the relay. > > Sure, the dWS works particularly well in Konrad's particularly well- > chosen example. But look what Konrad is expecting the dWS follower > to do. > > He makes an alertable (or non-alertable) bid which he believes is the > correct call in his system. But partner doesn't alert (or does). In > the time it takes the auction to reach his partner, he must determine > *correctly* that partner's failure to alert was due to partner's > having misunderstood his call, rather than, say, to unfamiliarity > with the alert procedures, or simple inattention, he must determine > *correctly* what partner thought his call meant, he must determine > *correctly* what methods partner believes himself to be playing that > include the agreement he thinks you are using, which may not, in > fact, have anything to do with your system at all, he must determine > *correctly* in that context what partner thinks partner's response to > his call means, he must make a determination whether what partner > thinks partner's call means is or isn't alertable, and he must do > this all absolutely smoothly, without the least hitch or hesitation > that might reveal that he and his partner may be having a > miscommunication, lest the whole point of following the dWS be lost. I have been using dWs for years and I almost never have any problems your're describing. Sorry, Eric, but the practice proves you wrong - following dWs is nowhere near as difficult as you describe it. Even if you get it wrong sometimes you end up sending UI to you partner - so are in the same place as if you would be the follower of the traditional way. You don't lose anything. And MI is an infraction that is far, far less damaging to the game than UI. The former is always detected - the latter is rarely detected. Also there can be and often there are various levels of UI - bid in tempo, bid slightly hasty, a tad slower, after a 2-3 second pause, longer pauses etc. Most of them are registered by the players, most of them send important information, most of them mean something - and most of them are impossible to police. MI, on the other hand, most of the time (though not always but most of the time) is a yes-no problem - either he has 5S or he hasn't. Either has 5+-5+ in reds or he has 6+C. And so on. My estimation is that in a typical tournament about 80% of MI cases are caught while about 80% cases of UI use go undetected. That's why players should do everthing they can to limit UI. It is much more detrimental to the game. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland > > I don't think that "comes to describing reality" very well most of > the time. Admittedly, in Konrad's example it might, but I don't see > how we can generalize from that example to the entire dWS. > > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sprawdz, ktore komorki sa najmodniejsze! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cd4 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 9 01:02:43 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:02:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <01cc01c85247$47dc3a70$451a1d53@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: [big snip] >My estimation is that in a typical tournament >about 80% of MI cases are caught while >about 80% cases of UI use go undetected. > >That's why players should do everything they >can to limit UI. It is much more detrimental >to the game. Richard Hills: I do not follow Konrad's reasoning. If my partnership adopted the De Wael School, then we would give more MI to the opponents, but less UI to ourselves. However, since my partnership abides by Law 73C, we never use pard's UI, so Konrad's 80% statistic is irrelevant, removing any point in my partnership adopting the De Wael School. The only significant argument in favour of the De Wael School is that it gains a competitive advantage over the Majority School by reducing the applicability of the 2007 Law 75A. >>In a worst case scenario, a player may be >>reminded by pard's explanation that >>systemically 7S should be bid (scoring >>+2210), but Law 75A requires them to >>knowingly misbid to Seven No Trumps >>Redoubled Minus Thirteen for Minus Seven >>Thousand Six Hundred! De Wael School +2210, Majority School -7600. So what? It is valid to argue that a bidding system should be adopted because it gains a competitive advantage (my Symmetric Relay system notes emailed on request). But it is not valid to argue that an unauthorised interpretation of Law should be adopted because it gains a competitive advantage over those who abide by the authorised interpretation of Law. Such an argument "is not cricket". (Or perhaps it is, given recent cricket shenanigans in Australia during the Test series with India.) 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 Jan 9 02:17:52 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:17:52 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901c85235$08ed1a80$a8d2403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Robin Barker: [snip] >>3 intended to played, K3 exposed, K played, 3 remains as major >>penalty card. [snip] >>(Or so say those who argue.) >> >>Robin Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Yes, Robin, and so? Is that not how it was last year, too? > If nothing has changed, we have yielded to the glib and > specious lure of the street cry "If it ain't broke don't > fix it". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Nothing has changed??? Those who argue, such as David Stevenson, do not base their arguments on Law 58B2, but rather on the definition of Minor Penalty Card in Law 50B. And "something has changed" between the 1997 and 2007 versions of Law 50B. Last year a Minor Penalty Card was exposed "inadvertently". But this year a Minor Penalty Card will be exposed "unintentionally". This gives added strength to the Stevensonian interpretation "3 intended to be played, 3 remains as major penalty card", which was also adopted by the EBU Law and Ethics Committee, so is an official (but merely local) English interpretation of Law 58B2 as listed in the 2006 EBU White Book. However..... The 2007 Law 50B word "unintentionally" is immediately followed by the bracketed phrase "(as in playing two cards to a trick ... )". What does "as" mean? Does it mean: (a) playing two cards to a trick is _defined_ as unintentional? or (b) playing two cards to a trick is _sometimes_ unintentional? 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 Wed Jan 9 03:18:01 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 09 Jan 2008 03:18:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <20080109021801.5CB2C36FC2E@f44.poczta.interia.pl> > Konrad Ciborowski: > > [big snip] > > >My estimation is that in a typical tournament > >about 80% of MI cases are caught while > >about 80% cases of UI use go undetected. > > > >That's why players should do everything they > >can to limit UI. It is much more detrimental > >to the game. > > Richard Hills: > > I do not follow Konrad's reasoning. If my > partnership adopted the De Wael School, then > we would give more MI to the opponents, but > less UI to ourselves. > > However, since my partnership abides by Law > 73C, Mine, too. So if I play against you you won't mind if I tell my partner that I have a 14 count and 4=5=1=3? Or if I tell him to play a spade at trick five? Because since my partnership abides by L73C... Sorry, Richard, but we can never know that. M.Rosenberg once wrote a very important essay about the UI - that even if you abide by L73C and carefully avoid taking any advantage etc. and you think you are absolutely sure that you would make this or that bid or play anyway you still can never be sure that it wasn't the UI the crystalized that decision in you. So it is most important to avoid creating UI in the first place. BTW it was proved empirically that even partnerships who could swear to God that they abide by L73C do use UI. Screens proved that beyond any doubt. We are human - we do use this confirmation from partner's alert that ensures us that we are on the right track. > we never use pard's UI, You do, Richard. Everybody does. Subconciously maybe but you do. When I was to play with screens for the first time I was absolutely certain that for my partnership it will be a big advantage because we never, ever use UI so for us it won't matter (while it might matter for other pairs). After a few first sessions I was forced to admit (and man, did I hate it) that I must have been using the UI before because we had some shaky bidding sequences and misunderstandings we normally didn't have. It was probably the most painful discovery I have ever made for myself in bridge - because I considered my partnership the cleanest and the most ethical in the universe. Finding out that despite all effors I still must have been using UI was terrible for me. Since then I believe that it is not possible for a human to completely avoid taking advantage of UI because our perception and our subconciousness is what it is - so avoiding creating UI is more important than anything else.. And you should go out of your way to do it. One way to do it is to avoid breaking L20F5a (in the new laws) at all cost. May not in any manner it says. ANY. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Nadchodzi wojna miedzygalaktyczna! Sprawdz! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cc2 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 9 03:36:21 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:36:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4783ABC4.2060901@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus: [snip] >Players playing according to what you call the >traditional school are actually playing by the rules. [snip] Richard Hills: Agreed. On the other hand, many average players are unaware of the principles behind the rules, thinking that creating UI without design is the ultimate crime, when in fact it is not a crime at all. Indeed, until recently, some blmlers believed that the fake "crime" of creating UI without design was worse than the real crime of creating MI. Perhaps the revised Code of Practice and/or the Appendix might include a hierarchy of principles? For example: Rule 1. Thou shalt not give MI. Rule 2. Thou shalt not use UI. Rule 3. Thou shalt correct thine own MI as soon as thou realises thy error. Rule 4. Thou shalt directly correct thy partner's MI at the appropriate time (and shalt indirectly correct thy partner's MI if required by Rule 1.) Rule 5. Thou shalt not create UI by thy own design (but obeying Law or Regulation is not by thy design). When Moses was offered five commandments by God, he asked, "How much do they cost?" God replied, "They're free." Moses said, "Good, then I'll take ten." 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 Jan 9 04:08:51 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:08:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080109021801.5CB2C36FC2E@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: >You do, Richard. Everybody does. Subconsciously >maybe but you do. Richard Hills: I agree that I receive a lot of UI from partner, especially since pard is a particularly slow and thoughtful player. But I then select the contra- indicated logical alternative. Konrad Ciborowski: >When I was to play with screens for the first >time I was absolutely certain that for my >partnership it will be a big advantage because >we never, ever use UI so for us it won't matter >(while it might matter for other pairs). > >After a few first sessions I was forced to admit >(and man, did I hate it) that I must have been >using the UI before because we had some shaky >bidding sequences and misunderstandings we >normally didn't have. Richard Hills: Due to the Symmetric Relay methods (system notes emailed on request) of the 2007 Ali-Hills pair, and the 1987 Hills-Hurley pair, our bidding sequences are as firm behind screens as without. In addition to the technical advantage relay systems have in often limiting logical alternatives to just one bid, my personal style in having extensive pre-event bidding practice plus comprehensive system notes paid off. Konrad Ciborowski: >One way to do it is to avoid breaking L20F5a >(in the new laws) at all cost. May not in any >manner it says. ANY. 2007 Law 20F5(a): A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. "Mistaken explanation" here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require. Richard Hills: It is a fundamental principle that the 2007 Lawbook should not be self-contradictory. So I argue that "nor may he indicate in any manner" should be interpreted as "nor may he indicate by any mannerism". That is, one cannot grimace or frown to directly wake partner up. But one is _required_ under Law 20F1 to give a subsequent truthful explanation to a subsequent question, even if such truthfulness may now indirectly wake partner up. 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 Wed Jan 9 04:58:18 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 22:58:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080109021801.5CB2C36FC2E@f44.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20080109021801.5CB2C36FC2E@f44.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:18 PM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Since then I believe that it is not possible for a human > to completely avoid taking advantage of UI because > our perception and our subconciousness is what it is - > so avoiding creating UI is more important than anything > else.. I don't believe that conclusions follows from the premise. The laws do not require that one not create, or try not to create, UI. They *do* require that one not misinform opponents about one's partnership agreements. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 9 06:51:04 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:51:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mort post 'em [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200801040000.AA11920@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Brian Meadows ("re claim" thread, 3rd January 2008) [big snip] >>You've said that the members of the WBFLC don't think too >>much of the standard of the posts on BLML. Fair enough, >>that's their opinion, they're entitled to it. While we're >>recording opinions, *my* opinion is that as far as >>*effective* communication is concerned, I don't think the >>WBFLC could collectively run a piss-up in a brewery, and I >>don't have to know the first thing about writing the laws of >>bridge to come to that conclusion. Terry Pratchett, "Mort": "It would seem that you have no useful skill or talent whatsoever," he said. "Have you thought of going into teaching?" Bob Geller ("Executive...Part Two" thread, 4th January 2008): [big snip] >The problem till now has been that the laws drafted every 10 >years are slways done in haste and then are left to sit as >they are for 7 or 8 years till the next hasty job. Richard Hills: I cannot speak for Edgar Kaplan's work habits. However, the Coordinator of the Drafting Committee invited all interested parties to submit ideas a non-hasty half-a-decade before the 2007 Lawbook was unveiled. Since a copy of that invitation was published in the Australian Directors' Bulletin, I sent a few ideas to the Coordinator myself way back then. The Coordinator also non-hastily sieved blml over the years, very occasionally finding a diamond amongst blml's slurry. The Drafting Committee non-hastily decided the principles behind the new Lawbook in 2006, allowing itself plenty of non- hasty time to settle the appropriate wording embodying those principles in 2007. Alas, for the 2007 Laws the 90/90 Law applied: "The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the time. The remaining 10% of a project takes the other 90% of the time." So unavoidable hastiness by the Drafting Committee in Shanghai may lead to unintended Shanghai Surprise rulings by TDs. 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 Wed Jan 9 08:13:35 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 09 Jan 2008 08:13:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <20080109071335.BE05C29B013@f37.poczta.interia.pl> > > On Jan 8, 2008, at 9:18 PM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > Since then I believe that it is not possible for a human > > to completely avoid taking advantage of UI because > > our perception and our subconciousness is what it is - > > so avoiding creating UI is more important than anything > > else.. > > > I don't believe that conclusions follows from the premise. > > The laws do not require that one not create, or try not to create, > UI. They *do* require that one not misinform opponents about one's > partnership agreements. > And they do require avoiding in _any_ manner. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Kupujesz laptopa? Sprawdz nasze testy! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cd1 From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jan 9 08:21:46 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 09 Jan 2008 08:21:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <20080109072146.F156E29B013@f37.poczta.interia.pl> > Konrad Ciborowski: > > >You do, Richard. Everybody does. Subconsciously > >maybe but you do. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree that I receive a lot of UI from partner, > especially since pard is a particularly slow and > thoughtful player. But I then select the contra- > indicated logical alternative. > > Konrad Ciborowski: > > >When I was to play with screens for the first > >time I was absolutely certain that for my > >partnership it will be a big advantage because > >we never, ever use UI so for us it won't matter > >(while it might matter for other pairs). > > > >After a few first sessions I was forced to admit > >(and man, did I hate it) that I must have been > >using the UI before because we had some shaky > >bidding sequences and misunderstandings we > >normally didn't have. > > Richard Hills: > > Due to the Symmetric Relay methods (system notes > emailed on request) of the 2007 Ali-Hills pair, > and the 1987 Hills-Hurley pair, our bidding > sequences are as firm behind screens as without. > Pairs playing relay systems (like myself) are the ones who need the most this confirmation from the alerts. If what you are saying were true screens wouldn't be as damaging to relayers as they are. > In addition to the technical advantage relay > systems have in often limiting logical > alternatives to just one bid, Nope, you always have the option of breaking out the relay chain and switching to natural bidding. > my personal style > in having extensive pre-event bidding practice > plus comprehensive system notes paid off. > I bid hundreds of practice deals with my partner during practice sessions every month. I have more than 100 pages of system notes. And yet I wouldn't dare say that I am 100% sure that I'm as effective behind screens as without them. You are living in dreamland, Richard. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chcesz kupic aparat? Sprawdz, ktory jest najlepszy! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cd3 From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jan 9 08:24:51 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 09 Jan 2008 08:24:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <20080109072451.EDB2029B016@f37.poczta.interia.pl> > Matthias Berghaus: > > [snip] > > >Players playing according to what you call the > >traditional school are actually playing by the rules. > So are players playing dWS. To the extent playing by the rules is possible when you are in a position that you must break either one law ("may not in any manner") or another (L40B). We just decide to break the law whose breaking is less damaging to the opponents and less detrimental to the game. -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wszystko co chcesz wiedziec o telewizorach HD! Sprawdz >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1cd0 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jan 9 10:01:08 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:01:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric: If Ton cannot be convinced that "you get one" is a "statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks" whilst "I take three" is ""statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks", not the other way around, so be it. ton: This is becoming childish. How is it possible not to be convinced about the literary meaning of a statement? My understanding of English is just enough to understand this. What I am saying is that both statements are identical in their meaning (if there are still four tricks to play). I rest my case. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 9 10:42:48 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:42:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <33CFA7BF-1704-4421-B1C7-FDF90E440F4D@starpower.net> References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> <33CFA7BF-1704-4421-B1C7-FDF90E440F4D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47849718.8080507@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > But the dWS does not explain how you're supposed to know what that is. > I think in many cases the player knows full well what the alternative could be. > It's all well and good to imagine a player, who has just bid 2S > thinking it was the correct systemic call on a 5-count with 4-4 in > the majors, hearing partner's alert and immediately saying to > himself, "Oh my goodness, he must think I have a balanced 16+ HCP > with no four-card major," but in real life he is saying to himself, > "What the hell?!" > And so he just goes on explaining as per MS, and giving UI. The question here is not whether the MS is permitted, or whether the dWS is better, but whether the dWS is permitted. I'll get a better result than you, don't worry. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 9 10:53:24 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:53:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <4783ABC4.2060901@t-online.de> References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> <4783ABC4.2060901@t-online.de> Message-ID: <47849994.8060205@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > as you said, discrepancies between hand and description are caught at > least 99% of the time, so there is no suspicion of cheating. A baby > could have noticed. But voluntarly giving MI? That is a different kettle > of fish altogether. > Why? Isn't that caught as well? > Let us assume players who know the rules and their ethical obligations. > They could play "traditional", see that they have UI, and do the right > thing, not using the UI, going down 1100 or something. Or they could > play dWs, not using UI, correcting the MI and so on, and going off 1100 > in a different contract. The problem is that more than 95% of players > couldn`t do either, and it is much easier to cheat using dWs than > "traditional", because the case you described (which exists, no doubt > about it) is very rare, while chances to survive by giving MI and hope > nobody notices are penty. > OK, tell me how it is easier to cheat by dWS than MS? Partner has misexplained your bid, hasn't he? Isn't the TD always going to arrive? If you mean that you are trying to get away with misbid rather than MI, that is something adherents of both schools can try to do - they will both continue to explain according to the first explanation, and say they misbid. That is not cheating, per se. OTOH, adherents of the dWS give a correct description of partner's intentions and hand. I believe MS followers should give both explanations - the systemic one, and the intention of partner. I believe that to give 2 explanations for a single call is not only deliberate brekaing of the law that you should not correct partner's mistake, it is also confusing to opponents. I call that one "cheating". > The only time the dWs may have an advantage is when the dWs player has a > partner whom he does not trust to handle UI. So why not educate him? I think it is quite the reverse. It is precisely because I trust my partner to bend over backwards to avoid using UI, that I want to avoid giving him the UI in the first place. It is the MS player who voluntarily gives UI who is hoping he can trust his partner to use the UI (perhaps only in some subtle way that the TD won't punish). > If > my knowledge of the rules is that much better, and if my ethics aloow me > to use either "method" without cheating, why not teach partner to do it, > too? And everyone else, while I am at it. Then anyone could play by the > rules and be done with it. But do you trust everyone to correct the MI > in time when it may go unnoticed? I wouldn't, because anyone who cannot > handle UI cannot handle giving deliberate MI either, but is usually more > difficult to detect, your pretty spectacular example nonwithstanding. How can the second MI go unnoticed? The first one is glaringly obvious, and the TD will ask the player "why did you explain this like that?" If the answer is "to attempt to get you to rule misbid", the TD knows what to do - if the answer is "to avoid giving UI - and please notice that I called you myself to correct the MIs", then the TD knows why there was deliberate MI. > If people could handle UI perfectly we would not be having this > discussion. So why should they be able to handle MI? > > I found your observations very interesting, and some conclusions > correct, but your final answer to the problem is IMO wrong. > > Best regards > Matthias > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 9 11:00:57 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:00:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47849B59.9040608@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Konrad Ciborowski: > > [big snip] > >> My estimation is that in a typical tournament >> about 80% of MI cases are caught while >> about 80% cases of UI use go undetected. >> >> That's why players should do everything they >> can to limit UI. It is much more detrimental >> to the game. > > Richard Hills: > > I do not follow Konrad's reasoning. If my > partnership adopted the De Wael School, then > we would give more MI to the opponents, but > less UI to ourselves. > > However, since my partnership abides by Law > 73C, we never use pard's UI, so Konrad's 80% > statistic is irrelevant, removing any point > in my partnership adopting the De Wael > School. > No Richard, you forget something! Without UI, you are free to choose the "suggested" option. Since it was not suggested, it is rather unlikely that you will choose it, but there remains a 30% chance that you find it. But _with_ UI, you are no longer free to choose the suggested optioin. it is those 30% that you lose. That is the point to adopting the dWS. > The only significant argument in favour of > the De Wael School is that it gains a > competitive advantage over the Majority > School by reducing the applicability of the > 2007 Law 75A. > >>> In a worst case scenario, a player may be >>> reminded by pard's explanation that >>> systemically 7S should be bid (scoring >>> +2210), but Law 75A requires them to >>> knowingly misbid to Seven No Trumps >>> Redoubled Minus Thirteen for Minus Seven >>> Thousand Six Hundred! > > De Wael School +2210, Majority School -7600. > > So what? It is valid to argue that a > bidding system should be adopted because it > gains a competitive advantage (my Symmetric > Relay system notes emailed on request). > > But it is not valid to argue that an > unauthorised interpretation of Law should > be adopted because it gains a competitive > advantage over those who abide by the > authorised interpretation of Law. Such an > argument "is not cricket". (Or perhaps it > is, given recent cricket shenanigans in > Australia during the Test series with > India.) I shall refrain from calling you a monkey, but your argument lacks validity. You start by saying that the dWS is an unauthorized interpretation of Law, and you conclude that it is unlawful from that. Circular reasoning! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 9 11:04:10 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:04:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47849C1A.6080609@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Perhaps the revised Code of Practice and/or the Appendix > might include a hierarchy of principles? For example: > > Rule 1. Thou shalt not give MI. > Rule 2. Thou shalt not use UI. > Rule 3. Thou shalt correct thine own MI as soon as thou > realises thy error. > Rule 4. Thou shalt directly correct thy partner's MI at > the appropriate time (and shalt indirectly > correct thy partner's MI if required by Rule 1.) > Rule 5. Thou shalt not create UI by thy own design (but > obeying Law or Regulation is not by thy design). > Very clever, Richard. You frame your views in stone, and you believe that this proves that your views are the correct ones. Konrad and I would put Rule 2 on top. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 9 11:06:49 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:06:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47849CB9.9010103@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > 2007 Law 20F5(a): > > A player whose partner has given a mistaken > explanation may not correct the error during > the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner > that a mistake has been made. "Mistaken > explanation" here includes failure to alert or > announce as regulations require or an alert (or > an announcement) that regulations do not require. > > Richard Hills: > > It is a fundamental principle that the 2007 > Lawbook should not be self-contradictory. So I > argue that "nor may he indicate in any manner" > should be interpreted as "nor may he indicate > by any mannerism". > > That is, one cannot grimace or frown to directly > wake partner up. > This is the best one yet. Richard does not like Konrad's conclusion, so he reinterprets law to suit himself. > But one is _required_ under Law 20F1 to give a > subsequent truthful explanation to a subsequent > question, even if such truthfulness may now > indirectly wake partner up. > No Richard, one is bound by L20F5a _and_ by L20F1. You decide the latter has precedence. We believe the former is the stronger one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 9 11:49:45 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:49:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c852ad$593c8f20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au ..................... > Grattan Endicott: > > >+=+ Yes, Robin, and so? Is that not how it was last year, too? > > If nothing has changed, we have yielded to the glib and > > specious lure of the street cry "If it ain't broke don't > > fix it". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > Nothing has changed??? > > Those who argue, such as David Stevenson, do not base their > arguments on Law 58B2, but rather on the definition of Minor > Penalty Card in Law 50B. > > And "something has changed" between the 1997 and 2007 versions > of Law 50B. Last year a Minor Penalty Card was exposed > "inadvertently". But this year a Minor Penalty Card will be > exposed "unintentionally". And the significant difference is? > This gives added strength to the Stevensonian interpretation > "3 intended to be played, 3 remains as major penalty card", > which was also adopted by the EBU Law and Ethics Committee, so > is an official (but merely local) English interpretation of Law > 58B2 as listed in the 2006 EBU White Book. > > However..... > > The 2007 Law 50B word "unintentionally" is immediately followed by > the bracketed phrase "(as in playing two cards to a trick ... )". That is the text also in the laws of 1997! > What does "as" mean? Does it mean: > > (a) playing two cards to a trick is _defined_ as unintentional? > > or > > (b) playing two cards to a trick is _sometimes_ unintentional? I have never seen two cards intentionally or deliberately played to the same trick by the same player, have you? Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 9 12:08:17 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:08:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000701c852ad$593c8f20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <009701c852b0$048bed60$71d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> And "something has changed" between the 1997 > > and 2007 versions of Law 50B. Last year a Minor >> Penalty Card was exposed "inadvertently". But this >> year it will be exposed "unintentionally". > +=+ The DSC agreed that 'unintentional' was a better word to describe the treatment of 'inadvertent' under the 1997 laws. More easily understood. Not changing the effect of the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Wed Jan 9 12:04:31 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:04:31 +0900 Subject: [blml] Definition of "trick" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200801091104.AA11966@geller204.nifty.com> First, my point of view in looking at the laws right now is that of someone involved in working on a draft of a translation, into Japanese in my particular case. I just happened to pick a single random example that I was looking at the moment. Judging from the number of WBF member NBOs, I suppose the Laws are being translated into 50 or so languages (does anyone know the exact number?). IMO it is highly desirable for the drafters to put a lot of work into making the laws easy to translate. I don't believe enough effort has heretofore been made in this area. Take the one example I brought up earlier. The definitions in the 2008 laws say ***************************************************** "Trick . the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless **flawed** of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead." **************************************************** wheras "defective" (rather than "flawed") is used everyplace else in the 2008 laws (this can be easily verified by a search of the final pdf file.) So now you have a situation where every translator for each of the 50 languages (and remember, some of them may not be highly fluent in English) has to decide what was the intent of the drafters. Did they mean the same thing by "flawed" and "defective," or should two different words be used in the translation? Perhaps this one example is no big deal in itself, but IMO there are a large number of places in the 2008 laws where the problems for translators could have been eased if more effort had been expended on a careful redaction of the final English edition. I think this is a problem warranting the attention of the drafters, and I'm disappointed that two people deeply involved in the drafting process are dismissing this problem with snarky wisecracks (" a carpet with a small pernickety flaw is good enough for practical use as a floor covering") or ad hominem remarks (" crotchety, pernickety, daintiness"). It is highly disarable for TLB to be as nearly identical as possible in every country of the world, and to the extent that the English language TLB is easier to translate, the uniformity of TLB in all languages will be more nearly realizable. There is an obvious economy of scale here: for every potential problem that is eliminated by the drafters, fifty different NBOs are spared a translation problem. If anyone is interested (please send me mail) I'd be happy to send a list of other places where improvments in the English text seem warranted to eliminate potential translation problems, but I don't think a long list of these on BLML would be appropriate. Judging from what Anna Gudge wrote on her blog about the hectic process involved in the final days of the drafting of the 2008 laws., It appears that it was a big struggle just to get a reasonable, not "translation-optimized," draft finished and approved before the Shanghai championships ended. I don't know the terms of reference of the DSC, but I'd guess that the DSC was simply charged with producing the laws in English. Full stop. (If someone has the terms of reference and they're not confidential may I request that they be posted here on BLML). Also, may I suggest that in the future the DSC should be charged primarily with producing an English language draft of the laws which has been suitably optimized and redacted so that they can be easily translated into all of the languages used by the various WBF member countries. As these laws would be in English, they would of course serve the purpose of being the official laws in the English-speaking member countries of the WBF. It is unrealistic to expect that the WBF DSC will not be pressed for time when they are preparing the 2018 laws, My suggestion is that it would be appropriate (now that there is no time pressure) to work on simplifying and streamlining the 2008 laws, starting now. The idea would be to produce a draft that would have the same meaning as the present laws, but that would be easier to translate (and easier to understand in English, too). The point would be not that the redacted/simplified/edited laws should be promulgated in 2010 or whatever (this seems undesirable), but to try to provide an improved starting point for the drafting of the 208 laws. To this end the DSC could make enquires to the laws authorities of every non-English speaking country, to identify features of the 2008 laws that made translation difficult, so that the DSC could know what was most important to fix. -Bob richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >Richard Hills: > >[snip] > >>>perhaps for the same reason that a Bukhara carpet has a >>>small deliberate flaw. > >Grattan Endicott: > >>+=+ I don't know what you are all going on about. Is the >>meaning of 'flawed' in any way in doubt? Or is the >>conversation merely to reflect a crotchety, pernickety >>daintiness on the part of subscribers? > >[snip] > >Richard Hills: > >Precisely my point. The reason that the Bukhara carpet- >weavers insert small deliberate flaws into the patterns >of their carpets is to avoid the sin of hubris, since >only Allah can produce a perfect carpet. > >But a carpet with a small pernickety flaw is good enough >for practical use as a floor covering. And a 2007 >Lawbook with some small pernickety flaws is good enough >for practical use as a Director's manual. > > >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 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 9 12:17:51 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:17:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Turn the other cheek. Message-ID: <00cd01c852b2$1a938170$71d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <47849C1A.6080609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4784B106.90800@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Perhaps the revised Code of Practice and/or the Appendix >> might include a hierarchy of principles? For example: >> >> Rule 1. Thou shalt not give MI. >> Rule 2. Thou shalt not use UI. >> Rule 3. Thou shalt correct thine own MI as soon as thou >> realises thy error. >> Rule 4. Thou shalt directly correct thy partner's MI at >> the appropriate time (and shalt indirectly >> correct thy partner's MI if required by Rule 1.) >> Rule 5. Thou shalt not create UI by thy own design (but >> obeying Law or Regulation is not by thy design). >> >> > > Very clever, Richard. You frame your views in stone, and you believe > that this proves that your views are the correct ones. Konrad and I > would put Rule 2 on top. > > I would put #5 on top. The word "design" means you do it purposely, and this is a very severe offense. Regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 9 12:55:46 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:55:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47849CB9.9010103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801c852b6$9254dde0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................. > No Richard, one is bound by L20F5a _and_ by L20F1. > > You decide the latter has precedence. We believe the former is the > stronger one. By ordinary juridical standards L20F1 is the main part of L20F, the subsequent parts of L20F are elaborations of the principles established in L20F1. If L20F5 were to take precedence of L20F1 in case of any conflict between them then L20F1 should have contained a "but see L20F5 following" clause or words to that effect. Sven From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jan 9 14:10:37 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:10:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <47849994.8060205@skynet.be> References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> <4783ABC4.2060901@t-online.de> <47849994.8060205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4784C7CD.5030601@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > >> as you said, discrepancies between hand and description are caught at >> least 99% of the time, so there is no suspicion of cheating. A baby >> could have noticed. But voluntarly giving MI? That is a different kettle >> of fish altogether. >> >> > > Why? Isn't that caught as well? > Often enough it isn`t, because the misinformer ends up as a defender, declarer doesn`t notice, and now he keeps mum. Once again, if a player is ethical enough to reveal his MI, why is he not ethical enough not to use UI? > >> Let us assume players who know the rules and their ethical obligations. >> They could play "traditional", see that they have UI, and do the right >> thing, not using the UI, going down 1100 or something. Or they could >> play dWs, not using UI, correcting the MI and so on, and going off 1100 >> in a different contract. The problem is that more than 95% of players >> couldn`t do either, and it is much easier to cheat using dWs than >> "traditional", because the case you described (which exists, no doubt >> about it) is very rare, while chances to survive by giving MI and hope >> nobody notices are penty. >> >> > > OK, tell me how it is easier to cheat by dWS than MS? Partner has > misexplained your bid, hasn't he? Isn't the TD always going to arrive? Why should he, if he isn`t called? Playing dWs I can misinform to my heart`s content, and then keep quiet about it if I guessed partner`s hand correctly, claiming to have misbid before and later to have remembered the agreement, while partner was correct all the time. If opps buy that I am home free, and if they don`t I am not worse off than I would I have been if I had been honest. > > If you mean that you are trying to get away with misbid rather than > MI, that is something adherents of both schools can try to do - they > will both continue to explain according to the first explanation, and > say they misbid. That is not cheating, per se. > WHAT????? Of course this is cheating, plain and simple. What else would you call it? Telling 1% of the truth? If you can delude yourself to think this is not cheating you will go on bending words here and meanings there to justify anything. > OTOH, adherents of the dWS give a correct description of partner's > intentions and hand. Which the law explicitly tells them not to do. Correct procedure is to correctly explain one`s agreements, UI be damned. > I believe MS followers should give both > explanations - the systemic one, and the intention of partner. I > believe that to give 2 explanations for a single call is not only > deliberate brekaing of the law that you should not correct partner's > mistake, it is also confusing to opponents. I call that one "cheating". > Herman, it does not matter to me what you believe. The law says I have to explain my agreements. I do not have to explain partner`s intentions, as I am not privy to them. If the opps see a divergence between my explanations and partner's, they can ask about that. Until the end of the auction I will continue to explain the system as I see it, and my partner will do the same. They can draw any conclusion they like, and I will even help them to draw the right conclusion if I am sure what has happened, but I will _not_ speculate about "intentions". I leave it to the TD to determine whether there was misbid or MI. My system notes are at the club, and I bring them to all major tournaments. If I forget, too bad for me. > >> The only time the dWs may have an advantage is when the dWs player has a >> partner whom he does not trust to handle UI. So why not educate him? >> > > I think it is quite the reverse. It is precisely because I trust my > partner to bend over backwards to avoid using UI, that I want to avoid > giving him the UI in the first place. It is the MS player who > voluntarily gives UI who is hoping he can trust his partner to use the > UI (perhaps only in some subtle way that the TD won't punish). > Ahhh, so you think you are at a disadvantage, because others cheat with UI and your partner doesn`t. Good for him. So in order not to concede an advantage to players less ethical than you and your partner you invent a convoluted argument which lets you avoid UI, hoping to get a better score by giving MI, because the restraints of L16 are not present. This is not news to me, anyone reading your posts arefully should long ago have gathered that dWs is not about UI or MI, it is about better scores for the adherents of dWs. It is about "choosing" (not that the rules let you choose anything, you just maintin that you can do so, against the repeated comments of members of WBFLC, diverse chief TD and so and so on) the interpretation most advantageous to you. And then you go and call explaining agreements correctly cheating? Good grief.... > >> If >> my knowledge of the rules is that much better, and if my ethics aloow me >> to use either "method" without cheating, why not teach partner to do it, >> too? And everyone else, while I am at it. Then anyone could play by the >> rules and be done with it. But do you trust everyone to correct the MI >> in time when it may go unnoticed? I wouldn't, because anyone who cannot >> handle UI cannot handle giving deliberate MI either, but is usually more >> difficult to detect, your pretty spectacular example nonwithstanding. >> > > How can the second MI go unnoticed? The first one is glaringly > obvious Hello? Earth to orbit? Why has it to be "glaringly obvious"? If you only use examples where this is case, then you should try to think about examples where it isn`t. I`ll give you one. Playing shape relays your partner forgets that the next step ask for length in clubs, believing to ask for diamond length. You think that your next relay is RKCB for clubs, partner having shown 5. He explains it as RKCB for diamonds (because he has shown 5 of them, believing you to have asked for diamond length).. As this is the first time that a question was asked you now continue to explain on that basis. Now you bid 6 diamonds, which makes. Where is the "glaringly obvious" part here? If you don`t confess nobody will be the wiser. You purportedly asked for diamonds (you may even have done so if _partner_ remembered correctly, makin this just an UI case), and then bid slam in the suit, having discovered length with partner. _Nobody_ would ever notice. From tsvecfob at iol.ie Wed Jan 9 14:16:19 2008 From: tsvecfob at iol.ie (Fearghal O'Boyle) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:16:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: Message-ID: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> Hi ton, I am in the mood for a good discussion on the laws...should I be troubling you or resorting to blml? For instance, a player is in receipt of UI in a 1S - 3S auction which suggests bidding 4S rather than passing. He is sort of ethical and aware of 73C so he decides to bid 7S which happens to make today because of 4 successful finesses and extremely lucky breaks. Has he chosen from among logical alternatives one that could have been suggested by the UI? If he has not do you propose to use L12 to take back his gain? Regards, Fearghal. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jan 9 14:16:17 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:16:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <47849718.8080507@skynet.be> References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> <33CFA7BF-1704-4421-B1C7-FDF90E440F4D@starpower.net> <47849718.8080507@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4784C921.7040005@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Eric Landau wrote: > > >> But the dWS does not explain how you're supposed to know what that is. >> >> > > I think in many cases the player knows full well what the alternative > could be. > > >> It's all well and good to imagine a player, who has just bid 2S >> thinking it was the correct systemic call on a 5-count with 4-4 in >> the majors, hearing partner's alert and immediately saying to >> himself, "Oh my goodness, he must think I have a balanced 16+ HCP >> with no four-card major," but in real life he is saying to himself, >> "What the hell?!" >> >> > > And so he just goes on explaining as per MS, and giving UI. The > question here is not whether the MS is permitted, or whether the dWS > is better, but whether the dWS is permitted. > > I'll get a better result than you, don't worry. > > > > And this is all what the dWs is about. Better scores. Forget the waffle about describing partner`s hand, not confusing opponents, and so ad nauseam. _The bottom line of the dWs is: better scores. _ `Nuff said. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 9 14:20:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:20:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801c852b6$9254dde0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000801c852b6$9254dde0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4784CA12.6070508@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ................. >> No Richard, one is bound by L20F5a _and_ by L20F1. >> >> You decide the latter has precedence. We believe the former is the >> stronger one. > > By ordinary juridical standards L20F1 is the main part of L20F, the > subsequent parts of L20F are elaborations of the principles established in > L20F1. > > If L20F5 were to take precedence of L20F1 in case of any conflict between > them then L20F1 should have contained a "but see L20F5 following" clause or > words to that effect. > By ordinary standards parts 1 and 5 of a set are equal in precedence. If 1 is to take precedence over 5, then the law should have said under 5, "unless 1". > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 9 14:37:54 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:37:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <4784C7CD.5030601@t-online.de> References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> <4783ABC4.2060901@t-online.de> <47849994.8060205@skynet.be> <4784C7CD.5030601@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4784CE32.9080808@ulb.ac.be> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > Why should he, if he isn`t called? Playing dWs I can misinform to my > heart`s content, and then keep quiet about it if I guessed partner`s > hand correctly, claiming to have misbid before and later to have > remembered the agreement, while partner was correct all the time. If > opps buy that I am home free, and if they don`t I am not worse off than > I would I have been if I had been honest. > > Notice that this is true whenever a ruling aims at "restoring equity" without additional penalties. Sometimes, one will be tempted to non-un-MI for the sake of helping opponents (not partner) and, while I know this isn't correct, it can't help but think it helps playing fluidity. Say partner explains your bid as "6+ spades", but it is "5+". (I make the exemple basic on purpose) Assume you're careful enough not to take advantage of this UI (eg you know he might raise on 2 cards but don't take it into account). If you end up as declarer, and telle opponents, before the lead, it was "5+", it will give them impression that you hold only 5, and they might be very angry when they discover that, serendipituously, you indeed hold 6 of them. You might be suspect of introducing MI. Keeping mum would solve this. However, it isn't allowed. This is one of the reasons why I agree with the fact that "no use of UI" can be more important than "no MI". > > > Which the law explicitly tells them not to do. Correct procedure is to > correctly explain one`s agreements, UI be damned. > > Indeed. And I claim this definition of correct procedure makes it more difficult to be simultaneously procedure-lawful, honest and helpful to the opponents than adoption of dWS would. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 9 14:50:35 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:50:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <4784C7CD.5030601@t-online.de> References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> <4783ABC4.2060901@t-online.de> <47849994.8060205@skynet.be> <4784C7CD.5030601@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4784D12B.7050100@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> >> >>> as you said, discrepancies between hand and description are caught at >>> least 99% of the time, so there is no suspicion of cheating. A baby >>> could have noticed. But voluntarly giving MI? That is a different kettle >>> of fish altogether. >>> >>> >> Why? Isn't that caught as well? >> > > Often enough it isn`t, because the misinformer ends up as a defender, > declarer doesn`t notice, and now he keeps mum. Once again, if a player > is ethical enough to reveal his MI, why is he not ethical enough not to > use UI? > Let me remind you that the dWS is an advice to ethical players. The full advice includes the obligations about calling the director and such. Unethical players can use either the dWS or the MS to keep silent about the first MI. In addition, the MS (in its majority) commit a secondary MI, that of not correctly describing the intention of the second bidder. If they keep schtum about that one as well, they have acted triply unethically. And I repeat - I don't want to have my partner "not use UI". I want to give him the possibility of working it out (and choosing the "suggested" alternative) of his own doing, without being restricted by UI regulations. >>> >> OK, tell me how it is easier to cheat by dWS than MS? Partner has >> misexplained your bid, hasn't he? Isn't the TD always going to arrive? > > Why should he, if he isn`t called? Playing dWs I can misinform to my > heart`s content, and then keep quiet about it if I guessed partner`s But partner has misexplained MY hand. I already have the obligation of calling the TD. If I don't, then I'm acting unethically, regardless of my further belonging to one school or the other! > hand correctly, claiming to have misbid before and later to have > remembered the agreement, while partner was correct all the time. If > opps buy that I am home free, and if they don`t I am not worse off than > I would I have been if I had been honest. > But I am not honest, am I? Because I did not call the TD and have him judge if I misbid or not. If I want to pretend I have misbid, then it does not matter what school I belong to, because both schools give the same advice when it was a misbid rather than a MI. >> >> If you mean that you are trying to get away with misbid rather than >> MI, that is something adherents of both schools can try to do - they >> will both continue to explain according to the first explanation, and >> say they misbid. That is not cheating, per se. >> > > WHAT????? Of course this is cheating, plain and simple. What else would > you call it? Telling 1% of the truth? If you can delude yourself to > think this is not cheating you will go on bending words here and > meanings there to justify anything. > OK, so pretending to be misbidding is cheating, yeah, OK, let's accept that. But the actions of a DWS cheat and those of a MS cheat are exactly the same afterwards - so you cannot use that scenario to pass judgment on the DWS! >> OTOH, adherents of the dWS give a correct description of partner's >> intentions and hand. > > Which the law explicitly tells them not to do. Correct procedure is to > correctly explain one`s agreements, UI be damned. > NO, correct procedure is to not correct MI, per L20F5! These two pieces of correct procedure are in conflict, and there is no part of the laws that says "UI be damned". That's what you are adding. You cannot keep using your own interpretations as basis for attaacking mine - that is circular reasoning. >> I believe MS followers should give both >> explanations - the systemic one, and the intention of partner. I >> believe that to give 2 explanations for a single call is not only >> deliberate brekaing of the law that you should not correct partner's >> mistake, it is also confusing to opponents. I call that one "cheating". >> > > Herman, it does not matter to me what you believe. And it does not matter to anyone what you believe. That does not make it truth. > The law says I have > to explain my agreements. I do not have to explain partner`s intentions, > as I am not privy to them. But here you are privy to them. He has told you what they were. And opponents ARE entitled to know the answering scheme to "RKCBlackwood". (surely you understand my argument here. If your partner explains your bid as "Berghaus convention" and then bids 4Di, your opponents are entitled to know what the 4Di response to Berghaus shows, even if the Berghaus convention does not apply) >>> >> I think it is quite the reverse. It is precisely because I trust my >> partner to bend over backwards to avoid using UI, that I want to avoid >> giving him the UI in the first place. It is the MS player who >> voluntarily gives UI who is hoping he can trust his partner to use the >> UI (perhaps only in some subtle way that the TD won't punish). >> > > Ahhh, so you think you are at a disadvantage, because others cheat with > UI and your partner doesn`t. Good for him. So in order not to concede an > advantage to players less ethical than you and your partner you invent a > convoluted argument which lets you avoid UI, hoping to get a better > score by giving MI, because the restraints of L16 are not present. > You minsunderstand. I am not at a disadvantage over cheaters, I am at a disadvantage over MS bidders. Or rather, I want to have an advantage over MS users. Which I believe is ethically correct. > This is not news to me, anyone reading your posts arefully should long > ago have gathered that dWs is not about UI or MI, it is about better > scores for the adherents of dWs. It is about "choosing" (not that the > rules let you choose anything, you just maintin that you can do so, > against the repeated comments of members of WBFLC, diverse chief TD and > so and so on) the interpretation most advantageous to you. And then you > go and call explaining agreements correctly cheating? Good grief.... > I did not call anyone cheaters - it is you (and/or others) who call DWS adepts cheats. Because they give a small part of MI in order to correctly follow several other laws. I vehemently refuse to be called a cheat. >>> >> How can the second MI go unnoticed? The first one is glaringly >> obvious > > Hello? Earth to orbit? Why has it to be "glaringly obvious"? If you only > use examples where this is case, then you should try to think about > examples where it isn`t. I`ll give you one. Playing shape relays your > partner forgets that the next step ask for length in clubs, believing to > ask for diamond length. You think that your next relay is RKCB for > clubs, partner having shown 5. He explains it as RKCB for diamonds > (because he has shown 5 of them, believing you to have asked for diamond > length).. As this is the first time that a question was asked you now > continue to explain on that basis. Now you bid 6 diamonds, which makes. > Where is the "glaringly obvious" part here? If you don`t confess nobody > will be the wiser. You purportedly asked for diamonds (you may even have > done so if _partner_ remembered correctly, makin this just an UI case), > and then bid slam in the suit, having discovered length with partner. > _Nobody_ would ever notice. > OK, but as I said before, DWS users will admit to the first MI. It does not take the DWS to cheat. A MS adept can easily cheat in exactly the same way (deliberately misexplaining without admitting it afterwards) and again "nobody would ever notice". If you want to cheat, you really don't need the DWS to do it. And if you want to play ethically, the DWS is better than the MS. But that's just my personal opinion (and those of Konrad and Alain, and probably others). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 9 14:51:44 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 08:51:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000401c8523f$42c408e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000401c8523f$42c408e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Jan 8, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > ................ >>> Therefore also my sample statement "You get three tricks" when >>> there are five more to play is a claim (of the two other tricks) as >>> good as any. >> >> But it isn't a claim according to L68A. > > If that statement isn't a statement to the effect that the player > will take > two of the remaining five tricks I do not know the meaning of the > words "to > the effect that". And I am pretty sure that I do indeed know the > meaning of > these words. ISTM that if a concession were a claim and claim were a concession, there would be a law in TFLB governing "any statement to the effect that a contestant will win or lose a specific number of tricks". Since there are two entirely different laws, one for "win" and one for "lose", the authors must have seen some difference between them that Sven doesn't. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 9 14:53:33 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:53:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> Message-ID: <4784D1DD.6020508@ulb.ac.be> Fearghal O'Boyle a ?crit : > Hi ton, > I am in the mood for a good discussion on the laws...should I be troubling > you or resorting to blml? > > For instance, a player is in receipt of UI in a 1S - 3S auction which > suggests bidding 4S rather than passing. He is sort of ethical and aware of > 73C so he decides to bid 7S which happens to make today because of 4 > successful finesses and extremely lucky breaks. > > The question is : what is meant by "being ethical" in this case ? TFLB says "not to do anything that could have been suggested by the mannerism". > Has he chosen from among logical alternatives one that could have been > suggested by the UI? > Nope. Bidding 7S was not "logical", neither was it suggested. In such a case, logical alternatives will often limit to pass, 3NT and 4S. TFLB says that one may not choose 3NT nor 4S. End. > If he has not do you propose to use L12 to take back his gain? > > L12 only speaks about what the TD should do after an irregularity (including fouled boards). L12 shan't be used when there isn't any irregularity. You can't give him any penalty absent any infraction. A carrot, perhaps. The case of the player who makes an absurd penalty double because he is angry against partner, and happens to induce declarer into a losing line of play, isn't that uncommon. No redress. Best regards. Alain From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 9 14:54:29 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:54:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <20080109090153.SUYB13876.aamtain07-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20080109090153.SUYB13876.aamtain07-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <4784D215.9080207@ntlworld.com> [Sven] If Ton cannot be convinced that "you get one" is a "statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks" whilst "I take three" is ""statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks", not the other way around, so be it. [ton] This is becoming childish. How is it possible not to be convinced about the literary meaning of a statement? My understanding of English is just enough to understand this. What I am saying is that both statements are identical in their meaning (if there are still four tricks to play). I rest my case. [Nige1] As David Burn and others point out, it is possible to make an *arithmetical mistake* (for example concede 5 tricks when only four tricks remain). Although Sven makes a good case, IMO, normal usage and common sense dictate that Ton is correct. That is just an opinion. I also feel that Brian Meadows is right: it is the WBFLC that is acting childishly and irresponsibly. Grattan opines that such clarifications must wait for Ton's appendix (assuming that the WBFLC eventually ratify its production). This is a good idea, in principle; good for honing director judgements; but an inappropriate vehicle for corrections and disambiguations; and, anyway, pretty pointless if lacking the force of law; IMO the WBFLC should amend the text of the law-book, in place, to settle such disputes, once and for all. Such changes are not really "new editions". They are republications, incorporating corrigenda in the body of the text. The authoritative version would always be the official last version on the WBF web-site. The WBFLC would also maintain a separate list of corrigenda to the first version. In keeping with tradition, the WBF would be free to lock the latter documents in a loo labelled "Beware of the Leopard". The advantage of maintaining an up-to-date single version is that any player or director who wanted to understand the law would then have a single authoritative source. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 9 15:11:58 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:11:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Definition of "trick" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200801091104.AA11966@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200801091104.AA11966@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <4784D62E.7020504@ntlworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ I don't know what you are all going on about. Is the meaning of 'flawed' in any way in doubt? Or is the conversation merely to reflect a crotchety, pernickety daintiness on the part of subscribers? [Richard Hills] Precisely my point. The reason that the Bukhara carpet- weavers insert small deliberate flaws into the patterns of their carpets is to avoid the sin of hubris, since only Allah can produce a perfect carpet. [Robert Geller] First, my point of view in looking at the laws right now is that of someone involved in working on a draft of a translation, into Japanese in my particular case. I just happened to pick a single random example that I was looking at the moment. [SNIP] So now you have a situation where every translator for each of the 50 languages (and remember, some of them may not be highly fluent in English) has to decide what was the intent of the drafters. Did they mean the same thing by "flawed" and "defective," or should two different words be used in the translation? Perhaps this one example is no big deal in itself, but IMO there are a large number of places in the 2008 laws where the problems for translators could have been eased if more effort had been expended on a careful redaction of the final English edition. I think this is a problem warranting the attention of the drafters, and I'm disappointed that two people deeply involved in the drafting process are dismissing this problem with snarky wisecracks (" a carpet with a small pernickety flaw is good enough for practical use as a floor covering") or ad hominem remarks (" crotchety, pernickety, daintiness"). [SNIP] Judging from what Anna Gudge wrote on her blog about the hectic process involved in the final days of the drafting of the 2008 laws., It appears that it was a big struggle just to get a reasonable, not "translation-optimized," draft finished and approved before the Shanghai championships ended. [SNIP] ... may I suggest that in the future the DSC should be charged primarily with producing an English language draft of the laws which has been suitably optimized and redacted so that they can be easily translated into all of the languages used by the various WBF member countries. [SNIP] ... it would be appropriate (now that there is no time pressure) to work on simplifying and streamlining the 2008 laws, starting now. [nige1] I agree with Bob. I would like Bridge rules to be more complete, clearer, less sophisticated, less subjective, and initially presented as "decision tables". Even his reduced remit would be pretty daunting. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 9 15:39:19 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 15:39:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <4784D215.9080207@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000b01c852cd$6b658dd0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Guthrie This quote is a false accusation; I never wrote the text below and I feel insulted by any assumption of the implied opinion being mine! > [Sven] > If Ton cannot be convinced that "you get one" is a "statement to the > effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks" whilst > "I take three" is ""statement to the effect that a contestant will win > a specific number of tricks", not the other way around, so be it. In fact I have always asserted that a concession of some of but not all the remaining tricks is indeed a claim of the remaining tricks by force of the words in Law 68A: "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks". If a player says something like "you will win two more tricks" the effect of this statement is indeed that he claims the other remaining tricks. Sven > [ton] > This is becoming childish. How is it possible not to be convinced > about the literary meaning of a statement? My understanding of English > is just enough to understand this. > > What I am saying is that both statements are identical in their > meaning (if there are still four tricks to play). I rest my case. > > [Nige1] > As David Burn and others point out, it is possible to make an > *arithmetical mistake* (for example concede 5 tricks when only four > tricks remain). > > Although Sven makes a good case, IMO, normal usage and common sense > dictate that Ton is correct. > > That is just an opinion. > > I also feel that Brian Meadows is right: it is the WBFLC that is > acting childishly and irresponsibly. > > Grattan opines that such clarifications must wait for Ton's appendix > (assuming that the WBFLC eventually ratify its production). This is a > good idea, in principle; good for honing director judgements; but an > inappropriate vehicle for corrections and disambiguations; and, > anyway, pretty pointless if lacking the force of law; > > IMO the WBFLC should amend the text of the law-book, in place, to > settle such disputes, once and for all. > > Such changes are not really "new editions". They are republications, > incorporating corrigenda in the body of the text. > > The authoritative version would always be the official last version on > the WBF web-site. > > The WBFLC would also maintain a separate list of corrigenda to the > first version. In keeping with tradition, the WBF would be free to > lock the latter documents in a loo labelled "Beware of the Leopard". > > The advantage of maintaining an up-to-date single version is that any > player or director who wanted to understand the law would then have a > single authoritative source. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 9 15:57:09 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:57:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000b01c852cd$6b658dd0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000b01c852cd$6b658dd0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4784E0C5.90705@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> On Behalf Of Guthrie >> > > This quote is a false accusation; I never wrote the text below and I feel > insulted by any assumption of the implied opinion being mine! > > Perhaps it would make life on blml easier if errors wern't systematically taken as insults ... From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 9 16:10:39 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:10:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <4784C921.7040005@t-online.de> References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> <33CFA7BF-1704-4421-B1C7-FDF90E440F4D@starpower.net> <47849718.8080507@skynet.be> <4784C921.7040005@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4784E3EF.3050709@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >>> But the dWS does not explain how you're supposed to know what that is. >>> >>> >> I think in many cases the player knows full well what the alternative >> could be. >> >> >>> It's all well and good to imagine a player, who has just bid 2S >>> thinking it was the correct systemic call on a 5-count with 4-4 in >>> the majors, hearing partner's alert and immediately saying to >>> himself, "Oh my goodness, he must think I have a balanced 16+ HCP >>> with no four-card major," but in real life he is saying to himself, >>> "What the hell?!" >>> >>> >> And so he just goes on explaining as per MS, and giving UI. The >> question here is not whether the MS is permitted, or whether the dWS >> is better, but whether the dWS is permitted. >> >> I'll get a better result than you, don't worry. >> >> >> >> > And this is all what the dWs is about. Better scores. Forget the waffle > about describing partner`s hand, not confusing opponents, and so ad > nauseam. > > _The bottom line of the dWs is: better scores. _ > > > `Nuff said. > And will you outlaw double squeezes, defensive signalling, and RKCB for that same reason? I apologize for sounding ridiculous, but it is you who uses the sole argument that since I'm doing it to better my scores, it must be wrong! Of course I won't do anything that will lower my scores. That includes revoking (the penalty is severe enough to discourage it), giving MI in ordinary cases, and making use of UI. It also includes giving MI in order to avoid giving UI. You believe that this is not allowed, but I believe that it is. And saying that I'm doing it to better my scores is no argument in your favour. Why am I constantly battling against people who use bogus arguments? Maybe because there are no REAL arguments that make the DWS practices unlawful! Of course, arguments that end with 'nuff said are very convincing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 9 16:21:47 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:21:47 +0000 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <4784E0C5.90705@ulb.ac.be> References: <000b01c852cd$6b658dd0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4784E0C5.90705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4784E68B.2050108@ntlworld.com> [Eric Landau *not Sven Pran*] If Ton cannot be convinced that "you get one" is a "statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks" whilst "I take three" is ""statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks", not the other way around, so be it. [Sven Pran] This quote is a false accusation; I never wrote the text below and I feel insulted by any assumption of the implied opinion being mine! [Alain Gotcheiner] Perhaps it would make life on blml easier if errors weren't systematically taken as insults ... [nige1] Thank you, Alain. I hope that Sven will accept my apology for a false attribution. I also hope that Eric Landau does not take umbrage at Sven's indignant repudiation. Sorry, all. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jan 9 16:52:10 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:52:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> Message-ID: Hi Fearghal, If I remember well we have had this discussion in blml. But which not? And I do not have a sure answer. I tend to say that there is no relation between the UI and the call made. Formally spoken the bid of 7S is not suggested at all, nor is it a logical alternative, so I think that we do not have a choice but to allow it. But I do not like it too much. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Fearghal O'Boyle Sent: woensdag 9 januari 2008 14:16 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [blml] LA Hi ton, I am in the mood for a good discussion on the laws...should I be troubling you or resorting to blml? For instance, a player is in receipt of UI in a 1S - 3S auction which suggests bidding 4S rather than passing. He is sort of ethical and aware of 73C so he decides to bid 7S which happens to make today because of 4 successful finesses and extremely lucky breaks. Has he chosen from among logical alternatives one that could have been suggested by the UI? If he has not do you propose to use L12 to take back his gain? Regards, Fearghal. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jan 9 17:33:29 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:33:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <4784D215.9080207@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: ???: IMO the WBFLC should amend the text of the law-book, in place, to settle such disputes, once and for all. ton: Let me say it again. The meaning of the text in L 68 is obvious, even when some of you very respected people try to say otherwise. To amend the laws, which I consider to be a dangerous action, we need at least a real problem. If some of you can't read, I am always willing to teach/explain. ton From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 9 18:07:58 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:07:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Definition of "trick" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <200801091104.AA11966@geller204.nifty.com> <4784D62E.7020504@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <009e01c852e2$9b59cfa0$3bcf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Definition of "trick" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Perhaps this one example is no big deal in itself, but IMO > there are a large number of places in the 2008 laws where > the problems for translators could have been eased if more > effort had been expended on a careful redaction of the final > English edition. > +=+ Having worked for several years as a translator myself, and from time to time since, I hold that the prime requirement for the translator is a full understanding of the language from which he is translating. Translation then involves replicating the meaning of the one language in the other. The remit of the Drafting Subcommittee had no concern for the remit of the translator. It was to set an intended meaning accurately in English. In my opinion we largely did that although there were improvements, as I saw them, that were rejected with the rattle "If it ain't broke don't mend it.". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ...................................................................................... From mustikka at charter.net Wed Jan 9 18:18:30 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:18:30 -0800 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> <4783ABC4.2060901@t-online.de><47849994.8060205@skynet.be> <4784C7CD.5030601@t-online.de> Message-ID: <001101c852e3$a7ef49b0$486ecd18@DFYXB361> >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: [in response to others who did not agree with >> this] >> Correct procedure is to correctly explain one`s agreements, UI be damned. >> I agree. The Law requires it. It is the truth. Once again, I am dismayed to see that some respected blml'ers recommend otherwise. Raija From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 9 18:31:25 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:31:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080109071335.BE05C29B013@f37.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20080109071335.BE05C29B013@f37.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <393EEB81-9B82-4A17-9B52-49A596F55496@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 9, 2008, at 2:13 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > And they do require avoiding in _any_ manner. Avoiding what? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 9 18:39:22 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:39:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <68giru$18paog4@hrndva-mx-17.mgw.rr.com> References: <68giru$18paog4@hrndva-mx-17.mgw.rr.com> Message-ID: <0AB1DCE3-0ABA-4B53-BBE3-0090288FBBBB@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 9, 2008, at 10:52 AM, ton wrote: > But I do not like it too much. Whyever not? The 7S bidder has done something utterly ridiculous. It happened to work out for him, against the odds. Why is this not "rub of the green", aka "sheer dumb luck"? From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 9 19:41:52 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 18:41:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> Message-ID: <00bf01c852ef$cadd20d0$3bcf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:16 PM Subject: [blml] LA > > Has he chosen from among logical alternatives one that > could have been suggested by the UI? < +=+ Hold on. This is the wrong question. The law say "the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." So the questions are Is 7S a logical alternative? If 'yes', is there another logical alternative that is less suggested than the call chosen? If 'yes', has the infraction of law resulted in an advantage for the offender? Now, like ton, I think the only material consideration here lies in the first question. The answers to the others are undoubtedly affirmative - 'lucky' is immaterial in the last case, the question is about the result obtained. However, I cannot dismiss the first question lightly. We have to look at the definition of 'logical alternative' in Law 16B1(b). Does the choice of the bid not indicate that the player himself deemed it a logical alternative? If so, it would seem that 'class of player in question' is defined as a player who would consider it a logical alternative; it is in no way relevant that in the abstract one does not see a relationship between the information and the bid, the matter to be judged is whether the class of player might consider it a logical alternative and whether, for whatever reason, it is more suggested than another. Could we argue, for example, that if 4S is the optimum contract, on balance over an infinite number of occasions 7S would offer better odds than Pass - or this might at least be the player's perception? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 9 20:01:30 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:01:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <001101c852e3$a7ef49b0$486ecd18@DFYXB361> References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> <4783ABC4.2060901@t-online.de><47849994.8060205@skynet.be> <4784C7CD.5030601@t-online.de> <001101c852e3$a7ef49b0$486ecd18@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <47851A0A.4090301@skynet.be> raija wrote: >>> Matthias Berghaus wrote: [in response to others who did not agree with >>> this] > > Correct procedure is to correctly explain one`s agreements, UI be damned. > > I agree. The Law requires it. It is the truth. Once again, I am dismayed to > see that some respected blml'ers recommend otherwise. > > Raija > With all due respect, the sentence above is indeed true, except for the final three words. (UI be damned) The relevant law says: LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS A. Players? Systemic Agreements 1. (a) (...) (b) Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done. (...) B. Special Partnership Understandings (...) 4. A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents? failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score. It is worth noting that the new L40 joins quite well the diverse previous laws, but that there is, as before, no real obligation to "tell the truth". Nowhere does it say that these obligations are to be followed even when they mean that UI is transmitted to partner. I acknowledge the correctness (as a shorter way of saying the same thing) of the sentence above, as Matthias puts it, that: "Correct procedure is to correctly explain one`s agreements" I do not acknowledge that the addition "UI be damned" is a correct rendering of the sayings of L40. By writing something obvious (and true) and adding something strong (but wrong), Matthias gives the impression of providing a powerful argument. Raija agrees, and does not realize he has agreed with something that simply is not true. L40 does not say that you should not give MI when the alternative is to give UI. L40 only says that if opponents are damaged through a lack of correct info, they are entitled to rectification. 2007L20F5a reprises the 1997L75D2: 5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. There is no exception here for a possibility of indicating that the mistake has been made in response to a follow-up question. The followers of the MS are in breach of this law, pure and simple. To paraphrase Raija: The Law requires it. It is the truth. Once again, I am dismayed to see that some respected blml'ers recommend otherwise. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 9 20:03:27 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:03:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <393EEB81-9B82-4A17-9B52-49A596F55496@rochester.rr.com> References: <20080109071335.BE05C29B013@f37.poczta.interia.pl> <393EEB81-9B82-4A17-9B52-49A596F55496@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <47851A7F.9010809@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Jan 9, 2008, at 2:13 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> And they do require avoiding in _any_ manner. > > Avoiding what? > 5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. Avoiding correcting the mistaken explanation by partner. As by saying "you moron"; "opponents, that is not true"; or (IMO) "5Di shows diamonds" (after partner has just described 4NT as Blackwood). repeat after me: _in any manner_ -- 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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 9 20:48:27 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:48:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: <68giru$18paog4@hrndva-mx-17.mgw.rr.com> <0AB1DCE3-0ABA-4B53-BBE3-0090288FBBBB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <00f401c852f8$baeb29c0$3bcf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 5:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] LA > > On Jan 9, 2008, at 10:52 AM, ton wrote: > >> But I do not like it too much. > > Whyever not? The 7S bidder has done something > utterly ridiculous. It happened to work out for him, > against the odds. Why is this not "rub of the green", > aka "sheer dumb luck"? > +=+ My scepticism does not pass over readily the thought that the action might not be so "utterly ridiculous" as he would wish us to believe. Here is a knowledgeable player who knows he cannot bid 4S. What action is more likely to work for him, bid a slam or Pass? Well, when it happens to work the profit in 7S will make up for numerous losses in 3S. Might this canny chap be gambling on the chances of success? 'Against the odds' it is, but we have to think about the odds in comparison with 'Pass' in infinity, and we have to ask ourselves about the player's true perception rather than about his assertion that he is making a ridiculous bid. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ up From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jan 9 22:51:00 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:51:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <4784D12B.7050100@skynet.be> References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> <4783ABC4.2060901@t-online.de> <47849994.8060205@skynet.be> <4784C7CD.5030601@t-online.de> <4784D12B.7050100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <478541C4.80308@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > >> Let me remind you that the dWS is an advice to ethical players. The >> full advice includes the obligations about calling the director and such. >> If all we are talking about, ever, is ethical players, where is the problem? They can handle UI as well as any difficult point arising from dWs. Since there would be not problem with UI the dWs would never have been thought of, because nobody would have felt any need for that. If all people were saints any approach would do. >> Unethical players can use either the dWS or the MS to keep silent >> about the first MI. In addition, the MS (in its majority) commit a >> secondary MI, that of not correctly describing the intention of the >> second bidder. Now you go inventing again. Nowhere (except in your imagiantion, maybe) is any description of partner`s intentions called for. The laws prescribe description of agreements. Would you care to cite a law that says I have to explain partner`s intentions? If you do, would you furthermore care how I am to know his intentions? I have often set some suit as trumps to ask for a otherwise hard to locate queen, and then bidding some contract in another denomination. another time I asked for aces to learn how high to sacrifice (see Burn`s law of 8). Sometime I ask for partner`s length in my short suit to see wheter I want to play NT or not. Do you think my partner knew that at that time? >> If they keep schtum about that one as well, they have >> acted triply unethically. >> >> And I repeat - I don't want to have my partner "not use UI". I want to >> give him the possibility of working it out (and choosing the >> "suggested" alternative) of his own doing, without being restricted by >> UI regulations. >> >> >>>> >>>> >>> OK, tell me how it is easier to cheat by dWS than MS? Partner has >>> misexplained your bid, hasn't he? Isn't the TD always going to arrive? >>> >> Why should he, if he isn`t called? Playing dWs I can misinform to my >> heart`s content, and then keep quiet about it if I guessed partner`s >> > > But partner has misexplained MY hand. I already have the obligation of > calling the TD. If I don't, then I'm acting unethically, regardless of > my further belonging to one school or the other! > Surprise, that it just what I am talking about. I am not concerned with ethical players. They are not the problem. The unethical ones, especially the downright cheaters, are what I am concerned with. I continue to maintain that they can wreak infinitely more havoc using dWs than with giving UI, because you will practically alwas be seen in UI cases, but not necessarily in MI cases. > > > > >> The law says I have >> to explain my agreements. I do not have to explain partner`s intentions, >> as I am not privy to them. >> > > But here you are privy to them. He has told you what they were. > And opponents ARE entitled to know the answering scheme to "RKCBlackwood". > > (surely you understand my argument here. If your partner explains your > bid as "Berghaus convention" and then bids 4Di, your opponents are > entitled to know what the 4Di response to Berghaus shows, even if the > Berghaus convention does not apply) > Yes and no, actually. As per existing laws they are entitled to know what the bid systemically shows, and per regulations they are entitled (in any country I know about, which are not that many) to know what X would show if partner had answered a Berghaus asking bid. > > > You minsunderstand. I am not at a disadvantage over cheaters, I am at > a disadvantage over MS bidders. Or rather, I want to have an advantage > over MS users. Which I believe is ethically correct. > Come again? You think it is ethically correct to play the game differently, because it gives you an advantage? > > >>> How can the second MI go unnoticed? The first one is glaringly >>> obvious >>> >> Hello? Earth to orbit? Why has it to be "glaringly obvious"? If you only >> use examples where this is case, then you should try to think about >> examples where it isn`t. I`ll give you one. Playing shape relays your >> partner forgets that the next step ask for length in clubs, believing to >> ask for diamond length. You think that your next relay is RKCB for >> clubs, partner having shown 5. He explains it as RKCB for diamonds >> (because he has shown 5 of them, believing you to have asked for diamond >> length).. As this is the first time that a question was asked you now >> continue to explain on that basis. Now you bid 6 diamonds, which makes. >> Where is the "glaringly obvious" part here? If you don`t confess nobody >> will be the wiser. You purportedly asked for diamonds (you may even have >> done so if _partner_ remembered correctly, makin this just an UI case), >> and then bid slam in the suit, having discovered length with partner. >> _Nobody_ would ever notice. >> >> > > OK, but as I said before, DWS users will admit to the first MI. Hehehe. Will you hold examinations and hand out licenses to play dWs, anyone failing the test having to play the traditional methods? Get real. That is wishful thinking. Oh, I do not believe that you want to cheat someone, but according to you everyone should play dWs, I have the nagging suspicion that not everyone will measure up to the standards needed.... > It > does not take the DWS to cheat. A MS adept can easily cheat in exactly > the same way (deliberately misexplaining without admitting it > afterwards) and again "nobody would ever notice". > > If you want to cheat, you really don't need the DWS to do it. True, I do not need dWs to cheat, but it is much easier that way. > And if > you want to play ethically, the DWS is better than the MS. But that's > just my personal opinion (and those of Konrad and Alain, and probably > others). > > From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jan 9 23:01:23 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:01:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <4784E3EF.3050709@skynet.be> References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> <33CFA7BF-1704-4421-B1C7-FDF90E440F4D@starpower.net> <47849718.8080507@skynet.be> <4784C921.7040005@t-online.de> <4784E3EF.3050709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47854433.4080406@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > > And will you outlaw double squeezes, defensive signalling, and RKCB > for that same reason? > > I apologize for sounding ridiculous, but it is you who uses the sole > argument that since I'm doing it to better my scores, it must be wrong! > Hmm, why not propagate kicking footballers in the shin, claiming it to be "justifiable attempted manslaughter". It would better your score. Oh, it is against the rules? But I believe that it would remove the problem with "divers" in the penalty zone, getting penalty kicks they are not entitled to. Using "JAM", there would be no divers, because I hit them every time. > Of course I won't do anything that will lower my scores. That includes > revoking (the penalty is severe enough to discourage it), giving MI in > ordinary cases, and making use of UI. It also includes giving MI in > order to avoid giving UI. You believe that this is not allowed, but I > believe that it is. And saying that I'm doing it to better my scores > is no argument in your favour. > > Why am I constantly battling against people who use bogus arguments? > Maybe because there are no REAL arguments that make the DWS practices > unlawful! > Herman, there has been an argument, cited again and again. You did not answer it once. It is that the makers of the rules have told us that explaining our agreements correctly is paramount, and anything else has to take a back seat. I know, you do not want to hear that, but there it is. Of course, if the intent of the lawmakers is a bogus argument, then I am guilty. Go on, ignore how the game should be played. I don`t care. I will go on playing Bridge, and you can play dWs. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 9 23:42:42 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:42:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c85310$f262ea10$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > On Jan 8, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > ................ > >>> Therefore also my sample statement "You get three tricks" when > >>> there are five more to play is a claim (of the two other tricks) as > >>> good as any. > >> > >> But it isn't a claim according to L68A. > > > > If that statement isn't a statement to the effect that the player > > will take > > two of the remaining five tricks I do not know the meaning of the > > words "to > > the effect that". And I am pretty sure that I do indeed know the > > meaning of > > these words. > > ISTM that if a concession were a claim and claim were a concession, > there would be a law in TFLB governing "any statement to the effect > that a contestant will win or lose a specific number of tricks". > Since there are two entirely different laws, one for "win" and one > for "lose", the authors must have seen some difference between them > that Sven doesn't. A claim is not a simultaneous concession and a concession is not a simultaneous claim if any of them is for all the remaining tricks. So the lawmakers have decided to treat them individually. That does not prevent claims and concessions from being treated the same when they in fact are the same, i.e. simultaneously both a claim and a concession (or vice versa). Can that be so difficult to understand? Of course there could have been a single law about "any statement or action to the effect that play should cease" handling both claims and concessions, but the lawmakers haven't done it that way, and I am surprised that anybody can have any problem with this? I join Ton and "rest my case" Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 9 23:44:22 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:44:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <4784E0C5.90705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000101c85311$2df21b50$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ...... > > This quote is a false accusation; I never wrote the text below and I > feel > > insulted by any assumption of the implied opinion being mine! > > > > > Perhaps it would make life on blml easier if errors wern't > systematically taken as insults ... I don't bother about the error; I bother about being assigned an opinion that is completely contrary to the truth. Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 9 23:46:55 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:46:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <4784E68B.2050108@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000201c85311$894c7d60$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Guthrie > [Eric Landau *not Sven Pran*] > If Ton cannot be convinced that "you get one" is a "statement to the > effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks" whilst > "I take three" is ""statement to the effect that a contestant will win > a specific number of tricks", not the other way around, so be it. > > [Sven Pran] > This quote is a false accusation; I never wrote the text below and I > feel insulted by any assumption of the implied opinion being mine! > > [Alain Gotcheiner] > Perhaps it would make life on blml easier if errors weren't > systematically taken as insults ... > > [nige1] > Thank you, Alain. I hope that Sven will accept my apology for a false > attribution. I also hope that Eric Landau does not take umbrage at > Sven's indignant repudiation. Sorry, all. Sure I do. I just couldn't imagine anybody would assign that opinion to me when it should be well known that my opinion is quite the contrary. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 9 23:56:51 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:56:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <0AB1DCE3-0ABA-4B53-BBE3-0090288FBBBB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000301c85312$ec7fbbd0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Jan 9, 2008, at 10:52 AM, ton wrote: > > > But I do not like it too much. > > Whyever not? The 7S bidder has done something utterly ridiculous. It > happened to work out for him, against the odds. Why is this not "rub > of the green", aka "sheer dumb luck"? We had a quiz for Directors before the 1997 laws came into action: A player bids 7NT without looking at his cards. As the cards happen to lie 7NT makes. How do your rule (reference to law is required). Before 1997 there was no formal requirement (like in the later Law 7) that a player must inspect his cards before making any call, so the quiz was not trivial. The correct answer ? The player had made a psychic call and at the same time informed his partner (and also his opponents) that the call was psychic. This was a violation of Law 40 etc. Then we would of course also hit him with "contempt of the game" I join Ton in "I don't like it". (It ain't bridge) Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 10 00:16:32 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 18:16:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <000301c85312$ec7fbbd0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000301c85312$ec7fbbd0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4C6F2D04-1FDF-4DF1-9E80-51A06579847B@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 9, 2008, at 5:56 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > The player had made a psychic call and at the same time informed > his partner > (and also his opponents) that the call was psychic. This partnership had an agreement as to the meaning of a 7NT opening? I'm surprised. From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 10 01:13:12 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:13:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <4C6F2D04-1FDF-4DF1-9E80-51A06579847B@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c8531d$971398a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Jan 9, 2008, at 5:56 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > The player had made a psychic call and at the same time informed > > his partner > > (and also his opponents) that the call was psychic. > > This partnership had an agreement as to the meaning of a 7NT opening? > I'm surprised. No, they had no special agreement, but the player made a call without looking at his cards in such a way that everybody at the table saw what happened. That was effectively announcing that the call he made had no relation to his cards or their agreements, i.e. a psychic call. The quiz was of course about finding a way of hitting that player with the lawbook. The situation did in fact occur towards the end of an event when a pair had nothing to fight for any more. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 10 01:47:33 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:47:33 +1100 Subject: [blml] If it ain't broke... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009e01c852e2$9b59cfa0$3bcf403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >It was to set an intended meaning accurately >in English. In my opinion we largely did that >although there were improvements, as I saw >them, that were rejected with the rattle "If >it ain't broke don't mend it.". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 1997 Law 75D2 / 2007 Law 20F5(a) phrase: "...nor may he indicate in any manner..." Richard Hills: Presumably "ain't broke" was what the majority of the Drafting Sub-Committee thought of the wording of this Kaplanesque phrase. Perhaps the DSC thought that only a fool would believe "in any manner" was synonymous with "in any way", rather than Kaplan's intended paraphrase of "by any mannerism". Truthfully answering a subsequent question is not a "mannerism" of indicating, despite truthfully answering a subsequent question being a broader "way" of indicating. Postscript: I note that Edgar Kaplan used the word "indicate" rather than "reveal". This again suggests that Edgar was thinking about mannerisms (which are indicative) rather than answers to questions (which are revelatory). 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 Jan 10 01:55:53 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 18:55:53 -0600 Subject: [blml] If it ain't broke... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <009e01c852e2$9b59cfa0$3bcf403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801091655h45dbe4bdy365cb9bc4ebe463f@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 9, 2008 6:47 PM, wrote: > Grattan Endicott: > > [snip] > > >It was to set an intended meaning accurately > >in English. In my opinion we largely did that > >although there were improvements, as I saw > >them, that were rejected with the rattle "If > >it ain't broke don't mend it.". > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > 1997 Law 75D2 / 2007 Law 20F5(a) phrase: > > "...nor may he indicate in any manner..." > > Richard Hills: > > Presumably "ain't broke" was what the majority > of the Drafting Sub-Committee thought of the > wording of this Kaplanesque phrase. Perhaps > the DSC thought that only a fool would believe > "in any manner" was synonymous with "in any > way", rather than Kaplan's intended paraphrase > of "by any mannerism". > > Truthfully answering a subsequent question is > not a "mannerism" of indicating, despite > truthfully answering a subsequent question > being a broader "way" of indicating. > > Postscript: I note that Edgar Kaplan used the > word "indicate" rather than "reveal". This > again suggests that Edgar was thinking about > mannerisms (which are indicative) rather than > answers to questions (which are revelatory). > If only mannerisms are meant, then a player can immediately announce that "partner forgot our agreements here"---provided he uses no mannerisms. No, "any manner" must include words. Jerry Fusselman From john at asimere.com Thu Jan 10 02:17:43 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:17:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> <00bf01c852ef$cadd20d0$3bcf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <003401c85326$9a2926f0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] LA > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************** > "In nature there are neither > rewards nor punishments - > there are consequences. > [R.G.Ingersoll] > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:16 PM > Subject: [blml] LA > snip > Now, like ton, I think the only material consideration here lies > in the first question. The answers to the others are undoubtedly > affirmative - 'lucky' is immaterial in the last case, the question is > about the result obtained. However, I cannot dismiss the first > question lightly. We have to look at the definition of 'logical > alternative' in Law 16B1(b). Does the choice of the bid not > indicate that the player himself deemed it a logical alternative? > If so, it would seem that 'class of player in question' is defined > as a player who would consider it a logical alternative; it is in > no way relevant that in the abstract one does not see a > relationship between the information and the bid, the matter to > be judged is whether the class of player might consider it a > logical alternative and whether, for whatever reason, it is more > suggested than another. Could we argue, for example, that if > 4S is the optimum contract, on balance over an infinite number > of occasions 7S would offer better odds than Pass - or this > might at least be the player's perception? the MadDog concurs. 6S is clearly a violation; 7 is not so clear though. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 10 03:03:40 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:03:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] Announce Message-ID: <47857CFC.3090709@ntlworld.com> Recently the EBU introduced "Announcements" for common calls. Instead of alerting partner's call, you "announce" it, unprompted, with a short description. Many were wary of the idea. In practice, however, it works well, and saves time taken by alerts and questions. As well as speeding up the game, "Announcements" reduce unauthorised information. IMO, TFLB should specify an even simpler protocol... [A] *Ban alerts*. [B] Specify a standard format system card with a box on the front to detail *Special understandings* of which opponents should be aware (for example unusual treatments for which opponents may want to agree a defence). The EBU has kindly provided this facility for many years. [C] *Announce each call* (even a natural call) as soon as partner makes it. [D] Except when opponents tell you *not to announce*. [E] An announcement, when opponents have asked you not to announce, is *unauthorised information*. [F] You can still ask *at the end of the auction*. [G] Instead of asking about individual calls, you can save time by employing the *Sven question* "What do your partner's calls systemically reveal about his hand?" Rule [C] may seem strange. Why announce "Natural" calls? "Natural" would often be sufficient and prevents UI from the next player waiting for an "explanation". Sometimes, however, an ostensibly "natural" bid has unexpected qualifications or exclusions, too complex to detail on the system card. Calls sometimes even have subtle nuances that vary with context (scoring, vulnerability, position, state of match). Rule [G] is important when inferences are subtle and cumulative. My favourite example is the following "Puppet Stayman" auction: 2N-3C-; 3D-3H; 3N - 2N = 20-22. No singleton or 7 card suit. Usually 4333 4432 or 5332. - 3C = Puppet Stayman. - 3D = Denies 5+ major. Another denied holding is 2 S with 2-3 H. - 3H = Shows 4 S. May have 4 H. - 3N = Denies 3+ S. This description may be accurate but IMO it is inadequate. It does not make explicit the fact that the 2N opener has shown exactly 4 H. From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jan 10 03:40:00 2008 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:40 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c852ad$593c8f20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > I have never seen two cards intentionally or deliberately played to > the same trick by the same player, have you? Not since yesterday. I led a card, declarer called for a card from dummy, partner played, declarer called for a card from dummy. OK, he was confused, but there is no doubt that his intent when calling for the second card was that dummy should play. Then there was a Gold Cup match on Saturday where declarer instructed dummy to "throw both the diamonds" (on the lead of a club). Something I have never seen, but which is theoretically possible, is for a player to play two cards to a trick simultaneously *neither* being the card he intended. Usually when a player plays two cards it is because one is being played intentionally/deliberately and the other got stuck to it/pulled alongside it by accident. The extra card can become a minorPC I also see players who play the wrong card by mistake (unintentionally) and then try to correct it by playing a second card (the one originally intended). The bracketed section of law50b merely gives examples of the two most common ways of a card being exposed unintentionally/inadvertently (by getting stuck to the intended card or by being dropped). Tim From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 10 04:23:18 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:23:18 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: [snip] >The bracketed section of law 50b merely gives examples >of the two most common ways of a card being exposed >unintentionally/inadvertently (by getting stuck to the >intended card or by being dropped). Richard Hills: In my opinion not the "two most common ways" but rather the "only two ways" a Minor Penalty Card is created. There are two bracketed sections in Law 50B. In 1997 they both began with "as". But in 2007 only the Minor Penalty Card bracket begins with "as", while the Major Penalty Card bracket begins with "for example". 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Jan 10 23:29:25 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:29:25 -0800 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <003401c85326$9a2926f0$0701a8c0@john> References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> <00bf01c852ef$cadd20d0$3bcf403e@Mildred> <003401c85326$9a2926f0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080110142602.01d51b00@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 05:17 PM 9/01/2008, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 6:41 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] LA > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > [following address discontinued: > > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > > *********************** > > "In nature there are neither > > rewards nor punishments - > > there are consequences. > > [R.G.Ingersoll] > > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:16 PM > > Subject: [blml] LA > > > >snip > > > Now, like ton, I think the only material consideration here lies > > in the first question. The answers to the others are undoubtedly > > affirmative - 'lucky' is immaterial in the last case, the question is > > about the result obtained. However, I cannot dismiss the first > > question lightly. We have to look at the definition of 'logical > > alternative' in Law 16B1(b). Does the choice of the bid not > > indicate that the player himself deemed it a logical alternative? > > If so, it would seem that 'class of player in question' is defined > > as a player who would consider it a logical alternative; it is in > > no way relevant that in the abstract one does not see a > > relationship between the information and the bid, the matter to > > be judged is whether the class of player might consider it a > > logical alternative and whether, for whatever reason, it is more > > suggested than another. Could we argue, for example, that if > > 4S is the optimum contract, on balance over an infinite number > > of occasions 7S would offer better odds than Pass - or this > > might at least be the player's perception? > >the MadDog concurs. 6S is clearly a violation; 7 is not so clear though. My memory cells remember this exact question about 7 years ago with DWS at the crease. I am (fairly) sure that if LA's were pass, or (any) bid, and if bidding was suggested by the UI, then you were obliged to pass, Tony (Sydney) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 10 04:51:04 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 22:51:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <000401c8531d$971398a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000401c8531d$971398a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <655B1D87-25BE-40BD-9A4C-B4C6A7F97513@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 9, 2008, at 7:13 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> No, they had no special agreement, but the player made a call without > looking at his cards in such a way that everybody at the table saw > what > happened. That was effectively announcing that the call he made had no > relation to his cards or their agreements, i.e. a psychic call. A psychic call *does* have a relation to partnership agreement, since it's a departure therefrom. If they had no agreement, the bid is not a psych. > The quiz was of course about finding a way of hitting that player > with the > lawbook. I see. "Decide what ruling you want to make, and then find a law to support it." I thought the modern wisdom is that Edgar was wrong to advocate that approach. > The situation did in fact occur towards the end of an event when a > pair had nothing to fight for any more. Ah! That's a different story! Withholding evidence is not likely to get you a correct ruling, you know. "Contempt of the game" doesn't seem to be in my law book. I suppose it may have been in an old one. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 10 05:16:49 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:16:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Announce In-Reply-To: <47857CFC.3090709@ntlworld.com> References: <47857CFC.3090709@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <6639E55B-B405-4791-8F2D-B1B1E00FD474@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 9, 2008, at 9:03 PM, Guthrie wrote: > Rule [G] is important when inferences are subtle and cumulative. My > favourite example is the following "Puppet Stayman" auction: > 2N-3C-; 3D-3H; 3N > - 2N = 20-22. No singleton or 7 card suit. Usually 4333 4432 or 5332. > - 3C = Puppet Stayman. > - 3D = Denies 5+ major. Another denied holding is 2 S with 2-3 H. > - 3H = Shows 4 S. May have 4 H. > - 3N = Denies 3+ S. > > This description may be accurate but IMO it is inadequate. It does not > make explicit the fact that the 2N opener has shown exactly 4 H. I'm all for full disclosure, but... Opener's possible distributions are: 4333, 4432, 5332, and 6322. He has denied 3+ spades, so he has 2. 4333 is now out of the picture. He has denied holding both 2 spades and 2-3 hearts, so he must have at least 4 hearts. However, he's also denied 5 or more, so he has exactly four. Thus, his hand is 2=4=(4-3) Any bridge player with two working brain cells out to be able to work this out from the information given. Are we supposed to lead opponents by the hand now? If you "announce" the meaning of every call, you're going to get a lot more questions, and auctions are going to take a lot longer. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 10 05:47:20 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:47:20 +1100 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <008201c84f3d$5752e970$afc9403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Congratulations to blmler Adam Wildavsky, who has been promoted to Vice-Chair of the ACBL Laws Commission. * * * 1. 12C1(e) shall be used in ACBL not 12C1(c) [we elect no weighted adjustments]. 2. 16B2: do not use the option that prevents players from reserving their rights. 3. 18F: continue the statement in the current laws concerning bidding methods. 4. 20G: do not permit players to consult their own convention cards. 5. 40A2 and 40B1 concern conditions of contest decisions rather than legal options and the Commission leaves it to Conventions and Competition Committee to advise the ACBL. 6. 40B2(a): Accept the default of the general requirement that the meaning of a call or play shall be the same regardless of which member of the pair makes it - no election. This continues the current ACBL requirement that both members of a partnership must play the same system. 7. 40B2(b): Accept the default that, except for the declaring side during the clarification period, a player may not consult his convention card once the auction period starts until the end of play - no election. 8. 40B2(c): It is suggested that, in addition, a player be permitted to consult an opponent's convention card at RHO's turn to call. 9. 40B2(d): The Commission leaves it to Conventions and Competition Committee to advise the ACBL. 10. 40B3: ACBL should select this option to disallow prior agreement to vary partnership understandings during the auction following a question, response or irregularity. 11. 61B3: ACBL should not prohibit defender's from asking each other whether he holds a card of the suit led. Not prohibiting this continues current ACBL practice. 12. 70E2: It is for the ACBL Tournament Department to present such a proposal to the ACBL Board of Directors for approval. However, the Commission requests that any proposal be sent to the Commission for review and comments. 13. 93C1: The ACBL already has a regulation concerning further appeal from the decision of a bridge appeals committee. Since time permitted, a review of the laws needing an interpretation was started to be continued by e-mail and at subsequent meetings. 12B1 was discussed. There was a consensus that the wording of the first sentence was to be interpreted such that there is no change to current practice. 12C1(e)(ii) is to be interpreted such that the words "had the irregularity not occurred" are inserted between "probable" and the period ending the sentence. 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 mustikka at charter.net Thu Jan 10 08:03:05 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:03:05 -0800 Subject: [blml] Announce References: <47857CFC.3090709@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000701c85356$d978e1d0$62025e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" As I am not commenting on the topic itself, I have snipped, leaving only the Puppet Stayman example. > Rule [G] is important when inferences are subtle and cumulative. My > favourite example is the following "Puppet Stayman" auction: > 2N-3C-; 3D-3H; 3N > - 2N = 20-22. No singleton or 7 card suit. Usually 4333 4432 or 5332. > - 3C = Puppet Stayman. > - 3D = Denies 5+ major. Another denied holding is 2 S with 2-3 H. *** 3D PROMISES one or both four-card major(s) and denies a 5-card major. I have never heard of "denies holding 2 S with 2-3 H". It is possible that that is just it = that *I* have never heard of that being part of Puppet Stayman but my partners don't know about such either. Is there a write-up somewhere about it? Raija From mustikka at charter.net Thu Jan 10 08:06:47 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:06:47 -0800 Subject: [blml] Announce References: <47857CFC.3090709@ntlworld.com> <000701c85356$d978e1d0$62025e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <000d01c85357$5e025350$62025e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Announce > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Guthrie" > > As I am not commenting on the topic itself, I have snipped, leaving only > the > Puppet Stayman example. > > >> Rule [G] is important when inferences are subtle and cumulative. My >> favourite example is the following "Puppet Stayman" auction: >> 2N-3C-; 3D-3H; 3N >> - 2N = 20-22. No singleton or 7 card suit. Usually 4333 4432 or 5332. >> - 3C = Puppet Stayman. >> - 3D = Denies 5+ major. Another denied holding is 2 S with 2-3 H. > > *** 3D PROMISES one or both four-card major(s) and denies a 5-card major. > I > have never heard of "denies holding 2 S with 2-3 H". It is possible that > that is just it = that *I* have never heard of that being part of Puppet > Stayman but my partners don't know about such either. Is there a write-up > somewhere about it? > > Raija Hastily sent post. Of course 3D denies 3-2 or 2-3 majors when it explicitly PROMISES at least one four card major. Still, why is only 2S+2H or 2S+3H denied, not both ways? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 10 07:44:36 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:44:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] If it ain't broke... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801091655h45dbe4bdy365cb9bc4ebe463f@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >If only mannerisms are meant, then a player can >immediately announce that "partner forgot our >agreements here"---provided he uses no mannerisms. > >No, "any manner" must include words. Richard Hills: As Ed Reppert would say, "The conclusion does not follow the premise". There is a difference between: (a) UI with design - freely stating "Hey pard, I have the ace of spades and the king of hearts", and (b) UI without design - truthfully answering a question by stating, "Our partnership agreement is that 2H is a transfer to spades", despite a strong belief that pard has misbid holding hearts. 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 Thu Jan 10 11:14:33 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:14:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <47854433.4080406@t-online.de> References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> <33CFA7BF-1704-4421-B1C7-FDF90E440F4D@starpower.net> <47849718.8080507@skynet.be> <4784C921.7040005@t-online.de> <4784E3EF.3050709@skynet.be> <47854433.4080406@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4785F009.9000608@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> >> Why am I constantly battling against people who use bogus arguments? >> Maybe because there are no REAL arguments that make the DWS practices >> unlawful! >> > > Herman, there has been an argument, cited again and again. You did not > answer it once. It is that the makers of the rules have told us that > explaining our agreements correctly is paramount, and anything else has > to take a back seat. Please cite me one official uttering by anyone that uses the word "paramount". Or any other such word. And then please read L20F5 again : "IN ANY MANNER" - no exceptions, notthing. I have not seen a WBFLC minute stating that this law should be read with exceptions in mind. Yes, you cite that argument again and again. And I cite my argument again and again. So unless you admit what I've been saying all along: "both schools break one law while following another, so both schools must be acceptable", there is no use in going over those arguments again. > I know, you do not want to hear that, but there it > is. No, it's not. > Of course, if the intent of the lawmakers is a bogus argument, then > I am guilty. Go on, ignore how the game should be played. I don`t care. > I will go on playing Bridge, and you can play dWs. > I will. And so will some others. And more and more of you will see the light. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 10 11:10:34 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:10:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <47854433.4080406@t-online.de> References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> <33CFA7BF-1704-4421-B1C7-FDF90E440F4D@starpower.net> <47849718.8080507@skynet.be> <4784C921.7040005@t-online.de> <4784E3EF.3050709@skynet.be> <47854433.4080406@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4785EF1A.3070705@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> And will you outlaw double squeezes, defensive signalling, and RKCB >> for that same reason? >> >> I apologize for sounding ridiculous, but it is you who uses the sole >> argument that since I'm doing it to better my scores, it must be wrong! >> > > Hmm, why not propagate kicking footballers in the shin, claiming it to > be "justifiable attempted manslaughter". It would better your score. Oh, > it is against the rules? But I believe that it would remove the problem > with "divers" in the penalty zone, getting penalty kicks they are not > entitled to. Using "JAM", there would be no divers, because I hit them > every time. > Yes Matthias, but you have given the answer yourself! Kicking a footballer is against the rules! Playing DwS is (IMO) NOT against the laws. Your argument was (I paraphrase) "Herman acts in order to get a better score - 'nuff said". You cannot convict me for doing something in my benefit simply because others believe they are not allowed to do it. I believe it is within the laws and so you should use other arguments to prove that it isn't. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 10 11:31:10 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:31:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <478541C4.80308@t-online.de> References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4> <4783ABC4.2060901@t-online.de> <47849994.8060205@skynet.be> <4784C7CD.5030601@t-online.de> <4784D12B.7050100@skynet.be> <478541C4.80308@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4785F3EE.1000009@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >>> Let me remind you that the dWS is an advice to ethical players. The >>> full advice includes the obligations about calling the director and such. >>> > > If all we are talking about, ever, is ethical players, where is the > problem? They can handle UI as well as any difficult point arising from > dWs. Since there would be not problem with UI the dWs would never have > been thought of, because nobody would have felt any need for that. If > all people were saints any approach would do. > And indeed both approaches are acceptable, IMO. What's your point? Since there are cheaters out there, Herman (who you don't think is unethical) is not allowed to use dWS?? I really don't see the connection. >>> Unethical players can use either the dWS or the MS to keep silent >>> about the first MI. In addition, the MS (in its majority) commit a >>> secondary MI, that of not correctly describing the intention of the >>> second bidder. > > Now you go inventing again. Nowhere (except in your imagiantion, maybe) > is any description of partner`s intentions called for. Yes it is. I've given the example several times: if your partner says your 4NT is Blackwood, and he bids 5Di, are your opponents entitled to know what kind of Blackwood you are playing? I believe they are, and thus they are entitled to both the meaning of 5Di under your system _and_ under HIS system. > The laws > prescribe description of agreements. Would you care to cite a law that > says I have to explain partner`s intentions? Law 20A, which says all parts of the system must be known beforehand. > If you do, would you > furthermore care how I am to know his intentions? I don't care how you got to know them, your opponents are entitled to the information. > I have often set some > suit as trumps to ask for a otherwise hard to locate queen, and then > bidding some contract in another denomination. another time I asked for > aces to learn how high to sacrifice (see Burn`s law of 8). Sometime I > ask for partner`s length in my short suit to see wheter I want to play > NT or not. Do you think my partner knew that at that time? > But that is not what I mean with "intention". I use the word to indicate that, while it is not "system" stricto senso, it is "system" senso lato, and opponents are entitled to know it. >>> >> But partner has misexplained MY hand. I already have the obligation of >> calling the TD. If I don't, then I'm acting unethically, regardless of >> my further belonging to one school or the other! >> > > Surprise, that it just what I am talking about. I am not concerned with > ethical players. They are not the problem. Then you should have no problem with my using the dws. > The unethical ones, > especially the downright cheaters, are what I am concerned with. I > continue to maintain that they can wreak infinitely more havoc using dWs > than with giving UI, because you will practically alwas be seen in UI > cases, but not necessarily in MI cases. > Others have said exactly the opposite - you will practically always be seen in MI cases, but not necessarily in UI cases. > >> (surely you understand my argument here. If your partner explains your >> bid as "Berghaus convention" and then bids 4Di, your opponents are >> entitled to know what the 4Di response to Berghaus shows, even if the >> Berghaus convention does not apply) >> > > Yes and no, actually. As per existing laws they are entitled to know > what the bid systemically shows, and per regulations they are entitled > (in any country I know about, which are not that many) to know what X > would show if partner had answered a Berghaus asking bid. > Precisely. However, the MS would only tell them the first. I believe they schould also tell the second. You seem to agree. Now, if we are both telling the second piece of information, and you are, in addition, also telling the first, then you: - are adding something the opponents are not interested in (it does not say anything about his hand); - are telling them your partner made a mistake, which L20F5 forbids you to do; - are giving your partner UI, presenting him with problems that I avoid from him; - are telling the opponents you are having a misunderstanding, something they will be very happy to know, but to which they have no entitlement. So you are hurting you own case, all because of some interpretation that has an alternative which does not harm opponents! >> >> >> You minsunderstand. I am not at a disadvantage over cheaters, I am at >> a disadvantage over MS bidders. Or rather, I want to have an advantage >> over MS users. Which I believe is ethically correct. >> > > Come again? You think it is ethically correct to play the game > differently, because it gives you an advantage? > Yes, don't you? You can play a double squeeze, I know only a simple finesse - since that gives you an advantage, you are not allowed to play the game differently. Don't you see that this argument is ludicrous? It is only valid if my methods are illegal. But you are using the argument to try and prove that my methods are unacceptable. >> OK, but as I said before, DWS users will admit to the first MI. > > Hehehe. Will you hold examinations and hand out licenses to play dWs, > anyone failing the test having to play the traditional methods? Get > real. That is wishful thinking. Oh, I do not believe that you want to > cheat someone, but according to you everyone should play dWs, I have the > nagging suspicion that not everyone will measure up to the standards > needed.... > No, of course I won't be handing out licenses. But the situations are totally separate. A cheat will explain the next bid according to the same system, and he will claim his bid was a misbid. A dWS will explain according to the same system, but later admit that his partner misexplained and that he did the same because of the dws interpretation. You cannot condemn the action of explaining the second bid according to the same system because a cheat would do it, since the dws adept will show you that he did it for a different reason. It is easy to separate the cheat from the dws follower. It is not easier to cheat under the dws, in fact, it is harder, because you have to explain what you did! > > True, I do not need dWs to cheat, but it is much easier that way. > No it's not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 10 11:38:01 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:38:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <003401c85326$9a2926f0$0701a8c0@john> References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> <00bf01c852ef$cadd20d0$3bcf403e@Mildred> <003401c85326$9a2926f0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <4785F589.8040500@skynet.be> John Probst wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 6:41 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] LA > > >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> *********************** >> "In nature there are neither >> rewards nor punishments - >> there are consequences. >> [R.G.Ingersoll] >> +++++++++++++++++++++++ >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:16 PM >> Subject: [blml] LA >> > > snip > >> Now, like ton, I think the only material consideration here lies >> in the first question. The answers to the others are undoubtedly >> affirmative - 'lucky' is immaterial in the last case, the question is >> about the result obtained. However, I cannot dismiss the first >> question lightly. We have to look at the definition of 'logical >> alternative' in Law 16B1(b). Does the choice of the bid not >> indicate that the player himself deemed it a logical alternative? >> If so, it would seem that 'class of player in question' is defined >> as a player who would consider it a logical alternative; it is in >> no way relevant that in the abstract one does not see a >> relationship between the information and the bid, the matter to >> be judged is whether the class of player might consider it a >> logical alternative and whether, for whatever reason, it is more >> suggested than another. Could we argue, for example, that if >> 4S is the optimum contract, on balance over an infinite number >> of occasions 7S would offer better odds than Pass - or this >> might at least be the player's perception? > > the MadDog concurs. 6S is clearly a violation; 7 is not so clear though. > But that solves the question, really. If 6S is going to be dissallowed, then the player bids 7S only because 6S is dissalowed. Therefor, 7S must be disallowed as well. Look at it from this point: the possible actions are "pass" and "4+Sp". "4+Sp" is suggested, so pass remains. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 10 11:40:02 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:40:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] If it ain't broke... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4785F602.6010401@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Jerry Fusselman: > >> If only mannerisms are meant, then a player can >> immediately announce that "partner forgot our >> agreements here"---provided he uses no mannerisms. >> >> No, "any manner" must include words. > > Richard Hills: > > As Ed Reppert would say, "The conclusion does not > follow the premise". > > There is a difference between: > > (a) UI with design - freely stating "Hey pard, I > have the ace of spades and the king of hearts", > > and > > (b) UI without design - truthfully answering a > question by stating, "Our partnership agreement > is that 2H is a transfer to spades", despite a > strong belief that pard has misbid holding hearts. > > But we are not talking about UI. We are talking about "indicating that a mistake has been made". That is not allowed, and I see no exceptions in L20F5. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 10 13:17:09 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:17:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] If it ain't broke... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <009e01c852e2$9b59cfa0$3bcf403e@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0801091655h45dbe4bdy365cb9bc4ebe463f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003901c85383$2bc8cbe0$cdca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] If it ain't broke... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Jan 9, 2008 6:47 PM, wrote: >> Grattan Endicott: >> >> [snip] >> >> >It was to set an intended meaning accurately >> >in English. In my opinion we largely did that >> >although there were improvements, as I saw >> >them, that were rejected with the rattle "If >> >it ain't broke don't mend it.". >> > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> 1997 Law 75D2 / 2007 Law 20F5(a) phrase: >> >> "...nor may he indicate in any manner..." >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Presumably "ain't broke" was what the majority >> of the Drafting Sub-Committee thought of the >> wording of this Kaplanesque phrase. Perhaps >> the DSC thought that only a fool would believe >> "in any manner" was synonymous with "in any >> way", rather than Kaplan's intended paraphrase >> of "by any mannerism". >> +=+ There is more to it than this. The player's responsibility is set out in Law 75. This provides within the laws an interpretation of them. Here it is made clear that opponents are entitled to a correct explanation of the partnership understanding and that it is therefore an infraction if the player who has the UI does not give the explanation of the partnership agreement as to the meaning of his partner's call. Since the player is colluding in his partner's prior infraction the offence is aggravated. It is also the case, of course, that if the player hides the partnership understanding as a matter of habit it makes the call the subject of a CPU, ergo illegal. - see Laws 40A, 40B4 and 40C3(b). Reverting to Law 20F5(a) - "indicate in any manner" - the requirement is that while giving a correct explanation of the partnership understanding the player shall not point to (i.e. draw attention to) the fact of his partner's misexplanation. The fact that opponent may be able to deduce this is not the outcome of a *purposeful* indication by the player but merely the by-product of his compliance with law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 10 14:35:48 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:35:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] If it ain't broke... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003901c85383$2bc8cbe0$cdca403e@Mildred> References: <009e01c852e2$9b59cfa0$3bcf403e@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0801091655h45dbe4bdy365cb9bc4ebe463f@mail.gmail.com> <003901c85383$2bc8cbe0$cdca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47861F34.5040705@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************** > "In nature there are neither > rewards nor punishments - > there are consequences. > [R.G.Ingersoll] > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:55 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] If it ain't broke... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> On Jan 9, 2008 6:47 PM, wrote: >>> Grattan Endicott: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> It was to set an intended meaning accurately >>>> in English. In my opinion we largely did that >>>> although there were improvements, as I saw >>>> them, that were rejected with the rattle "If >>>> it ain't broke don't mend it.". >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> 1997 Law 75D2 / 2007 Law 20F5(a) phrase: >>> >>> "...nor may he indicate in any manner..." >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Presumably "ain't broke" was what the majority >>> of the Drafting Sub-Committee thought of the >>> wording of this Kaplanesque phrase. Perhaps >>> the DSC thought that only a fool would believe >>> "in any manner" was synonymous with "in any >>> way", rather than Kaplan's intended paraphrase >>> of "by any mannerism". >>> > +=+ There is more to it than this. The player's > responsibility is set out in Law 75. This provides > within the laws an interpretation of them. Here it is > made clear that opponents are entitled to a correct > explanation of the partnership understanding and > that it is therefore an infraction if the player who > has the UI does not give the explanation of the > partnership agreement as to the meaning of his > partner's call. Since the player is colluding in his > partner's prior infraction the offence is aggravated. > It is also the case, of course, that if the player hides > the partnership understanding as a matter of habit > it makes the call the subject of a CPU, ergo illegal. > - see Laws 40A, 40B4 and 40C3(b). > Reverting to Law 20F5(a) - "indicate in any > manner" - the requirement is that while giving a > correct explanation of the partnership understanding > the player shall not point to (i.e. draw attention to) > the fact of his partner's misexplanation. The fact that > opponent may be able to deduce this is not the > outcome of a *purposeful* indication by the player > but merely the by-product of his compliance with > law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Come on, Grattan: "What is 4NT?", "Blackwood" "how many aces does 5Di show?", "diamond preference" There is no difficulty in deducing that the previous explanation was wrong. And anyway, even if there is only a small chance that opponent pick up on the difference, that falls under "indicate in any manner". Don't start saying that the MS does not break L20F5. It does. Whether that breaking is justified is another matter entirely. But breaking it it is! And if you then say that > opponent may be able to deduce this is not the > outcome of a *purposeful* indication by the player > but merely the by-product of his compliance with > law. Then I say that my MI is merely the by-product of my compliance with L20F5. Sorry Grattan, but this won't go away. It seems strange to me that the WBFLC members do not realize what they are doing. By writing 1997L75D2, and by reaffirming this as 2007L20F5, in exactly the same words, the WBFLC members are saying in fact that they prefer that MI exists and continues to exist, if the alternative is the creation of UI. Surely you see that this is the case. But by supporting the MS, Grattan, and Ton, who have both spoken out on that side of the argument are saying that in a special extension of the same case, they now find that the creation of UI is to be preferred over the correction of the MI. And the only thing that is changed in the story is the possible creation, by DWS adepts, of a special kind of extra MI (the correct explanation of the next bid) that does not harm opponents. Furthermore, this change of preference is only active when the opponents ask a question. If the opponent simply looks at the SC, the WBFLC members are quite happy to allow the original MI to stand, in fact, I believe they would encourage people to say nothing. But if the lazy opponent in stead asks a question, they throw all their previous principles overboard and insist that the mistake be corrected. It is this inconsistency that is my first argument towards the WBFLC. I have five of those arguments. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Jan 10 14:57:30 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:57:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000001c85310$f262ea10$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c85310$f262ea10$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Jan 9, 2008, at 5:42 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau >> On Jan 8, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>>> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads >>> ................ >>>>> Therefore also my sample statement "You get three tricks" when >>>>> there are five more to play is a claim (of the two other >>>>> tricks) as >>>>> good as any. >>>> >>>> But it isn't a claim according to L68A. >>> >>> If that statement isn't a statement to the effect that the player >>> will take >>> two of the remaining five tricks I do not know the meaning of the >>> words "to >>> the effect that". And I am pretty sure that I do indeed know the >>> meaning of >>> these words. >> >> ISTM that if a concession were a claim and claim were a concession, >> there would be a law in TFLB governing "any statement to the effect >> that a contestant will win or lose a specific number of tricks". >> Since there are two entirely different laws, one for "win" and one >> for "lose", the authors must have seen some difference between them >> that Sven doesn't. > > A claim is not a simultaneous concession and a concession is not a > simultaneous claim if any of them is for all the remaining tricks. > So the > lawmakers have decided to treat them individually. That does not > prevent > claims and concessions from being treated the same when they in > fact are the > same, i.e. simultaneously both a claim and a concession (or vice > versa). Can > that be so difficult to understand? > > Of course there could have been a single law about "any statement > or action > to the effect that play should cease" handling both claims and > concessions, > but the lawmakers haven't done it that way, and I am surprised that > anybody > can have any problem with this? This is where we started. We know that if there was a claim of all the tricks, play must cease. We know that if there was a concession of all the tricks (objected to), play must continue. Initially, we accepted the intuitive-sounding notion that partial claims and partial concessions are the same thing, some hybrid claim/concession entity not actually mentioned in TFLB, and that "of course there could have been a single law". So we tried to amalgamate the existing laws into that notional "single law", and discovered that it would require that play simultaneously cease and continue. Of course there could have been a single law, but it would have had to direct one or the other. Since there of course could have been, but there isn't, some of us are less than comfortable with assuming that somehow it just got left out by accident. Rather than pretending to know what it would have said if someone had actually written it, we look to the laws that are actually there. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 10 15:06:51 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:06:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <655B1D87-25BE-40BD-9A4C-B4C6A7F97513@rochester.rr.com> References: <000401c8531d$971398a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <655B1D87-25BE-40BD-9A4C-B4C6A7F97513@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <08DCAFA3-87D4-4CC6-9ECA-EF99F1C66602@starpower.net> On Jan 9, 2008, at 10:51 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Jan 9, 2008, at 7:13 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> No, they had no special agreement, but the player made a call >>> without >> looking at his cards in such a way that everybody at the table saw >> what >> happened. That was effectively announcing that the call he made >> had no >> relation to his cards or their agreements, i.e. a psychic call. > > A psychic call *does* have a relation to partnership agreement, since > it's a departure therefrom. If they had no agreement, the bid is not > a psych. > >> The quiz was of course about finding a way of hitting that player >> with the >> lawbook. > > I see. "Decide what ruling you want to make, and then find a law to > support it." I thought the modern wisdom is that Edgar was wrong to > advocate that approach. > >> The situation did in fact occur towards the end of an event when a >> pair had nothing to fight for any more. > > Ah! That's a different story! Withholding evidence is not likely to > get you a correct ruling, you know. > > "Contempt of the game" doesn't seem to be in my law book. I suppose > it may have been in an old one. I'd rule that bidding without looking at one's cards was "showing an obvious lack of further interest..." [L74C6]. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 10 15:27:39 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:27:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <08DCAFA3-87D4-4CC6-9ECA-EF99F1C66602@starpower.net> References: <000401c8531d$971398a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <655B1D87-25BE-40BD-9A4C-B4C6A7F97513@rochester.rr.com> <08DCAFA3-87D4-4CC6-9ECA-EF99F1C66602@starpower.net> Message-ID: <540C7993-022E-49B9-8412-6C92DA651F51@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 10, 2008, at 9:06 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > I'd rule that bidding without looking at one's cards was "showing an > obvious lack of further interest..." [L74C6]. So would I - and I'd issue a PP, even in a club game. I'd be tempted to make it more than the "standard" (in the ACBL) 25% of a top, but since the actual "standard" in clubs is effectively 0%, perhaps 25% is enough. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 10 15:33:08 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:33:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] Announce In-Reply-To: <6639E55B-B405-4791-8F2D-B1B1E00FD474@rochester.rr.com> References: <47857CFC.3090709@ntlworld.com> <6639E55B-B405-4791-8F2D-B1B1E00FD474@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <47862CA4.7000408@ntlworld.com> [Nigel] Rule [G] is important when inferences are subtle and cumulative. My favourite example is the following "Puppet Stayman" auction: 2N-3C-; 3D-3H-; 3N - 2N = 20-22. No 2-6 cards in each suit. Usually 4333 4432 or 5332. - 3C = Puppet Stayman. - 3D = Denies 5+ major. Another denied holding is 2 S with 2-3 H. - 3H = Shows 4 S. May have 4 H. - 3N = Denies 3+ S. This description may be accurate but IMO it is inadequate. It does not make explicit the fact that the 2N opener has shown exactly 4 H. {Ed Repert] I'm all for full disclosure, but... Opener's possible distributions are: 4333, 4432, 5332, and 6322. He has denied 3+ spades, so he has 2. 4333 is now out of the picture. He has denied holding both 2 spades and 2-3 hearts, so he must have at least 4 hearts. However, he's also denied 5 or more, so he has exactly four. Thus, his hand is 2=4=(4-3) Any bridge player with two working brain cells out to be able to work this out from the information given. Are we supposed to lead opponents by the hand now? If you "announce" the meaning of every call, you're going to get a lot more questions, and auctions are going to take a lot longer. [Nige1] Thank you for the criticism, Ed. Ed's logic is impeccable but when, years ago, I posted this example on RGB, some contributors would not accept that Ed's conclusion followed from the earlier explanations. My example consists of 5 bids in an uncontested auction. Even if a pair correctly describe each individual call in a longer, more complex auction, it can be hard for their opponents, unfamiliar with the underlying methods, to arrive at what might seem to Ed to be obvious conclusions. On RGB, many argued, as Ed does, that such complex deductions are part of the skill of Bridge. I disagree because I they give those who play complex artificial systems what I feel to be an unfair advantage. I feel that Sven Pran's question: "What do partner's calls tell you (systemically) about his hand" should be a form of words recommended in TFLB. Normally, this question would save time. It would not prevent you form asking about individual calls, if necessary. Mine may again be a minority opinion on BLML :( but I as usual, I think I'm right :) "General Bridge Knowledge and Experience" has always seemed to me to be a pathetic excuse for prevarication. IMO, excuses like "We are not here to teach Bridge" are insulting and nauseating. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 10 15:36:40 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:36:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] If it ain't broke... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47861F34.5040705@skynet.be> References: <009e01c852e2$9b59cfa0$3bcf403e@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0801091655h45dbe4bdy365cb9bc4ebe463f@mail.gmail.com> <003901c85383$2bc8cbe0$cdca403e@Mildred> <47861F34.5040705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <86D28D59-D35A-45CE-B98C-10127A1427B3@starpower.net> On Jan 10, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > >> opponent may be able to deduce this is not the >> outcome of a *purposeful* indication by the player >> but merely the by-product of his compliance with >> law. > > Then I say that my MI is merely the by-product of my compliance with > L20F5. > > Sorry Grattan, but this won't go away. > > It seems strange to me that the WBFLC members do not realize what they > are doing. > > By writing 1997L75D2, and by reaffirming this as 2007L20F5, in exactly > the same words, the WBFLC members are saying in fact that they prefer > that MI exists and continues to exist, if the alternative is the > creation of UI. Surely you see that this is the case. > > But by supporting the MS, Grattan, and Ton, who have both spoken out > on that side of the argument are saying that in a special extension of > the same case, they now find that the creation of UI is to be > preferred over the correction of the MI. And the only thing that is > changed in the story is the possible creation, by DWS adepts, of a > special kind of extra MI (the correct explanation of the next bid) > that does not harm opponents. > > Furthermore, this change of preference is only active when the > opponents ask a question. If the opponent simply looks at the SC, the > WBFLC members are quite happy to allow the original MI to stand, in > fact, I believe they would encourage people to say nothing. But if the > lazy opponent in stead asks a question, they throw all their previous > principles overboard and insist that the mistake be corrected. > > It is this inconsistency that is my first argument towards the WBFLC This is hardly an inconsistency. If the opponent simply looks at the SC, the explanation written on the SC does not change to reflect what partner actually holds rather than his actual systemic agreement. But if he chooses to ask the DWS follower instead of just looking at the SC, it does, and he gets a completely different explanation. Shouldn't he get the same information regardless of how he chooses to obtain it? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 10 15:59:10 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:59:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Announce In-Reply-To: <000d01c85357$5e025350$62025e47@DFYXB361> References: <47857CFC.3090709@ntlworld.com> <000701c85356$d978e1d0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <000d01c85357$5e025350$62025e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <478632BE.8030606@ntlworld.com> [Raija] Of course 3D denies 3-2 or 2-3 majors when it explicitly PROMISES at least one four card major. Still, why is only 2S+2H or 2S+3H denied, not both ways? [nige1] Sorry for the confusion, Raija. There are many variants of Puppet Stayman (For example, Muppet Stayman is worth consideration). In this version (popular in the UK), 2D *doesn't promise a 4 card major*. For example, as Ed Reppert explains, you can bid 2D with 3244 3253 3235 3226 and 3262 shapes (as well as hands with a four card major). The advantage of this variant is that with the auction 2N-3C-; 3D-3N, responder can find out whether opener has a *five* card major without revealing as much about the rest of opener's (declarer's) hand. Hands with 23 or 22 in the majors get special treatment, so that if responder has 5 spades and 4 hearts, The partnership can still reach a 5-3 spade fit via ... 2N-3C-; 3D-3H-; 3S-4S And a 4-4 heart fit via ... 2N-3C-; 3D-3H-; 3N-4H. A small improvement is to reverse the meanings of 3S and 3N in the latter pair of auctions. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 10 16:27:46 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:27:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Announce In-Reply-To: <47862CA4.7000408@ntlworld.com> References: <47857CFC.3090709@ntlworld.com> <6639E55B-B405-4791-8F2D-B1B1E00FD474@rochester.rr.com> <47862CA4.7000408@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <72142726-FDBF-4994-BBD5-0E125A284555@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 10, 2008, at 9:33 AM, Guthrie wrote: > I feel that Sven Pran's question: > "What do partner's calls tell you (systemically) about his hand" > should be a form of words recommended in TFLB. Normally, this question > would save time. It would not prevent you form asking about individual > calls, if necessary. It's probably a better form than the one I learned: "Please explain your auction." Around here, that generates one of several responses, none of which answers the question. For example: "he bid X, and then I bid Y..." To which I generally reply "Thank you for the review. Now would you please explain your auction?" Some other examples: "What?" "I don't think I have to do that." "Director!" When the TD has been called, I've had her hear the opponent's problem, turn to me and ask "which call are you asking about?" I've had a player tell me I'm not allowed to ask a question about the whole auction - I have to ask about specific calls. Bottom line: players have no clue. The alert procedure bypasses the requirement in law 20 to ask about the whole auction and *then* ask about specific calls if more info is needed. Since alerts are much more common than situations in which a player would ask about the whole auction, players have come to believe that asking about specific calls is *always* the proper procedure - they think "please explain your auction" or even the Sven question (although the latter is clearer) is illegal. The answer is not, btw, to dot every i and cross every t in TFLB. It's education that's needed, of both players and TDs. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 10 16:36:02 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:36:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Announce In-Reply-To: <478632BE.8030606@ntlworld.com> References: <47857CFC.3090709@ntlworld.com> <000701c85356$d978e1d0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <000d01c85357$5e025350$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478632BE.8030606@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <47863B62.9010404@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit :[Raija] Rule [G] is important when inferences are subtle and cumulative. My favourite example is the following "Puppet Stayman" auction: 2N-3C-; 3D-3H-; 3N - 2N = 20-22. No 2-6 cards in each suit. Usually 4333 4432 or 5332. - 3C = Puppet Stayman. - 3D = Denies 5+ major. Another denied holding is 2 S with 2-3 H. - 3H = Shows 4 S. May have 4 H. - 3N = Denies 3+ S. This description may be accurate but IMO it is inadequate. It does not make explicit the fact that the 2N opener has shown exactly 4 H. {Ed Repert] I'm all for full disclosure, but... Opener's possible distributions are: 4333, 4432, 5332, and 6322. He has denied 3+ spades, so he has 2. 4333 is now out of the picture. He has denied holding both 2 spades and 2-3 hearts, so he must have at least 4 hearts. However, he's also denied 5 or more, so he has exactly four. Thus, his hand is 2=4=(4-3) Any bridge player with two working brain cells out to be able to work this out from the information given. Are we supposed to lead opponents by the hand now? > Of course 3D denies 3-2 or 2-3 majors when it explicitly PROMISES at > least one four card major. Still, why is only 2S+2H or 2S+3H denied, > not both ways? > > [nige1] > Sorry for the confusion, Raija. There are many variants of Puppet > Stayman (For example, Muppet Stayman is worth consideration). In this > version (popular in the UK), 2D *doesn't promise a 4 card major*. For > example, as Ed Reppert explains, you can bid 2D with 3244 3253 3235 > 3226 and 3262 shapes (as well as hands with a four card major). The > advantage of this variant is that with the auction 2N-3C-; 3D-3N, > responder can find out whether opener has a *five* card major without revealing as much about the rest of opener's (declarer's) hand. > [AG] May I mention that if you take all 2NT openings made by a natural player, substract all hands with a 5-card major, substract all hands with 3/4 spades and substract all hands with 2S + 2-3 H, you DO NOT get 24(43). The hand might well be K - AKx - QJxxx - AKJx. So, by pure logic, the explanations mentioned mean "either 4 hearts or a high singleton spade or both", which isn't the same as "4 hearts". For this reason, at least, the information that 4 hearts are guaranteed may not be withheld. And, even if it is obvious that said hand won't bid that way (rather show 2-3 in the majors), THEY don't necessarily know it. They are entitled to know. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 10 18:00:19 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:00:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] If it ain't broke... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <86D28D59-D35A-45CE-B98C-10127A1427B3@starpower.net> References: <009e01c852e2$9b59cfa0$3bcf403e@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0801091655h45dbe4bdy365cb9bc4ebe463f@mail.gmail.com> <003901c85383$2bc8cbe0$cdca403e@Mildred> <47861F34.5040705@skynet.be> <86D28D59-D35A-45CE-B98C-10127A1427B3@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47864F23.3010207@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> It is this inconsistency that is my first argument towards the WBFLC > > This is hardly an inconsistency. If the opponent simply looks at the > SC, the explanation written on the SC does not change to reflect what > partner actually holds rather than his actual systemic agreement. Yes it does. If 4NT is explained as Blackwood, the active opponent will look at the SC in order to find the meaning of 5Di. He will find "0 or 3 KC" and be happy. The lazy opponent will ask: "how many aces does 5Di show?" and receive, from a MS adept, the answer "diamond preference". The inconsistency I am talking about is that Grattan and Ton, as members of the WBFLC, believe that it is OK to let the MI (4NT is Blackwood) uncorrected, but that they, as declared adepts of the MS, believe that one should correct the MI (by responding "diamond preferenece") once a question is asked. > But if he chooses to ask the DWS follower instead of just looking at > the SC, it does, and he gets a completely different explanation. > Shouldn't he get the same information regardless of how he chooses to > obtain it? > Indeed he should, that is my point! But you should follow the reasoning from the viewpoint of the opponent who has received a MI, which the bidder is not allowed to correct. If that info is Blackwood, then the opponent will look up the Blackwood responses on the SC. We are not talking about the opponent who discovers the MI from reading the SC, we are talking about someone who believes the MI! And indeed, the DWS adept will explain to the lazy opponent exactly the same thing as the active opponent will read on the SC. So you see Eric, you're a DWS adept already! > > 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 10 18:02:51 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:02:51 -0600 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <008201c84f3d$5752e970$afc9403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801100902w35929da6y3b843948939c6a36@mail.gmail.com> What is the date this all takes effect? From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 10 18:35:28 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:35:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: <000401c8531d$971398a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><655B1D87-25BE-40BD-9A4C-B4C6A7F97513@rochester.rr.com> <08DCAFA3-87D4-4CC6-9ECA-EF99F1C66602@starpower.net> Message-ID: <003401c853af$36925100$f8c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] LA >> >> I see. "Decide what ruling you want to make, and then find a law to >> support it." I thought the modern wisdom is that Edgar was wrong to >> advocate that approach. >> >>> The situation did in fact occur towards the end of an event when a >>> pair had nothing to fight for any more. >> >> Ah! That's a different story! Withholding evidence is not likely to >> get you a correct ruling, you know. >> >> "Contempt of the game" doesn't seem to be in my law book. I suppose >> it may have been in an old one. > > I'd rule that bidding without looking at one's cards was "showing an > obvious lack of further interest..." [L74C6]. > +=+ I would be inclined to start with Law 7B1 (2007 Law 7B2). +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 10 18:49:11 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:49:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <008201c84f3d$5752e970$afc9403e@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0801100902w35929da6y3b843948939c6a36@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005101c853b1$2098a2d0$f8c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > What is the date this all takes effect? > +=+ As I read the minute the decision would be taken in a different committee. We await further news. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From adam at tameware.com Thu Jan 10 19:02:00 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:02:00 -0600 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005101c853b1$2098a2d0$f8c9403e@Mildred> References: <008201c84f3d$5752e970$afc9403e@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0801100902w35929da6y3b843948939c6a36@mail.gmail.com> <005101c853b1$2098a2d0$f8c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: At 5:49 PM +0000 1/10/08, wrote: >Grattan Endicott[following address discontinued: >grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >*********************** >"In nature there are neither >rewards nor punishments - >there are consequences. > [R.G.Ingersoll] > +++++++++++++++++++++++ Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. [Bacon] >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jerry Fusselman" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:02 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> What is the date this all takes effect? >> >+=+ As I read the minute the decision would be taken >in a different committee. We await further news. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Exactly. The ACBL Board of Directors will decide the date on which new laws will take effect. Sometime this Summer seems likely. -- Adam Wildavsky adam at tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Thu Jan 10 19:02:00 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:02:00 -0600 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005101c853b1$2098a2d0$f8c9403e@Mildred> References: <008201c84f3d$5752e970$afc9403e@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0801100902w35929da6y3b843948939c6a36@mail.gmail.com> <005101c853b1$2098a2d0$f8c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: At 5:49 PM +0000 1/10/08, wrote: >Grattan Endicott[following address discontinued: >grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >*********************** >"In nature there are neither >rewards nor punishments - >there are consequences. > [R.G.Ingersoll] > +++++++++++++++++++++++ Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. [Bacon] >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jerry Fusselman" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:02 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> What is the date this all takes effect? >> >+=+ As I read the minute the decision would be taken >in a different committee. We await further news. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Exactly. The ACBL Board of Directors will decide the date on which new laws will take effect. Sometime this Summer seems likely. -- Adam Wildavsky adam at tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 10 20:22:08 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:22:08 -0600 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <008201c84f3d$5752e970$afc9403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801101122w7edbeb0fg1fbbc110682c5d4c@mail.gmail.com> I have some reactions and questions: [2007 Laws - ACBL's options, as reported by Richard Hills:] > Congratulations to blmler Adam Wildavsky, who > has been promoted to Vice-Chair of the ACBL > Laws Commission. Yes, congratulations. What is the new composition of the laws commission? > > * * * > > 1. 12C1(e) shall be used in ACBL not 12C1(c) > [we elect no weighted adjustments]. Thanks. A+. > > 2. 16B2: do not use the option that prevents > players from reserving their rights. Law 16B2 is "2. When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed)." This election sounds to me like a change, and I wonder: 1. When reserving rights as now allowed, what would be an example of the proper form to say so. Perhaps, "Are we in agreement that the double was very fast?" If the answer is yes, then to say "I reserve my rights?" 2. How is the footnoted phrase, "it is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later," interpreted? E.g., is there some doctrine of "failure to protect oneself" that kicks in when calling too early or late, even though it is not an infraction per se? > > 3. 18F: continue the statement in the current > laws concerning bidding methods. > I don't understand this one all. Law 18F is "Regulating Authorities may authorize different methods of making calls." > 4. 20G: do not permit players to consult their > own convention cards. > > 5. 40A2 and 40B1 concern conditions of contest > decisions rather than legal options and the > Commission leaves it to Conventions and > Competition Committee to advise the ACBL. > > 6. 40B2(a): Accept the default of the general > requirement that the meaning of a call or play > shall be the same regardless of which member > of the pair makes it - no election. This > continues the current ACBL requirement that > both members of a partnership must play the > same system. > > 7. 40B2(b): Accept the default that, except > for the declaring side during the > clarification period, a player may not consult > his convention card once the auction period > starts until the end of play - no election. > A+ > 8. 40B2(c): It is suggested that, in addition, > a player be permitted to consult an opponent's > convention card at RHO's turn to call. > A+. This seems an excellent suggestion to me. > 9. 40B2(d): The Commission leaves it to > Conventions and Competition Committee to > advise the ACBL. > > 10. 40B3: ACBL should select this option to > disallow prior agreement to vary partnership > understandings during the auction following a > question, response or irregularity. Ah, but what does this mean? They must not be using anything like Grattan's meaning of "vary partnership understandings." > > 11. 61B3: ACBL should not prohibit defender's > from asking each other whether he holds a card > of the suit led. Not prohibiting this > continues current ACBL practice. > > 12. 70E2: It is for the ACBL Tournament > Department to present such a proposal to the > ACBL Board of Directors for approval. However, > the Commission requests that any proposal be > sent to the Commission for review and > comments. > > 13. 93C1: The ACBL already has a regulation > concerning further appeal from the decision of > a bridge appeals committee. > > Since time permitted, a review of the laws > needing an interpretation was started to be > continued by e-mail and at subsequent > meetings. > > 12B1 was discussed. There was a consensus that > the wording of the first sentence was to be > interpreted such that there is no change to > current practice. > > 12C1(e)(ii) is to be interpreted such that the > words "had the irregularity not occurred" are > inserted between "probable" and the period > ending the sentence. > Yes, sounds good to me. Jerry Fusselman From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 10 20:37:36 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:37:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <20080109071335.BE05C29B013@f37.poczta.interia.pl><393EEB81-9B82-4A17-9B52-49A596F55496@rochester.rr.com> <47851A7F.9010809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <009701c853c0$651faca0$9bd2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > repeat after me: > > _in any manner_ > > -- +=+ Repeat after me: < "... nor may he indicate ..... " 'indicate' - to point to, draw attention to...... In complying with a requirement of the law the player has pointed to nothing, has drawn attention to nothing. All he has done is to supply information as required. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 10 22:02:42 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:02:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c853cc$2499eb80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............ > This is where we started. We know that if there was a claim of all > the tricks, play must cease. We know that if there was a concession > of all the tricks (objected to), play must continue. Initially, we > accepted the intuitive-sounding notion that partial claims and > partial concessions are the same thing, some hybrid claim/concession > entity not actually mentioned in TFLB, and that "of course there > could have been a single law". So far everything seems OK > So we tried to amalgamate the existing laws into that notional "single > law", and discovered that it would require that play simultaneously > cease and continue. Who are "we"? > Of course there could have been a single law, but it would have had > to direct one or the other. Since there of course could have been, > but there isn't, some of us are less than comfortable with assuming > that somehow it just got left out by accident. Rather than > pretending to know what it would have said if someone had actually > written it, we look to the laws that are actually there. So what do these laws say? First of all we must remember that there is a major difference between claims or concessions made by declarer and claims or concessions made by a defender: Declarer is the only player acting for the declaring side while there are two defenders and they share the same rights. When declarer makes a claim and/or a concession that is final, but when a defender makes a concession with or without an implied claim his partner may still have something to say about it and Law 68B2 is the one that tells us how to proceed in such situations. The partner can object for two different reasons: 1: In his opinion the defender has claimed too many or conceded too few tricks. 2: In his opinion the defender has claimed too few or conceded too many tricks. Does reason 1 create any problem? Hardly. I don't think any lawmaker ever imagined an objection for such reasons, and in any case the matter should easily be sorted out whether play ceases or continues. So let us go to reason 2: Law 68B2 instructs us that in this situation play shall continue (with due regard to UI and all such stuff) because now the objection is essentially an objection to the concession (regardless how it is made), the other defender disagrees and wants some of the conceded tricks. Law 68B could have said that play should cease also in this case, but it doesn't. It could have said that the claim part should be ruled upon by the Director and then play should continue for the concession part. Thanks heaven it doesn't. I assume anybody who has ever directed and had to rule on claims will appreciate that it doesn't. Such a law would in most if not all cases have been impossible to apply. So where do we stand? We have Law 68B2 that tells us (literally without any limitation) that when a defender concedes one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects then play shall continue, period. I have nothing more to add beyond what has already been said more than once from those sho should be authorities on the laws of Bridge. Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 10 22:03:29 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:03:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <003401c853af$36925100$f8c9403e@Mildred> References: <000401c8531d$971398a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <655B1D87-25BE-40BD-9A4C-B4C6A7F97513@rochester.rr.com> <08DCAFA3-87D4-4CC6-9ECA-EF99F1C66602@starpower.net> <003401c853af$36925100$f8c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <875BCC22-8505-423B-BA86-BABFA0A38EB5@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 10, 2008, at 12:35 PM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ I would be inclined to start with Law 7B1 (2007 Law 7B2). +=+ Law 7B1 or 2 is of the form "a player does such-and-such". Still in the introduction to the 2007 laws is that, when the law is of this form, it "establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized." It is, of course, still an irregularity, for which the TD can adjust the score if the NOS are damaged. I think if you want to issue a PP, 74C6 is a better choice. From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 10 22:05:42 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:05:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <003401c853af$36925100$f8c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000301c853cc$8fbe0d10$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk ........................ > +=+ I would be inclined to start with Law 7B1 (2007 Law 7B2). +=+ The tale was from before 1987 Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 10 22:15:59 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:15:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000201c853cc$2499eb80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000201c853cc$2499eb80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <46C66605-8409-49C9-97AF-131768A7B47F@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 10, 2008, at 4:02 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > When declarer makes a claim and/or a concession that is final Is it? 2007 Law 68D: "After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies." This does not say that dummy can only dispute a claim or concession by declarer, or that a defender cannot dispute a claim or concession by his partner. So I wonder, firstly, what the difference is between this "dispute" and the "objection" in Law 68B. Secondly, if the intent was to limit this "disputing" to players of the other side, why doesn't the law say so? Law 70D3 strikes me as saying "if there is a claim or concession, you better damn sure not allow play to continue, because if it does, and you screw up, you lose". I don't have a problem with the law saying that, particularly if it's addressed to the claiming or conceding side, but the law doesn't preclude the claiming/conceding side from getting *more* tricks if their opponents screw the pooch. The more I think about it, the more I think the laws on claims need a complete overall, not just the touch-up they got. :-( From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 10 22:28:17 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:28:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801101122w7edbeb0fg1fbbc110682c5d4c@mail.gmail.com> References: <008201c84f3d$5752e970$afc9403e@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0801101122w7edbeb0fg1fbbc110682c5d4c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <32AB3DB6-823E-47AA-AF92-B8BD2E374626@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 10, 2008, at 2:22 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> 3. 18F: continue the statement in the current >> laws concerning bidding methods. >> > > I don't understand this one all. Law 18F is "Regulating Authorities > may authorize different methods of making calls." The only difference between the 1997 and 2007 versions of this law is the change from "Zonal Authorities" to "Regulating Authorities". The comment refers, I believe, to the wording of the election in the 1997 laws, in which the ACBL BoD delegated authority to authorize the use of bidding boxes to Sponsoring Organizations. 2007 Law 80A3 specifically allows this kind of delegation - it also allows the ACBL to *assign* this power, thus washing its hands of the matter in those organizations to which the power is assigned. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 10 23:22:10 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:22:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000201c853cc$2499eb80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000201c853cc$2499eb80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Jan 10, 2008, at 4:02 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > ............ >> This is where we started. We know that if there was a claim of all >> the tricks, play must cease. We know that if there was a concession >> of all the tricks (objected to), play must continue. Initially, we >> accepted the intuitive-sounding notion that partial claims and >> partial concessions are the same thing, some hybrid claim/concession >> entity not actually mentioned in TFLB, and that "of course there >> could have been a single law". > > So far everything seems OK > >> So we tried to amalgamate the existing laws into that notional >> "single >> law", and discovered that it would require that play simultaneously >> cease and continue. > > Who are "we"? BLML collectively. "We" debate the interpretation of the laws so as to better understand and apply them. So when the laws appear to require the fabrication of a conceptual hybrid claim/concession thingy we test that construction against the words of the law. When we discover that in the presence of the conceptual hybrid thingy play must simultaneously continue and cease, we look for an alternative conceptualization that makes sense. It's not all "It stops" "It continues" "Stops" "Continues" "Idiot!" "Moron!" -- although it may be for some. But any number of people on both sides have actually had intelligent things to say. >> Of course there could have been a single law, but it would have had >> to direct one or the other. Since there of course could have been, >> but there isn't, some of us are less than comfortable with assuming >> that somehow it just got left out by accident. Rather than >> pretending to know what it would have said if someone had actually >> written it, we look to the laws that are actually there. > > So what do these laws say? > > First of all we must remember that there is a major difference between > claims or concessions made by declarer and claims or concessions > made by a > defender: Declarer is the only player acting for the declaring side > while > there are two defenders and they share the same rights. > > When declarer makes a claim and/or a concession that is final, but > when a > defender makes a concession with or without an implied claim his > partner may > still have something to say about it and Law 68B2 is the one that > tells us > how to proceed in such situations. Exactly. It tells us that the concession, along with whatever its implications might be, have cease to exist. No problem. Some very smart people have, however, looked at the case in which a defender makes a claim with an implied concession, and suggest that L68B2 tells us that the concession, along with whatever its implications might be, have cease to exist, noting that that can have no effect on an explicit claim. Other very smart people say no, a concession that implies a claim and a claim that implies a concession are the same thing. We mere eggs are left to wonder why, if they're the same thing, they are defined as exact opposites in TFLB, and covered by two different laws. > The partner can object for two different reasons: > > 1: In his opinion the defender has claimed too many or conceded too > few > tricks. > > 2: In his opinion the defender has claimed too few or conceded too > many > tricks. > > Does reason 1 create any problem? Hardly. I don't think any > lawmaker ever > imagined an objection for such reasons, and in any case the matter > should > easily be sorted out whether play ceases or continues. > > So let us go to reason 2: Law 68B2 instructs us that in this > situation play > shall continue (with due regard to UI and all such stuff) because > now the > objection is essentially an objection to the concession (regardless > how it > is made), the other defender disagrees and wants some of the conceded > tricks. L68B2 instructs us only about situations in which "a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks". It has been noted that one easy way out of the impasse, which would answer all questions, is to interpret an "attempt[] to concede one or more tricks" as synonymous with "a statement to the effect that [the] contestant will lose a specific number of tricks". Sven's argument here would sound a lot weaker if he used the actual words of the law and wrote "objection to the attempt to concede" instead of "objection to the concession". > Law 68B could have said that play should cease also in this case, > but it > doesn't. It could have said that the claim part should be ruled > upon by the > Director and then play should continue for the concession part. Thanks > heaven it doesn't. I assume anybody who has ever directed and had > to rule on > claims will appreciate that it doesn't. Such a law would in most if > not all > cases have been impossible to apply. L68B could have said that play should continue regardless of any outstanding claim. It could have said that when a player claims fewer than the remaining tricks L68D does not apply. It could have said that "no claim or concession has occurred". It could have incorporated the language of the 2001 WBF minute. One thing we should all be able to agree on is that it could have said whatever it does say in clear enough language that we wouldn't be having this debate. Anyone who disagrees with that is effectively calling half the members of this forum morons. > So where do we stand? We have Law 68B2 that tells us (literally > without any > limitation) that when a defender concedes one or more tricks and > his partner > immediately objects then play shall continue, period. It also tells us, by Sven's reading, that when a defender blows up in a fit of anger, throws his cards on the floor and stomps out of the room ("A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand." [L68B1]) and his partner immediately objects then play shall continue, period. Period? > I have nothing more to add beyond what has already been said more > than once > from those sho should be authorities on the laws of Bridge. Those "authorities" are the first to remind us that they express their personal opinions as participants in this forum, and do not purport to offer official interpretations of law. That allows us to hold them to the same standards of logic, common sense and English comprehension as everyone else despite their exalted status elsewhere. And, lest we forget, beyond the rarefied atmosphere of BLML, we are all "authorities". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 10 23:24:57 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:24:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009701c853c0$651faca0$9bd2403e@Mildred> References: <20080109071335.BE05C29B013@f37.poczta.interia.pl><393EEB81-9B82-4A17-9B52-49A596F55496@rochester.rr.com> <47851A7F.9010809@skynet.be> <009701c853c0$651faca0$9bd2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47869B39.5030103@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************** > "In nature there are neither > rewards nor punishments - > there are consequences. > [R.G.Ingersoll] > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:03 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> repeat after me: >> >> _in any manner_ >> >> -- > +=+ Repeat after me: > < > "... nor may he indicate ..... " > > 'indicate' - to point to, draw attention to...... > > In complying with a requirement of the law the player > has pointed to nothing, has drawn attention to nothing. > All he has done is to supply information as required. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > Sorry Grattan, but if you are going to reinterpret laws that way, I don't want to start a discussion. "indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made" means IMO everything. Whatever way is used to communicate to the table that the previous explanation was wrong, must be forbidden by this law. If you believe you can write yourself out of a dilemma, then I'd prefer it if you simlply ask the WBFLC to write an exception into L20F5. This is simply too ridiculous for words. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 11 00:23:04 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:23:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] Announce [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <72142726-FDBF-4994-BBD5-0E125A284555@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >I've had a player tell me I'm not allowed to ask a >question about the whole auction - I have to ask >about specific calls. > >Bottom line: players have no clue. The alert >procedure bypasses the requirement in law 20 to ask >about the whole auction [snip] 2007 Law 20F3: Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply. Richard Hills: Given that players had no clue, so were constantly infracting the 1997 Law 20, in my opinion it made a lot of sense for the DSC mountain to come to Mohammed by legalising the practice (with Law 16 safeguards). 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 Fri Jan 11 00:22:16 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:22:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: <000401c8531d$971398a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><655B1D87-25BE-40BD-9A4C-B4C6A7F97513@rochester.rr.com><08DCAFA3-87D4-4CC6-9ECA-EF99F1C66602@starpower.net><003401c853af$36925100$f8c9403e@Mildred> <875BCC22-8505-423B-BA86-BABFA0A38EB5@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003401c853e5$2b14d1a0$37cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] LA > > On Jan 10, 2008, at 12:35 PM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > >> +=+ I would be inclined to start with Law 7B1 (2007 Law 7B2). +=+ > > Law 7B1 or 2 is of the form "a player does such-and-such". Still in > the introduction to the 2007 laws is that, when the law is of this > form, it "establishes correct procedure without suggesting that > violation be penalized." > > It is, of course, still an irregularity, for which the TD can adjust > the score if the NOS are damaged. I think if you want to issue a PP, > 74C6 is a better choice. > +=+ ??? My copy reads: "... before making a call he *must* inspect the faces of his cards." ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 11 00:58:11 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:58:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <20080109071335.BE05C29B013@f37.poczta.interia.pl><393EEB81-9B82-4A17-9B52-49A596F55496@rochester.rr.com> <47851A7F.9010809@skynet.be><009701c853c0$651faca0$9bd2403e@Mildred> <47869B39.5030103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003501c853e5$2c520c90$37cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Sorry Grattan, but if you are going to reinterpret laws that way, I > don't want to start a discussion. > +=+ Herman, really, you know I would not do that (or if I did it would be qualified with 'in my opinion'). Here I am merely repeating the guidance of past years, including guidance given by Edgar Kaplan. I know, of course, that you are set in your beliefs, for which reason I do not seek to debate the subject. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Fri Jan 11 01:03:34 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:03:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4><33CFA7BF-1704-4421-B1C7-FDF90E440F4D@starpower.net><47849718.8080507@skynet.be> <4784C921.7040005@t-online.de><4784E3EF.3050709@skynet.be> <47854433.4080406@t-online.de> <4785EF1A.3070705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004601c853e5$68994330$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > > Yes Matthias, but you have given the answer yourself! Kicking a > footballer is against the rules! Playing DwS is (IMO) NOT against the > laws. > Of course it is. You've admitted that yourself. You claim that it's simply a matter of which laws you choose to break. However, a truly ethical player who was concerned that UI would wake partner up would invest in a couple of pens and pads of paper. Then, when asked for an explanation, said player or his partner could simply write out the explanation and show it to the opponents, but not partner. The pair's written explanations could be compared at the proper time to check for MI. Simply pretend the screens are there, even if they aren't. No UI, no intentional MI. No Laws broken. Since you've just been shown how to actually stay within all of the Laws without giving UI, why persist with dWs? Hirsch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 11 01:03:59 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:03:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] Announce [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47862CA4.7000408@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Mine may again be a minority opinion on BLML :( but I as usual, I >think I'm right :) "General Bridge Knowledge and Experience" has >always seemed to me to be a pathetic excuse for prevarication. >IMO, excuses like "We are not here to teach Bridge" are insulting >and nauseating. Richard Hills: Can I join Nigel's minority? In 1984 there were a pair of Aussie experts who played a Highly Unusual Method but had a habit of responding to queries with: "It's just a bid." These tactics helped them qualify for the Australian International Team. But the Chief Director at the 1984 Seattle Olympiad, Harold Franklin, was of the old school who came down like a ton of bricks on the slightest whiff of misinformation, so that Aussie pair had a substantial Disciplinary Penalty imposed upon them. And fortunately "general bridge knowledge and experience" is no longer a Secretary Bird excuse, since the rewritten 2007 laws say that partnership understandings must always be disclosed. 2007 Law 40B6(a): When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to opponent's enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players. 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 Jan 11 01:44:39 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:44:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Announce In-Reply-To: <47863B62.9010404@ulb.ac.be> References: <47857CFC.3090709@ntlworld.com> <000701c85356$d978e1d0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <000d01c85357$5e025350$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478632BE.8030606@ntlworld.com> <47863B62.9010404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4786BBF7.1090504@ntlworld.com> [Nige1] Rule [G] is important when inferences are subtle and cumulative. My favourite example is the following "Puppet Stayman" auction: 2N-3C-; 3D-3H-; 3N - 2N = 20-22. No 2-6 cards in each suit. Usually 4333 4432 or 5332. - 3C = Puppet Stayman. - 3D = Denies 5+ major. Another denied holding is 2 S with 2-3 H. - 3H = Shows 4 S. May have 4 H. - 3N = Denies 3+ S. This description may be accurate but IMO it is inadequate. It does not make explicit the fact that the 2N opener has shown exactly 4 H. [Alain Gottcheiner] May I mention that if you take all 2NT openings made by a natural player, substract all hands with a 5-card major, substract all hands with 3/4 spades and substract all hands with 2S + 2-3 H, you DO NOT get 24(43). The hand might well be K - AKx - QJxxx - AKJx. So, by pure logic, the explanations mentioned mean "either 4 hearts or a high singleton spade or both", which isn't the same as "4 hearts". For this reason, at least, the information that 4 hearts are guaranteed may not be withheld. And, even if it is obvious that said hand won't bid that way (rather show 2-3 in the majors), THEY don't necessarily know it. They are entitled to know. [nige2] Alain's partnerships may open 1N with a singleton, but the version of Puppet Stayman that I specified, *explicitly denies a singleton*. Nevertheless, the example sequence of 2N-3C-; 3D-3H-; 3N may (rarely) show 2452 or 2425 as well as 2443 and 2434 shapes. Incidentally, whether all this science is worthwhile is controversial. At Brighton, this year, in an excellent seminar, David Burn argued that 2N-3N was hard to defend, whereas Puppet Stayman and the like give opponents lots of chances to indicate leads and even sacrifices. For example in the example auction 2N-3C-; 3D-3H-; 3N The opening leader, is more likely to choose a diamond lead on the grounds that dummy has shown four spades, declarer has shown four hearts, and partner failed to double 3C. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jan 11 02:03:20 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:03:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <200801081608.m08G8Yhq006046@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801081608.m08G8Yhq006046@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4786C058.904@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > ...three-way breakdown of the possibilities...: > > 1. Defender makes a claim statement. > 2. Defender makes a concession statement. > 3. Defender makes both a claim statement and a concession statement. > > If the defender made a concession statement, and his partner > immediately objected, the concession statement has "disappeared", and > we proceed as if no concession statement had been made. Which > reduces the three situations above to: > > 1. Defender made a claim statement. > 2. Nothing happened. > 3. Defender made a claim statement. > > To proceed as if no concession statement had been made, we rule on > the claim in cases 1 and 3, and direct that play continue in case 2. Thanks, Eric. This makes sense to me. I don't know what the intent of the Laws is nor what practice has been in the past, but the literal text now seems clear. [and Sven similarly]: > ... the player [presumably referring only to a defender] ... > has made both a claim > and a concession of some number of tricks. The latter fact > brings the case within the scope of Law 68B2. There is no > doubt therefore that 'play continues'. On the other hand, the former fact brings the case within the scope of 68D. There seems to be no doubt therefore that play ceases. Let me put this scenario out for discussion. If a defender both claims and concedes, and his partner objects, and you as TD rule that play ceases, and someone asks you to explain why, you can point to L68D. How can the players say you are wrong? There was a claim, after all, and there's nothing explicit in TFLB that says it was cancelled. If, on the other hand, you rule play continues, how will you justify that? The word "claim" does not appear in L68B2. "Sven Pran" > We have Law 68B2 that tells us (literally without any > limitation) that when a defender concedes one or more tricks and his partner > immediately objects then play shall continue, period. Well, no, it doesn't actually say that, at least in my copy. It says "no concession has occurred," which is not the same thing. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 11 02:24:50 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:24:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Announce In-Reply-To: <72142726-FDBF-4994-BBD5-0E125A284555@rochester.rr.com> References: <47857CFC.3090709@ntlworld.com> <6639E55B-B405-4791-8F2D-B1B1E00FD474@rochester.rr.com> <47862CA4.7000408@ntlworld.com> <72142726-FDBF-4994-BBD5-0E125A284555@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <4786C562.1010102@ntlworld.com> [Ed Reppert] ... I've had a player tell me I'm not allowed to ask a question about the whole auction - I have to ask about specific calls. Bottom line: players have no clue. The alert procedure bypasses the requirement in law 20 to ask about the whole auction and *then* ask about specific calls if more info is needed. Since alerts are much more common than situations in which a player would ask about the whole auction, players have come to believe that asking about specific calls is *always* the proper procedure - they think "please explain your auction" or even the Sven question (although the latter is clearer) is illegal. The answer is not, btw, to dot every i and cross every t in TFLB. It's education that's needed, of both players and TDs. [nige1] I hope that, in TFLB, each "i" will be dotted and each "t" will be crossed :) In particular, I would like to see Sven's form of question ("What do partner's calls tell you (systemically) about his hand?") explicitly recommended, especially because, as Ed points out, some players mistakenly believe that it is actually *illegal*. I agree with Ed that this is a matter for *education*. But TFLB is the *primary source* for information on the rules of Bridge. This is especially the case, for ordinary players and club-directors. Although, in many areas, the WBFLC seem keen that each local legislature should devise its own local regulations, I feel that the WBFLC should not farm out responsibility for *fundamental guidance about disclosure* in this way. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jan 11 02:50:16 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:50:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200801102147.m0ALl2ah025608@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801102147.m0ALl2ah025608@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4786CB58.2000604@nhcc.net> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > 8. 40B2(c): It is suggested that, in addition, > a player be permitted to consult an opponent's > convention card at RHO's turn to call. (Still using the old "convention card" terminology, I see, instead of the new "system card.") It would have been OK to allow consulting the SC at partner's turn _after partner already looks_, but that's probably too complicated for a practical rule. I assume the screen rules will be separate and will allow looking at any time partner cannot see what you are doing. Anybody know for sure? > 10. 40B3: ACBL should select this option to > disallow prior agreement to vary partnership > understandings during the auction following a > question, response or irregularity. I _think_ what this means is that if, for example, you play negative doubles in the sequence 1S-2H-x, you are not allowed to change that if the 2H bid was corrected from an initial IB of 1H. I don't understand why anyone would object, but there are lots of things I don't understand. It appears to me that the sequence 1S-1H-x is entirely different, so you can have any agreement you like in that one. (In the ACBL, doubles are allowed to have any meaning.) Anyone have better information? > 12C1(e)(ii) is to be interpreted such that the > words "had the irregularity not occurred" are > inserted between "probable" and the period > ending the sentence. This will differ from international practice, though it will seldom be important. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 11 03:02:37 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:02:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] Penalize or Rectify? In-Reply-To: References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> <004d01c8436e$c1c18d50$38cb403e@Mildred> <000101c8438b$409bda10$c1d38e30$@com> <477C4060.7040106@ntlworld.com> <1A47716C-36B1-425F-A70E-E0A99AA54AE8@rochester.rr.com><477D150C.7020909@ntlworld.com> <47806390.5050908@ntlworld.com><003d01c8505c$5e7ef110$77ca403e@Mildred> <47820F59.9040100@ntlworld.com> <007701c85217$72142f30$11d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4786CE3D.5030508@ntlworld.com> [Eric Landau] I can imagine it... "All those in favor of making the laws tighter and clearer raise your hand... All opposed... Motion defeated." [nige1] Tee hee, Eric :) But see all the 2007 law disputes in BLML about claims and so on :( and Anna Gudge's diary on the rush to produce the 2007 laws on time :( and Robert Geller's suggestions for clarifying improvements -- especially with regard to ease of translation :( The new laws come into operation next year, so there is no time for radical change, but perhaps there is enough time for some of Robert's suggestions to be implemented (assuming that the WBFLC can open an effective communication channel with translators). In any case, there is ample time to settle some BLML controversies (such as "concession" and "DWS") once and for all. It is understandable that the WBFLC balk at a more radical overhaul of Bridge law but a list of *corrigenda* would be of benefit to players and directors alike. It would also be simple (but require a little more work) for the WBFLC to maintain an official and authoritative web version, with all such corrections made in place, in the body of the text. That would be of even more benefit to players and directors. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jan 11 03:03:49 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:03:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <200801091545.m09FjFWu000838@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801091545.m09FjFWu000838@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4786CE85.8050807@nhcc.net> > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > For instance, a player is in receipt of UI in a 1S - 3S auction which > suggests bidding 4S rather than passing. He is sort of ethical and aware of > 73C so he decides to bid 7S which happens to make today because of 4 > successful finesses and extremely lucky breaks. > > Has he chosen from among logical alternatives one that could have been > suggested by the UI? This was discussed in early days of BLML. Assuming the position is that the "required" pass of 3S is a sure zero, and 4S is illegal because of the UI, the player might well perceive an advantage in bidding some larger number of spades even though that would seem to be illogical in normal circumstances. Allowing such a bid gives the player on average a better score than an honest player who makes the "required" pass, so no one wants to allow it. There are two routes to an adjusted score. The first is what Grattan mentioned: the call the player chose is always logical in that player's mind (or strictly speaking, for "peers" of that player). The second route is via L73C: the player failed to "carefully avoid" taking advantage of the UI. L73C provides no indemnity, but 12A1 allows an adjusted score. In the original discussion, there were several messages about which route was more appropriate, but I can't see how it would matter. From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jan 11 03:11:00 2008 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:11 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > >The bracketed section of law 50b merely gives examples > >of the two most common ways of a card being exposed > >unintentionally/inadvertently (by getting stuck to the > >intended card or by being dropped). > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion not the "two most common ways" but rather > the "only two ways" a Minor Penalty Card is created. Ok Richard, try this one. A player who is about to sneeze hurriedly places his (closed) hand on the table while reaching for his handkerchief. In his haste he inadvertently/unintentionally placed the hand face-up such that the C3 (alone) is visible. Personally I would rule the C3 a minorPC. I accept that the use of "as by" could be seen as restrictive rather than exemplary and that it would be reasonable to rule to it Major. Tim From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 11 03:04:56 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:04:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] The high priority of disclosure. Message-ID: <004f01c853fa$97c07100$12d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <47857CFC.3090709@ntlworld.com> <000701c85356$d978e1d0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <000d01c85357$5e025350$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478632BE.8030606@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <4786D69B.5050205@ntlworld.com> [nige1] Hands with 23 or 22 in the majors get special treatment, so that if responder has 5 spades and 4 hearts, The partnership can still reach a 5-3 spade fit via ... 2N-3C-; 3D-3H-; 3S-4S And a 4-4 heart fit via ... 2N-3C-; 3D-3H-; 3N-4H. A small improvement is to reverse the meanings of 3S and 3N in the latter pair of auctions. [nige2] Clarification: expert friends exchange the meanings of 3S and 3N in the two examples above and claim that it is a small improvement (I believe that responder is then expected to transfer with five spades). I confess, however, that I don't understand why this is deemed an improvement. In some partnerships, I play the original version, which is quite hard enough for me to remember. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 11 03:47:39 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:47:39 +1100 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4786CB58.2000604@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >>12C1(e)(ii) is to be interpreted such that the >>words "had the irregularity not occurred" are >>inserted between "probable" and the period >>ending the sentence. Steve Willner: >This will differ from international practice, >though it will seldom be important. Richard Hills: Very seldom, since most international practice will be to replace Law 12C1(e) with Law 12C1(c): "In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results." 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 Fri Jan 11 03:50:51 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:50:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Penalize or Rectify? References: <000001c84367$96ea7760$c4bf6620$@com> <004d01c8436e$c1c18d50$38cb403e@Mildred> <000101c8438b$409bda10$c1d38e30$@com> <477C4060.7040106@ntlworld.com> <1A47716C-36B1-425F-A70E-E0A99AA54AE8@rochester.rr.com><477D150C.7020909@ntlworld.com> <47806390.5050908@ntlworld.com><003d01c8505c$5e7ef110$77ca403e@Mildred> <47820F59.9040100@ntlworld.com> <007701c85217$72142f30$11d4403e@Mildred> <4786CE3D.5030508@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <005e01c853fc$edc12020$12d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Penalize or Rectify? > The new laws come into operation next year, so there > is no time for radical change, but perhaps there is enough > time for some of Robert's suggestions to be implemented > (assuming that the WBFLC can open an effective > communication channel with translators). > > In any case, there is ample time to settle some BLML > controversies (such as "concession" and "DWS") once > and for all. > > It is understandable that the WBFLC balk at a more > radical overhaul of Bridge law but a list of *corrigenda* > would be of benefit to players and directors alike. It would > also be simple (but require a little more work) for the > WBFLC to maintain an official and authoritative web > version, with all such corrections made in place, in the > body of the text. That would be of even more benefit > to players and directors. > ................................................................................. +=+ My understanding is that the 2007 Code was implemented by some NBOs from January 1st 2008. It applies already in international competitions also. There are two instruments that we can use to assist in clarification - the appendix (which seems likely to be slow to appear) and the updated Code of Practice which is in course of development. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ .............................................................................. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 11 04:14:11 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:14:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] The high priority of disclosure. In-Reply-To: <004f01c853fa$97c07100$12d6403e@Mildred> References: <004f01c853fa$97c07100$12d6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4786DF03.20003@ntlworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ I read: "I feel that the WBFLC should not farm out responsibility for *fundamental guidance about disclosure*". I am not sure what I am to understand by 'fundamental guidance'. It does seem to me that in parallel ton kooijman and I have been asserting the primacy of the requirement to disclose one's partnership understandings to opponents. In doing so we have been following a well beaten track, the official guidance of many years - such as: "There are two key requirements upon which the game is founded: that partners will only communicate with each other by those means which the laws allow; and that partnerships will fully and fairly disclose their understandings to opponents by the means which the regulations specify." Using other words, this message accompanied the 1987 Laws when they were sent to NBOs. Since the regulators have differing views on how the requirement should be met the WBF does not specify the detail except for its own tournaments. [nige1] Part of the the fundamental guidance on disclosure, to which I alluded is the insertion into TFLB of a new recommendation that players use Sven's form of question: "What do your partner's calls tell you (systemically) about his hand?" Furthermore, as I have argued before ... The distinction between Bridge laws and Bridge regulations seems unnecessary. IMO TFLB should be complete and comprehensive but allow scope for some local variations. Even if in other areas, the WBFLC is adamant that each local legislature should devise its own regulations, I feel that the WBFLC should not farm out its responsibilities for *fundamental guidance about disclosure*. Such Bridge rules could be *optional*. If a jurisdiction held a different view, it would then be free to substitute a local variant. But it would not be *forced* to cobble together its own regulations, as at present. For example, I feel that it is unlikely that any jurisdiction would reject Sven's form of question. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 11 04:45:24 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:45:24 +1100 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801101122w7edbeb0fg1fbbc110682c5d4c@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asked: >What is the new composition of the laws commission? ACBL website listing: Chip Martel, Chairperson Adam Wildavsky, Vice-Chair Allan Falk Robb Gordon Ron Gerard Peggy Sutherlin Dan Morse Jim Kirkham Jeffrey Polisner Ray Raskin Eric Rodwell Matt Smith John Solodar Roger Stern Mildred Breed 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 Fri Jan 11 04:56:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:56:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801101122w7edbeb0fg1fbbc110682c5d4c@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asked: >How is the [Law 16] footnoted phrase, "it is not an infraction >to call the Director earlier or later," interpreted? E.g., is >there some doctrine of "failure to protect oneself" that kicks >in when calling too early or late, even though it is not an >infraction per se? Richard Hills: My opinion is that the footnoted phrase is the exact opposite. It removes the last vestige of Edgar Kaplan's 1960s idea that the non-offending side could lose its rights in a use-of-UI case unless the non-offending side called the TD at a very specific time. 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 Fri Jan 11 05:21:57 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:21:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080109072146.F156E29B013@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills (off-topic relay quibble): >>In addition to the technical advantage relay >>systems have in often limiting logical >>alternatives to just one bid, Konrad Ciborowski (off-topic relay quibble): >Nope, you always have the option of breaking >out the relay chain and switching to natural >bidding. Richard Hills (off-topic relay quibble): Sure the relayer can break the chain. But I said "often", not "always", since I was referring to the other partner - the relayee - who has only one system bid available during each iterative step of a relay auction. 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 Fri Jan 11 06:10:26 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:10:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] Turn the other cheek. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00cd01c852b2$1a938170$71d5403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: +=+ I think Brian Meadows misrepresents me: "You've said that the members of the WBFLC don't think too much of the standard of the posts on BLML." I believe I did not include all of the members of the WBFLC in the statement. I would have said 'some of' or 'most of', I think - and was I not referring to the DSC rather than the WBFLC? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: And I think this Berghaus paragraph is of a very high standard. Matthias wrote (in "a strory..." thread): >This is not news to me, anyone reading your posts >carefully should long ago have gathered that dWs is >not about UI or MI, it is about better scores for >the adherents of dWs. It is about "choosing" (not >that the rules let you choose anything, you just >maintain that you can do so, against the repeated >comments of members of WBFLC, diverse chief TD and >so and so on) the interpretation most advantageous >to you. And then you go and call explaining >agreements correctly cheating? Good grief.... 2007 Law 72A: "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." Richard Hills: By Herman De Wael's own admission, the De Wael School breaks the disclosure laws retail and wholesale, so the De Wael School also infracts the 2007 Law 72A. Herman's excuse is that his "ex cathedra" interpretation of Law 20F5(a) means that the 2007 Lawbook is internally inconsistent, requiring him to break at least one Law, so he might as well break many Laws to gain an advantage. But is Herman the player entitled to issue an "ex cathedra" interpretation of Law 20F5(a) to gain a consequent advantage in the tournament? 2007 Law 81C2: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: 2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." 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 Fri Jan 11 06:42:24 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:42:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Announce References: <47857CFC.3090709@ntlworld.com> <000701c85356$d978e1d0$62025e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <00ca01c85414$be29f900$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 7:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Announce std london puppet: ---------------------------------------------------------- 2N 5-card puppet Stayman 2N-3C 5-card puppet Stayman, used whenever no 5M held .... 3D No 5-card major, not 2S-3H/ 2s-2H exactly .... .... 3H denies 4H, asking partner to bid 3S with 4 else 3N .... .... .... 3S-3N then denies S as well .... .... 3S shows 4H, denies 4S, asking for 3N/4H .... .... 3N shows 4-4 majors .... .... 4H shows 5S and 4H, since pd cannot be 2-3, for correction .... 3H 5 card major .... 3S 5 card major .... 3N 2-2 or 2-3 majors 2N-3D Transfer .... 3H doubleton, or three .... 3S would show 5S and 2H (in case resp is 3-5) .... 3N, 4C, 4D = 4card fit, small dbltn (3N = Sxx) 2N-3H Transfer .... 3S doubleton or 3 .... 3N shows 5H and 2S as above .... 4C, 4D, 4H = 4-card fit small dbltn in suit as above 2N-3S puppets 3N .... 3N-4C/D Single-suited slam try 2N-3N 5-5 minor suit slam try > > *** 3D PROMISES one or both four-card major(s) an inferior American method; you can't bid 5S and 4H properly AND get the minor suits into the auction too. John. and denies a 5-card major. I > have never heard of "denies holding 2 S with 2-3 H". It is possible that > that is just it = that *I* have never heard of that being part of Puppet > Stayman but my partners don't know about such either. Is there a write-up > somewhere about it? > > Raija > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jan 11 09:22:59 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:22:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:11 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Tim West-Meads wrote: > Richard wrote: > > > > >The bracketed section of law 50b merely gives examples > > >of the two most common ways of a card being exposed > > >unintentionally/inadvertently (by getting stuck to the > > >intended card or by being dropped). > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > In my opinion not the "two most common ways" but rather > > the "only two ways" a Minor Penalty Card is created. > > Ok Richard, try this one. A player who is about to sneeze hurriedly > places his (closed) hand on the table while reaching for his handkerchief. > In his haste he inadvertently/unintentionally placed the hand face-up > such that the C3 (alone) is visible. > > Personally I would rule the C3 a minorPC. So would I. > I accept that the use of "as > by" could be seen as restrictive rather than exemplary and that it would > be reasonable to rule to it Major. I find that unreasonable. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 11 09:25:41 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:25:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <004601c853e5$68994330$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4><33CFA7BF-1704-4421-B1C7-FDF90E440F4D@starpower.net><47849718.8080507@skynet.be> <4784C921.7040005@t-online.de><4784E3EF.3050709@skynet.be> <47854433.4080406@t-online.de> <4785EF1A.3070705@skynet.be> <004601c853e5$68994330$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <47872805.5070603@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:10 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > > > >> Yes Matthias, but you have given the answer yourself! Kicking a >> footballer is against the rules! Playing DwS is (IMO) NOT against the >> laws. >> > > Of course it is. You've admitted that yourself. You claim that it's simply > a matter of which laws you choose to break. > OK, so call it acceptabel rather than legal. The point is that it's equally acceptable as the MS. Any argument that it's not OK to use DWS must start from the legality of both schools. > However, a truly ethical player who was concerned that UI would wake partner > up would invest in a couple of pens and pads of paper. Then, when asked for > an explanation, said player or his partner could simply write out the > explanation and show it to the opponents, but not partner. The pair's > written explanations could be compared at the proper time to check for MI. > Simply pretend the screens are there, even if they aren't. No UI, no > intentional MI. No Laws broken. > Except that this will only occur when there has been a mistaken explanation, which, in his way, is "any manner to indicate that a mistake has been made", which is, in fact, a breaking of L20F5. And yes, it would be UI as well. > Since you've just been shown how to actually stay within all of the Laws > without giving UI, why persist with dWs? > Because I have not been shown! > Hirsch > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 11 09:39:16 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:39:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Turn the other cheek. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47872B34.8090606@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard Hills: > > By Herman De Wael's own admission, the De Wael > School breaks the disclosure laws retail and > wholesale, I would like to comment on this once more. Me: "4NT" (intended as for minors) LHO: "yes, please?" Partner: "Blackwood" Partner: "5Di" RHO: "how many?" Me: "0 or 3 out of 5" This breaks the disclosure laws, I won't deny it, but "retail and wholesale"? Read 2007L40B4: 4. A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents? failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score Is there any damage arising from the fact that I have omitted to say that systemically the bid shows diamonds? What do we know of the number of diamonds or clubs in partner's hand? Nothing. So how can opponents be damaged? So please stop crucifying me - I do not give wilful misinformation. I am not trying to deny my opponents anything they need, except the correction of the previous mistake, which the laws explicitely tell me to avoid. I'm getting tired of this discussion. > so the De Wael School also infracts the > 2007 Law 72A. 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. with the lawS. I am in strict accordance with L20F5. > Herman's excuse is that his "ex > cathedra" interpretation of Law 20F5(a) means that > the 2007 Lawbook is internally inconsistent, And you dare still doubt that this is true? > requiring him to break at least one Law, so he > might as well break many Laws to gain an advantage. > No, I break one small law. > But is Herman the player entitled to issue an "ex > cathedra" interpretation of Law 20F5(a) to gain a > consequent advantage in the tournament? > Ehmm, is Richard Hills entitled to do this? > 2007 Law 81C2: > > "The Director (not the players) has the > responsibility for rectifying irregularities and > redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers > normally include also the following: > 2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to > advise the players of their rights and > responsibilities thereunder." > Pfffft. > > Best wishes > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 11 10:05:23 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:05:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook Message-ID: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> If Richard can start a new thread, then so can I. I would like you to answer a few consecutive questions. You know the story already. You bid 4NT, intending to offer a choice of minors to partner. Your LHO opponent asks what 4NT means, and your partner answers "Blackwood". Do you: A1- gasp and swallow loudly; or A2- stay quiet? While LHO thinks, you try to remember what you wrote in your system notes about 4NT in certain situations, and you reach the conclusion that you were probably right in thinking the meaning was minors. Do you: B1- say to the table "sorry guys, my partner made a mistake"; or B2- stay quiet? Your LHO passes, and partner bids 5Di. You are fairly certain you are playing RKCB, and this shows 0 or 3 key-cards. You are even fairly certain of which king partner is potentially counting (let's say Spades). You have a new opportunity of interrupting. Do you: C1- say something to the table; or C2- stay quiet? Your RHO appears interested in the meaning of 5Di. He starts checking your SC, clearly under the heading of slam bidding. Do you: D1- tell him he's looking at the wrong side of the SC; or D2- stay quiet? Your RHO finds the relevant piece of information, but he's baffled by the letters RKCB. He asks "what does RKCB mean?" Do you: E1- answer "4NT was not Blackwood"; or E2- answer "Roman Key-Card Blackwood, that is, counting the king of trumps as a fifth ace" Your RHO now asks specifically about the meaning of 5Di. Do you: E1- answer "diamond preference"; or E2- answer "zero or 3 out of the five aces, counting the king of spades as the fifth ace". If at any time you switched from the answer X1 to the answer Y2, do you really believe that the laws can really prohibit you from saying something, while requiring you to say that same thing the very next moment? Do you really believe that it is a great crime to not mention "diamond preference", something you know absolutlely nothing about? Do you agree or not, that, even if you reveal the mistake, your opponents are entitled to the knowledge that your partner has 0/3 KC? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Jan 11 10:41:57 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:41:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?DWS_-_internal_inconsistencies_in_lawbook?= In-Reply-To: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > You bid 4NT, intending to offer a choice of minors to partner. > > Your LHO opponent asks what 4NT means, and your partner answers > "Blackwood". > > Do you: > > A1- gasp and swallow loudly; or > A2- stay quiet? A2 > While LHO thinks, you try to remember what you wrote in your system > notes about 4NT in certain situations, and you reach the conclusion > that you were probably right in thinking the meaning was minors. > > Do you: > > B1- say to the table "sorry guys, my partner made a mistake"; or B2- > stay quiet? B2 > Your LHO passes, and partner bids 5Di. You are fairly certain you are > playing RKCB, and this shows 0 or 3 key-cards. You are even fairly > certain of which king partner is potentially counting (let's say > Spades). > > You have a new opportunity of interrupting. Do you: > > C1- say something to the table; or > C2- stay quiet? C2 > Your RHO appears interested in the meaning of 5Di. He starts checking > your SC, clearly under the heading of slam bidding. > > Do you: > > D1- tell him he's looking at the wrong side of the SC; or > D2- stay quiet? D2 > Your RHO finds the relevant piece of information, but he's baffled by > the letters RKCB. He asks "what does RKCB mean?" > > Do you: > > E1- answer "4NT was not Blackwood"; or > E2- answer "Roman Key-Card Blackwood, that is, counting the king of > trumps as a fifth ace" E2 > Your RHO now asks specifically about the meaning of 5Di. > > Do you: > > E1- answer "diamond preference"; or > E2- answer "zero or 3 out of the five aces, counting the king of > spades as the fifth ace". E1 ... why E again (?) > If at any time you switched from the answer X1 to the answer Y2, do > you really believe that the laws can really prohibit you from saying > something, while requiring you to say that same thing the very next > moment? (?) probably you meant "... X2 to Y1 ..." (?) yes, I do. As long as opponents ask irrelevant (suggestive) questions or behave in a manner (do something) that I'm not allowed to react upon. > Do you really believe that it is a great crime to not mention "diamond > preference", something you know absolutlely nothing about? yes. You'r required to disclose your agreements and not your hands. > Do you agree or not, that, even if you reveal the mistake, your > opponents are entitled to the knowledge that your partner has 0/3 KC? no; as long as they do not ask "if 4 NT would have been RCKB, what would have been 5D?" and I will not tell them, which would be the 5th KC. Peter From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 11 10:03:01 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:03:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001601c85436$9f353290$47c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>12C1(e)(ii) is to be interpreted such that the >>>words "had the irregularity not occurred" are >>>inserted between "probable" and the period >>>ending the sentence. > > Steve Willner: > >>This will differ from international practice, >>though it will seldom be important. > > Richard Hills: > > Very seldom, since most international practice > will be to replace Law 12C1(e) with Law 12C1(c): > > "In order to do equity, and unless the > Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned > adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the > probabilities of a number of potential results." > +=+ Did the ACBL regulations also add these words into the 1997 Law 12C2? - or is it a change of policy? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 11 10:15:45 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:15:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001701c85436$a06fd570$47c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard wrote: >> >> >The bracketed section of law 50b merely gives examples >> >of the two most common ways of a card being exposed >> >unintentionally/inadvertently (by getting stuck to the >> >intended card or by being dropped). >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> In my opinion not the "two most common ways" but rather >> the "only two ways" a Minor Penalty Card is created. > > Ok Richard, try this one. A player who is about to sneeze > hurriedly places his (closed) hand on the table while reaching > for his handkerchief. In his haste he inadvertently/unintentionally > placed the hand face-up such that the C3 (alone) is visible. > > Personally I would rule the C3 a minorPC. I accept that the > use of "as by" could be seen as restrictive rather than exemplary > and that it would be reasonable to rule to it Major. > +=+ In places we replaced 'as in' or 'as by' with the words 'for example'. This one I think we overlooked. Kaplan used 'as in' to introduce an example of the kind of situation. If "the only two ways" were intended the usage would omit 'as' and simply say 'in' or 'by'. ~ G ~ +=+ From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jan 11 11:02:59 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:02:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Penalize or Rectify? In-Reply-To: <4786CE3D.5030508@ntlworld.com> References: <477C4060.7040106@ntlworld.com> <1A47716C-36B1-425F-A70E-E0A99AA54AE8@rochester.rr.com> <477D150C.7020909@ntlworld.com> <47806390.5050908@ntlworld.com> <003d01c8505c$5e7ef110$77ca403e@Mildred> <47820F59.9040100@ntlworld.com> <007701c85217$72142f30$11d4403e@Mildred> <4786CE3D.5030508@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: On 11/01/2008, Guthrie wrote: > [Eric Landau] > I can imagine it... > > "All those in favor of making the laws tighter and clearer raise your > hand... All opposed... Motion defeated." > > [nige1] > > Tee hee, Eric :) But see all the 2007 law disputes in BLML about > claims and so on :( and Anna Gudge's diary on the rush to produce the > 2007 laws on time :( and Robert Geller's suggestions for clarifying > improvements -- especially with regard to ease of translation :( > > The new laws come into operation next year, 2008 is this year though. :-) > so there is no time for > radical change, but perhaps there is enough time for some of Robert's > suggestions to be implemented (assuming that the WBFLC can open an > effective communication channel with translators). The Danish federation already switched to the new laws on 1.1.08. My federation has finished translation of the new laws. Only serious proofreading remain before our version can be prepared for print. I guess we won't implement the new laws until June, but that hasn't beed decided yet. I'd say it's far too late to make any changes to TFLB now. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > In any case, there is ample time to settle some BLML controversies > (such as "concession" and "DWS") once and for all. > > It is understandable that the WBFLC balk at a more radical overhaul of > Bridge law but a list of *corrigenda* would be of benefit to players > and directors alike. It would also be simple (but require a little > more work) for the WBFLC to maintain an official and authoritative web > version, with all such corrections made in place, in the body of the > text. That would be of even more benefit to players and directors. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 11 11:28:13 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:28:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <003401c853e5$2b14d1a0$37cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000501c8543c$ac6f85e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk .................. > +=+ ??? My copy reads: "... before making a call he *must* inspect > the faces of his cards." ~ G ~ +=+ Sure it does, but the story dates back before 1987 and in those laws they didn't. Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 11 11:33:48 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:33:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <4786C058.904@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000601c8543d$7394a9c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Steve Willner .............. > > 3. Defender makes both a claim statement and a concession statement. > > > > If the defender made a concession statement, and his partner > > immediately objected, the concession statement has "disappeared", and > > we proceed as if no concession statement had been made. Which > > reduces the three situations above to: > > ............... > > 3. Defender made a claim statement. ............... > Let me put this scenario out for discussion. If a defender both claims > and concedes, and his partner objects, and you as TD rule that play > ceases, and someone asks you to explain why, you can point to L68D. How > can the players say you are wrong? There was a claim, after all, and > there's nothing explicit in TFLB that says it was cancelled. If, on the > other hand, you rule play continues, how will you justify that? The > word "claim" does not appear in L68B2. Somebody will certainly say that this is off topic, but still: "Give me a sandwich and coffee with cream, no - Drop the coffee!" Do you give him just the sandwich or do you also give him a cup with cream (but no coffee)? Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 11 12:08:06 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:08:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c85442$3e2c3b40$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > I would like you to answer a few consecutive questions. > You bid 4NT, intending to offer a choice of minors to partner. > > Your LHO opponent asks what 4NT means, and your partner answers > "Blackwood". This in any case is an incomplete and therefore incorrect answer when you use RKCB (as is clear from the following)! > > Do you: > > A1- gasp and swallow loudly; or > A2- stay quiet? Inadvertently I might A1, but I hope I shall react properly with: Of course A2 > > While LHO thinks, you try to remember what you wrote in your system > notes about 4NT in certain situations, and you reach the conclusion > that you were probably right in thinking the meaning was minors. > > Do you: > > B1- say to the table "sorry guys, my partner made a mistake"; or > B2- stay quiet? Of course B2 > > Your LHO passes, and partner bids 5Di. You are fairly certain you are > playing RKCB, and this shows 0 or 3 key-cards. You are even fairly > certain of which king partner is potentially counting (let's say Spades). > > You have a new opportunity of interrupting. Do you: > > C1- say something to the table; or > C2- stay quiet? Of course C2 (no alerts beyond 3NT where I play) > > Your RHO appears interested in the meaning of 5Di. He starts checking > your SC, clearly under the heading of slam bidding. > > Do you: > > D1- tell him he's looking at the wrong side of the SC; or > D2- stay quiet? Of course D2 > > Your RHO finds the relevant piece of information, but he's baffled by > the letters RKCB. He asks "what does RKCB mean?" > > Do you: > > E1- answer "4NT was not Blackwood"; or > E2- answer "Roman Key-Card Blackwood, that is, counting the king of > trumps as a fifth ace" Of course E2 > > Your RHO now asks specifically about the meaning of 5Di. > > Do you: > > E1- answer "diamond preference"; or > E2- answer "zero or 3 out of the five aces, counting the king of > spades as the fifth ace". Of course E1 > > If at any time you switched from the answer X1 to the answer Y2, do > you really believe that the laws can really prohibit you from saying > something, while requiring you to say that same thing the very next > moment? Of course, that is the law! You are not permitted to volunteer certain information while at the same time you are required to give that information if/when asked. > > Do you really believe that it is a great crime to not mention "diamond > preference", something you know absolutlely nothing about? I don't understand the last clause: "something you know absolutely nothing about", I believe we both assume that I know our agreements? "Great crime" - no, nobody will be executed for any violation of the bridge laws, but 'not mentioning "diamond preference"' is definitely a serious violation of these laws. > > Do you agree or not, that, even if you reveal the mistake, your > opponents are entitled to the knowledge that your partner has 0/3 KC? Opponents are entitled to this information from their own inference, but the information that partner has 0/3 KC is UI to you! "What is RKCB" is not asking for the meaning of the 5Di bid, it asks for the meaning of a bid that was not made (according to information that is AI to you), but you must answer that question as asked and not mix in any remark that your bid of 4NT was not RKCB. When/if opponent then asks for the (exact) meaning of 5Di he shall have the correct information according to agreements: "It is Diamond preference". It is up to him to deduce that partner has originally given an incorrect information, he may even ask what would be the meaning of 5Di in response to a 4NT RKCB bid, but the fact that partner has made an answer to RKCB is UI to you! Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 11 12:25:55 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:25:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Herman De Wael >> You bid 4NT, intending to offer a choice of minors to partner. >> >> Your LHO opponent asks what 4NT means, and your partner answers >> "Blackwood". >> >> Do you: >> >> A1- gasp and swallow loudly; or >> A2- stay quiet? > > A2 > >> While LHO thinks, you try to remember what you wrote in your system >> notes about 4NT in certain situations, and you reach the conclusion >> that you were probably right in thinking the meaning was minors. >> >> Do you: >> >> B1- say to the table "sorry guys, my partner made a mistake"; or B2- >> stay quiet? > > B2 > >> Your LHO passes, and partner bids 5Di. You are fairly certain you are >> playing RKCB, and this shows 0 or 3 key-cards. You are even fairly >> certain of which king partner is potentially counting (let's say >> Spades). >> >> You have a new opportunity of interrupting. Do you: >> >> C1- say something to the table; or >> C2- stay quiet? > > C2 > >> Your RHO appears interested in the meaning of 5Di. He starts checking >> your SC, clearly under the heading of slam bidding. >> >> Do you: >> >> D1- tell him he's looking at the wrong side of the SC; or >> D2- stay quiet? > > D2 > >> Your RHO finds the relevant piece of information, but he's baffled by >> the letters RKCB. He asks "what does RKCB mean?" >> >> Do you: >> >> E1- answer "4NT was not Blackwood"; or >> E2- answer "Roman Key-Card Blackwood, that is, counting the king of >> trumps as a fifth ace" > > E2 > >> Your RHO now asks specifically about the meaning of 5Di. >> >> Do you: >> >> E1- answer "diamond preference"; or >> E2- answer "zero or 3 out of the five aces, counting the king of >> spades as the fifth ace". > > E1 ... why E again (?) mistake. Sorry > >> If at any time you switched from the answer X1 to the answer Y2, do >> you really believe that the laws can really prohibit you from saying >> something, while requiring you to say that same thing the very next >> moment? > > (?) probably you meant "... X2 to Y1 ..." (?) indeed. Sorry > yes, I do. As long as opponents ask irrelevant (suggestive) questions > or behave in a manner (do something) that I'm not allowed to react upon. > >> Do you really believe that it is a great crime to not mention "diamond >> preference", something you know absolutlely nothing about? > > yes. You'r required to disclose your agreements and not your hands. > You are - you are also required not to indicate that a mistake has been made. Why do you choose to follow one law and not another? Have you ever thought about it - is it a conscious decision or are you merely following the majority? >> Do you agree or not, that, even if you reveal the mistake, your >> opponents are entitled to the knowledge that your partner has 0/3 KC? > > no; as long as they do not ask "if 4 NT would have been RCKB, > what would have been 5D?" and I will not tell them, which would > be the 5th KC. > I did not ask if you would tell them unasked, I asked if you felt they were entitled to it. I gather from your response that you would answer them if they asked for it - does that mean that you believe they are entitled to it? And if you do believe so, then why not say it without asking - after all, it is your obligation to tell them everything! > Peter > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Jan 11 13:04:05 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:04:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?DWS_-_internal_inconsistencies_in_lawbook?= In-Reply-To: <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> [snip] Herman1: > > > Do you really believe that it is a great crime to not mention > > > "diamond preference", something you know absolutlely nothing > > > about? Peter1: > > yes. You're required to disclose your agreements and not your hands. Herman2: > You are - you are also required not to indicate that a mistake has > been made. Why do you choose to follow one law and not another? Have > you ever thought about it - is it a conscious decision or are you > merely following the majority? Peter2: If I answer an opponent's question with the correct systematic meaning, I'm not "_indicating_ in any manner" that a mistake has been made. Maybe opponents and partner might draw this conclusion, but that's another point and for the opponents it's on their own risk. And - yes, this is my conscious decision; I'm not following anybody without reflecting the issue. Herman1: > > > Do you agree or not, that, even if you reveal the mistake, your > > > opponents are entitled to the knowledge that your partner has 0/3 > > > KC? Peter1: > > no; as long as they do not ask "if 4 NT would have been RCKB, > > what would have been 5D?" and I will not tell them, which would > > be the 5th KC. Herman2: > I did not ask if you would tell them unasked, I asked if you felt they > were entitled to it. I gather from your response that you would answer > them if they asked for it - does that mean that you believe they are > entitled to it? Peter2: No, they are not entitled to know, that partner has 0/3 KC ! And no, I will not tell them, that partner has 0/3 KC ! You got me wrong. If they ask me about our agreements concerning RCKB, I will tell them our agreements; but I will not tell them, that partner used RCKB. Partner showed (systemetically) preference for diamonds. Herman2: > And if you do believe so, then why not say it without asking - after > all, it is your obligation to tell them everything! Peter2: Irrelevant - for me - see above. And - I'm surely not required to tell my opponents everything, if they don't ask - until the hand is over; it's more the opposite. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 11 13:57:45 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:57:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <000701c85442$3e2c3b40$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000701c85442$3e2c3b40$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <478767C9.3030002@skynet.be> Sven asserts something that I do not believe to be correct: Sven Pran wrote: > >> If at any time you switched from the answer X1 to the answer Y2, do >> you really believe that the laws can really prohibit you from saying >> something, while requiring you to say that same thing the very next >> moment? > > Of course, that is the law! You are not permitted to volunteer certain > information while at the same time you are required to give that information > if/when asked. > I find no hint of this in the laws, previous or current. The current laws are a bit more structured in the handling of system information. L40A1b describes the basis - all system info must be available beforehand. That does not help us here. L40B4 describes what happens if the info is missing: rectification if there is damage. That does not helpo us here either. L40B6a describes what must be said: general knowledge can be left out. That is not the case here. That's all from L40. Nowhere does it say that it is acceptable to lie by omitance. As Sven points out in the part I scrapped above, "Blackwood" is a part of MI. It could be acceptable, because it might be considered GK that there is more than one form of Blackwood, so the opponent knows the explanation is incomplete and he can ask. But other than that - I'm not certain. L75 deals with the UI issues of the mistaken information, this helps us neither. And finally, I find nothing in the new L20 either. So I submit that it is just as wrong to see an opponent looking at the Blackwood responses and say nothing, than to answer "it's not Blackwood" when he asks what 5Di means. Furthermore, I find the assertion that it is OK to answer "0/3" to the question "how many?" but not OK to answer "0/3" to the question "what is 5Di?" ludicrous. It is being delusional. You would like to get away with following the dWS, but you dare not in the face of a direct question. If you want to follow the dWS, please do so. There is no need to shun away from it merely from the weight of the forces against you on blml. Dare to be different! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john at asimere.com Fri Jan 11 14:08:17 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:08:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: <000501c8543c$ac6f85e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <003101c85453$086fc2e0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] LA >> On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk > .................. >> +=+ ??? My copy reads: "... before making a call he *must* inspect >> the faces of his cards." ~ G ~ +=+ > > Sure it does, but the story dates back before 1987 and in those laws they > didn't. We used to be able to play "first card inspected". A deuce you psyched in that suit, etc > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 11 14:15:53 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:15:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > > Peter2: > If I answer an opponent's question with the correct systematic meaning, > I'm not "_indicating_ in any manner" that a mistake has been made. Peter, if you believe that, you are very very very misguided. You may well believe that it's ok to break this law, but not that you're not breaking it. This is just too silly for words. It is the reaction of someone who feels the argument slipping away and finding aver stranger arguments to avoid having to admit that maybe one was wrong to begin with. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 11 14:17:53 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:17:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <47876C81.4090402@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > > Peter2: > No, they are not entitled to know, that partner has 0/3 KC ! And no, I > will > not tell them, that partner has 0/3 KC ! You got me wrong. > If they ask me about our agreements concerning RCKB, I will tell > them our agreements; but I will not tell them, that partner used RCKB. > Partner showed (systemetically) preference for diamonds. > Of course they are entitled to know this. They are entitled to know our full system. That includes some form of Blackwood (presumably) and one answering scheme therein. That answering scheme is part of our system and they are entitled by L40A to know this. And you must answer it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 11 14:56:07 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:56:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <46C66605-8409-49C9-97AF-131768A7B47F@rochester.rr.com> References: <000201c853cc$2499eb80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <46C66605-8409-49C9-97AF-131768A7B47F@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <03B9864E-33C7-4269-9B25-47A72D382FB0@starpower.net> On Jan 10, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > 2007 Law 68D: "After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see > Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 > applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the > Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies." > > This does not say that dummy can only dispute a claim or concession > by declarer, or that a defender cannot dispute a claim or concession > by his partner. So I wonder, firstly, what the difference is between > this "dispute" and the "objection" in Law 68B. Secondly, if the > intent was to limit this "disputing" to players of the other side, > why doesn't the law say so? "Doubt: To be uncertain or skeptical about" "Object: To raise an objection" "Objection: A statement or other expression offered or presented in opposition" [all AHD] This rather subtle distinction is reflected in the laws: one "doubts" a "concession", but one "objects to" an "attempt to concede". > Law 70D3 strikes me as saying "if there is a claim or concession, you > better damn sure not allow play to continue, because if it does, and > you screw up, you lose". I don't have a problem with the law saying > that, particularly if it's addressed to the claiming or conceding > side, but the law doesn't preclude the claiming/conceding side from > getting *more* tricks if their opponents screw the pooch. Some of us deal routinely with players who are less than expert on the law -- in fact, they don't know diddley-squat. They have, however, picked up on a few -- albeit very few -- fundamental principles that appear to be simple and straightforward. But one thing they have learned is that *when someone claims play stops*. Why would it occur to anyone that the lawmakers, using a law that appears to be about concessions rather than having anything to do with claims no less, intended to introduce an exception to this widely accepted principle? I suspect this is why this discussion has raised the heat level to near-DWS-school levels. Try this: Ask a competent local director who is not a BLMLer or aware of this discussion, "Under what circumstances can a player make a statement that he will win some number of tricks other than the current one and, upon being called, you will direct that play continue?" He or she will look at you like you've lost your mind. > The more I think about it, the more I think the laws on claims need a > complete overall, not just the touch-up they got. :-( Certainly if understanding the intent of the law is to require us to conceptualize some "synchronous and inseparable" hybrid claim/ concession thingy, it would be nice if the law deigned to mention it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jan 11 14:56:13 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:56:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4787757D.5090408@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Peter Eidt wrote: > >> Peter2: >> If I answer an opponent's question with the correct systematic meaning, >> I'm not "_indicating_ in any manner" that a mistake has been made. >> > > Peter, if you believe that, you are very very very misguided. > Speaking of misguidance: If I have people like Grattan, Ton and others, members of the WBFLC and the DSC, who know from personal experience and through personal involvement in the drafting process how the laws are meant to be read (having, if not invented them, (that is too far in the past) formed them into their present state to no small extent) and I have Herman, someone not connected with the aforementioned bodies, who has a different opinion on that, whose interpretation am I going to follow? Hmm, that`s a really tough one. If I want an interpretation of some text, whom do I ask? The guy who wrote it or some literary critic? Another tough one. If I could talk to Shakespeare and to Chaucer about some difficult point in Hamlet, whom would I ask? Maybe you can guess. Now it so happens that Grattan, Ton and those other people in the WBFLC have told me by way of the CoP that there is no design involved in answering questions (one of your former hobby-horses), and that I do not "indicate" (as in "actively seek to point out") anything through answering questions, by way of posting in this list. Not that I didn`t know that, I can read English, and I consult a good dictionary whenever I am in doubt. Along comes Herman, who tells the people mentioned that they have no command of English (which would be funny with regard to the native speakers if it weren'tso tragic), do not know what "with design" or "indicate" truly means, and generally are completely misguided. Wow. That's a tough act to follow. > You may well believe that it's ok to break this law, but not that > you're not breaking it. I may not? When the foks who actually made those rules tell me different? I always was under the impression that the people who _make_ the rules are the ones to ask, not Herman (or me, for that matter). > This is just too silly for words. I wholeheartedly agree. > It is the > reaction of someone who feels the argument slipping away and finding > aver stranger arguments to avoid having to admit that maybe one was > wrong to begin with. > > What strange arguments? There is official word on what the law is, and I follow it. What is strange about that? You, on the other hand, argue that the rule-makers actually do not know how their own words are to be read, and you call my (or Peter`s, in this caase) arguments strange? From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 11 15:30:42 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:30:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <4786CE85.8050807@nhcc.net> References: <200801091545.m09FjFWu000838@cfa.harvard.edu> <4786CE85.8050807@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Jan 10, 2008, at 9:03 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" >> For instance, a player is in receipt of UI in a 1S - 3S auction which >> suggests bidding 4S rather than passing. He is sort of ethical >> and aware of >> 73C so he decides to bid 7S which happens to make today because of 4 >> successful finesses and extremely lucky breaks. >> >> Has he chosen from among logical alternatives one that could have >> been >> suggested by the UI? > > This was discussed in early days of BLML. Assuming the position is > that > the "required" pass of 3S is a sure zero, and 4S is illegal because of > the UI, the player might well perceive an advantage in bidding some > larger number of spades even though that would seem to be illogical in > normal circumstances. Allowing such a bid gives the player on > average a > better score than an honest player who makes the "required" pass, > so no > one wants to allow it. > > There are two routes to an adjusted score. The first is what Grattan > mentioned: the call the player chose is always logical in that > player's > mind (or strictly speaking, for "peers" of that player). The second > route is via L73C: the player failed to "carefully avoid" taking > advantage of the UI. L73C provides no indemnity, but 12A1 allows an > adjusted score. If the position is that the "required" pass of 3S is a sure zero, and the player will be deemed to have taken advantage of UI no matter what else he bids, why make him call? Why not just score up the sure zero and go on to the next hand? Of course, that's unrealistic. No player, holding a marginal game- acceptance over a limit raise, will ever suspect, much less know, that he has a better expectation of a non-zero in 7S than in 3S. ISTM that this "sort of ethical" player has attempted to do the right thing by deliberately shooting himself in the foot, and we are penalizing him for having missed a vital organ. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 11 15:46:53 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:46:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: <000601c8543d$7394a9c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000601c8543d$7394a9c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Jan 11, 2008, at 5:33 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Steve Willner > .............. >>> 3. Defender makes both a claim statement and a concession statement. >>> >>> If the defender made a concession statement, and his partner >>> immediately objected, the concession statement has "disappeared", >>> and >>> we proceed as if no concession statement had been made. Which >>> reduces the three situations above to: >>> > ............... >>> 3. Defender made a claim statement. > ............... >> Let me put this scenario out for discussion. If a defender both >> claims >> and concedes, and his partner objects, and you as TD rule that play >> ceases, and someone asks you to explain why, you can point to >> L68D. How >> can the players say you are wrong? There was a claim, after all, and >> there's nothing explicit in TFLB that says it was cancelled. If, >> on the >> other hand, you rule play continues, how will you justify that? The >> word "claim" does not appear in L68B2. > > Somebody will certainly say that this is off topic, but still: > > "Give me a sandwich and coffee with cream, no - Drop the coffee!" > > Do you give him just the sandwich or do you also give him a cup > with cream > (but no coffee)? By Steve's logic, he gets just the sandwich. By Sven's logic, he gets just the sandwich. "Give me a sandwich and coffee with cream, no - Drop the cream!" By Steve's logic, he gets a sandwich and a coffee without cream. By Sven's logic, he gets just the sandwich. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 11 15:51:05 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:51:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Turn the other cheek. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47878259.6000609@ntlworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ I think Brian Meadows misrepresents me: "You've said that the members of the WBFLC don't think too much of the standard of the posts on BLML." I believe I did not include all of the members of the WBFLC in the statement. I would have said 'some of' or 'most of', I think - and was I not referring to the DSC rather than the WBFLC? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [Richard Hills] And I think this Berghaus paragraph is of a very high standard. Matthias wrote (in "a strory..." thread): [Mathias Berghaus] This is not news to me, anyone reading your posts carefully should long ago have gathered that dWs is not about UI or MI, it is about better scores for the adherents of dWs. It is about "choosing" (not that the rules let you choose anything, you just maintain that you can do so, against the repeated comments of members of WBFLC, diverse chief TD and so and so on) the interpretation most advantageous to you. And then you go and call explaining agreements correctly cheating? Good grief.... [2007 Law 72A] 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." [Richard Hills] By Herman De Wael's own admission, the De Wael School breaks the disclosure laws retail and wholesale, so the De Wael School also infracts the 2007 Law 72A. Herman's excuse is that his "ex cathedra" interpretation of Law 20F5(a) means that the 2007 Lawbook is internally inconsistent, requiring him to break at least one Law, so he might as well break many Laws to gain an advantage. But is Herman the player entitled to issue an "ex cathedra" interpretation of Law 20F5(a) to gain a consequent advantage in the tournament? [2007 Law 81C2] The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: 2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." [nige1] Richard is right to quote L81C2 in this context. Herman *is* a director so we should take notice of his interpretation. Incidentally, I deplore ad hominem attacks that impugn the motives of BLML contributors. To me Herman seems to be an ethical person. Why can't we just concentrate on the arguments? IMO It is the WBFLC rather than Herman who issue *ex cathedra* re-interpretations of TFLB's more Delphic legislation. In the past, corrections and clarifications have been in hidden in arcane minutes. Only a select in-crowd knew of their existence. But, at least, such amendments had the *force of law*. The BLML contributions of WBFLC members sometimes reveal a broad consensus on a disputed interpretation of a law. For example, some repudiate Herman's interpretation of Disclosure laws. We are grateful to them and respect their superior erudition. Even when they agree, however, their personal views still don't have the force of law. Grattan often warns us that this is so. The simple obvious and sensible way to settle such disputes is for the WBFLC to officially and authoritatively disambiguate the law-book with minor alterations to the text, in place, where necessary and conveniently possible. Sometimes, it may be necessary for the WBFLC to tinker several times with the text, as more sources of confusion come to light. BLMLers would probably be delighted to help in this task. Rapidly, however, the WBFLC would reach a version that would defeat all but the most determined quibbler. A welcome side-effect might be that the laws would become simpler and clearer. They would then be easier for the ordinary player to understand; and for Robert Geller and others to translate. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 11 15:53:12 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:53:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: References: <200801091545.m09FjFWu000838@cfa.harvard.edu> <4786CE85.8050807@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <478782D8.5070707@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> > > If the position is that the "required" pass of 3S is a sure zero, and > the player will be deemed to have taken advantage of UI no matter > what else he bids, why make him call? Why not just score up the sure > zero and go on to the next hand? > > Of course, that's unrealistic. No player, holding a marginal game- > acceptance over a limit raise, will ever suspect, much less know, > that he has a better expectation of a non-zero in 7S than in 3S. > ISTM that this "sort of ethical" player has attempted to do the right > thing by deliberately shooting himself in the foot, and we are > penalizing him for having missed a vital organ. > ... which we aren't allowed to do, the same way as we aren't when a player drops a honor card and is compelled to make the "absurd" lead of that honor, which happens to generate a top. Apart from this, I don't think bidding 3S is compelled in any way. The Rules say you may not choose, among "logical alternatives", any that has been suggested. The Rules don't say you aren't allowed to choose a non-"logical alternative". To see whether 7S is one, ask some players whether they consider bidding it. Of course it wil turn out not to be. Whence bidding it can't be penalized, according to those very laws. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 11 16:02:56 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:02:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] concession In-Reply-To: References: <000601c8543d$7394a9c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47878520.3070807@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> Somebody will certainly say that this is off topic, but still: >> >> "Give me a sandwich and coffee with cream, no - Drop the coffee!" >> >> Do you give him just the sandwich or do you also give him a cup >> with cream >> (but no coffee)? >> > > By Steve's logic, he gets just the sandwich. > By Sven's logic, he gets just the sandwich. > > "Give me a sandwich and coffee with cream, no - Drop the cream!" > > By Steve's logic, he gets a sandwich and a coffee without cream. > By Sven's logic, he gets just the sandwich. > > By mathematical logic, he gets the sandwich and the cream in the first case : (A v B v C) \ B = A v C. By informatic logic, he gets a sandwich in the hand and a coffe on the floor - no, drop that remark ;-) Best regards Alain From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 11 16:20:54 2008 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:20:54 -0600 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be><1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <4787757D.5090408@t-online.de> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 07:56 Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Peter Eidt wrote: >> >>> Peter2: >>> If I answer an opponent's question with the correct systematic meaning, >>> I'm not "_indicating_ in any manner" that a mistake has been made. >>> >> >> Peter, if you believe that, you are very very very misguided. >> > > Speaking of misguidance: If I have people like Grattan, Ton and others, > members of the WBFLC and the DSC, who know from personal experience and > through personal involvement in the drafting process how the laws are > meant to be read (having, if not invented them, (that is too far in the > past) formed them into their present state to no small extent) and I > have Herman, someone not connected with the aforementioned bodies, who > has a different opinion on that, whose interpretation am I going to > follow? Hmm, that`s a really tough one. If I want an interpretation of > some text, whom do I ask? The guy who wrote it or some literary critic? > Another tough one. If I could talk to Shakespeare and to Chaucer about > some difficult point in Hamlet, whom would I ask? Maybe you can guess. > Now it so happens that Grattan, Ton and those other people in the WBFLC > have told me by way of the CoP that there is no design involved in > answering questions (one of your former hobby-horses), and that I do not > "indicate" (as in "actively seek to point out") anything through > answering questions, by way of posting in this list. Not that I didn`t > know that, I can read English, and I consult a good dictionary whenever > I am in doubt. Along comes Herman, who tells the people mentioned that > they have no command of English (which would be funny with regard to the > native speakers if it weren'tso tragic), do not know what "with design" > or "indicate" truly means, and generally are completely misguided. Wow. > That's a tough act to follow. > >> You may well believe that it's ok to break this law, but not that >> you're not breaking it. > > I may not? When the foks who actually made those rules tell me > different? I always was under the impression that the people who _make_ > the rules are the ones to ask, not Herman (or me, for that matter). > >> This is just too silly for words. > > I wholeheartedly agree. > >> It is the >> reaction of someone who feels the argument slipping away and finding >> aver stranger arguments to avoid having to admit that maybe one was >> wrong to begin with. >> >> > What strange arguments? There is official word on what the law is, and I > follow it. What is strange about that? You, on the other hand, argue > that the rule-makers actually do not know how their own words are to be > read, and you call my (or Peter`s, in this caase) arguments strange? It is my opinion that Herman has The Right Idea. It also is my opinion that he has been zealously running in the wrong direction with it. And that presents a problem of perhaps insurmountable proportions if only by his zealousness the crevasse he is deepening is growing at an exponential rate. regards roger pewick From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 11 16:22:43 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:22:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Turn the other cheek. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47878259.6000609@ntlworld.com> References: <47878259.6000609@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <478789C3.7000905@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Richard Hills] > By Herman De Wael's own admission, the De Wael School breaks the > disclosure laws retail and wholesale, so the De Wael School also > infracts the 2007 Law 72A. Herman's excuse is that his "ex cathedra" > interpretation of Law 20F5(a) means that the 2007 Lawbook is > internally inconsistent, requiring him to break at least one Law, so > he might as well break many Laws to gain an advantage. > > AG : Did Herman say it was for the purpose of gaining an advantage ? I'm a dWS supporter, and see it more as a way to keep the board playable if at all possible. The "correct-but-UI" response perforce disrupts, not only normal procedure, but procedure itself. Perplexing players with incompatible information, complex TD calls and AC decisions, time spent by UI-recipients solving their ethical problems : all of those will be averted, at least part of the time, using dWS principles. Since this virtue concerns what happens to the NOS and the TD, I feel it's more deccisive than the "advantage" to the OS. I've learnt that "saving the board" was the most important thing to try and achieve after an infraction. I claim that the dWS saves more boards than the MS. > > Incidentally, I deplore ad hominem attacks that impugn the motives of > BLML contributors. To me Herman seems to be an ethical person. Why > can't we just concentrate on the arguments? > > I couldn't have said it any better. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 11 16:38:04 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:38:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be><1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <4787757D.5090408@t-online.de> Message-ID: <47878D5C.8020705@ulb.ac.be> When the foks who actually made those rules tell me different? I always was under the impression that the people who _make_ the rules are the ones to ask, not Herman (or me, for that matter). What strange arguments? There is official word on what the law is, and I follow it. What is strange about that? You, on the other hand, argue that the rule-makers actually do not know how their own words are to be read, and you call my (or Peter`s, in this caase) arguments strange? Okay, assume Herman reads TFLB wrongly. You seem not to consider one basic fact of rhetorics and didactics (and in those domains, at least, I claim high competence) : when a text is written in such a way that people at whom it's aimed interpret it wrongly -in all good faith-, the fault is the writers', not the readers', and the text, not the readers, should be (a)mended. Regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 11 16:39:52 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:39:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <4787757D.5090408@t-online.de> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <4787757D.5090408@t-online.de> Message-ID: <47878DC8.60303@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Peter Eidt wrote: >> >>> Peter2: >>> If I answer an opponent's question with the correct systematic meaning, >>> I'm not "_indicating_ in any manner" that a mistake has been made. >>> >> Peter, if you believe that, you are very very very misguided. >> > > Speaking of misguidance: If I have people like Grattan, Ton and others, So far, only two people have spoken out for this ridiculous argument. > members of the WBFLC and the DSC, who know from personal experience and > through personal involvement in the drafting process how the laws are > meant to be read (having, if not invented them, (that is too far in the > past) formed them into their present state to no small extent) and I > have Herman, someone not connected with the aforementioned bodies, who > has a different opinion on that, whose interpretation am I going to > follow? Hmm, that`s a really tough one. If I want an interpretation of > some text, whom do I ask? The guy who wrote it or some literary critic? > Another tough one. If I could talk to Shakespeare and to Chaucer about > some difficult point in Hamlet, whom would I ask? Maybe you can guess. > Now it so happens that Grattan, Ton and those other people in the WBFLC > have told me by way of the CoP that there is no design involved in > answering questions (one of your former hobby-horses), and that I do not > "indicate" (as in "actively seek to point out") anything through > answering questions, by way of posting in this list. Not that I didn`t > know that, I can read English, and I consult a good dictionary whenever > I am in doubt. Along comes Herman, who tells the people mentioned that > they have no command of English (which would be funny with regard to the > native speakers if it weren'tso tragic), do not know what "with design" > or "indicate" truly means, and generally are completely misguided. Wow. > That's a tough act to follow. > >> You may well believe that it's ok to break this law, but not that >> you're not breaking it. > > I may not? When the foks who actually made those rules tell me > different? I always was under the impression that the people who _make_ > the rules are the ones to ask, not Herman (or me, for that matter). > Surely you do not wish to join the shortlist of 2 people so far who think that "indicate in any manner that a mistake ahs been made" does not apply to the exchange: "How many aces?" "Diamond preference" I do not wish to enter into discussion on that point. It is simply too ridiculous. I would like to hear from a great majority of people who agree with me on this small issue. >> This is just too silly for words. > > I wholeheartedly agree. > >> It is the >> reaction of someone who feels the argument slipping away and finding >> aver stranger arguments to avoid having to admit that maybe one was >> wrong to begin with. >> >> > What strange arguments? There is official word on what the law is, and I > follow it. What is strange about that? You, on the other hand, argue > that the rule-makers actually do not know how their own words are to be > read, and you call my (or Peter`s, in this caase) arguments strange? > But Matthias, we are talking about two totally different things here. So far, most people have agreed with me that the MS are breaking L20F5. They believe this is acceptable because of some higher necessity. I have respect for that vision and my point has always been that both schools are acceptable. But now, Grattan and Peter have gone a step further. They believe that acting like the majority school does not even break L20F5. Simply reading L20F5 should convince anyone of the error in their ways, but no-one wants to utter the words "Herman is right", so you join in. I am quite certain that most of you will find this interpretation of Grattan's very strange, but no. This is the Great Grattan, so he must be right. And in the meantime you drag in all the other luminaries, who apparently are in agreement with Grattan. Apart from Peter, I have not heard anyone yet. Not even you have given support to this reasoning, other than by saying that Grattan must be right, since he wrote the laws in the first place. I repeat: it is too silly for words. Please read L20F5 and the example again, and state categorically that you believe there is no "indicating in any manner that a mistake has been made". I urge others to reply in like way. This is a totally wrong argument, and it should be quenched before people start believing it for truth, simply because it was Grattan who said it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 11 16:41:38 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:41:38 -0600 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <4787757D.5090408@t-online.de> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801110741r18ff9d54nf7ae796844bfb9f6@mail.gmail.com> Roger Pewick wrote: > > It is my opinion that Herman has The Right Idea. It also is my opinion that > he has been zealously running in the wrong direction with it. And that > presents a problem of perhaps insurmountable proportions if only by his > zealousness the crevasse he is deepening is growing at an exponential rate. > I also think Herman, Konrad, and Alain have the right idea, and I think their way of discussing it on BLML is excellent. They have really thought about their position well, much better than the other side, judging from the BLML posts. Most of their best points go unchallenged, and apparently unconsidered. What I don't like are the unreasonable personal attacks, but those come primarily from the other side. Jerry Fusselman From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 11 16:53:53 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:53:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <47878DC8.60303@skynet.be> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <4787757D.5090408@t-online.de> <47878DC8.60303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47879111.8080504@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Surely you do not wish to join the shortlist of 2 people so far who > think that > > "indicate in any manner that a mistake ahs been made" > > does not apply to the exchange: > > "How many aces?" "Diamond preference" > > I do not wish to enter into discussion on that point. It is simply too > ridiculous. > I would like to hear from a great majority of people who agree with me > on this small issue. > > Well, perhaps this isn't the right example. The question "how many aces ?" is incorrect, and my feeling (yes, I know, not supported by many, but I'm accustomed to that) is that such a question shouldn't be answered at all. Furthermore, this would be a strange time to begin asking questions. If you don't agree with the fact that not all questions about bidding should be answered, consider this live example : S W N E 1H 2C X p 3C p 4H p 4NT p ...5D East to North : "what about 4NT ?" "Keycard ask" East to South : "then why does she take such a long time to answer ?" > > Please read L20F5 and the example again, and state categorically that > you believe there is no "indicating in any manner that a mistake has > been made". > > There is, if it might cheer you. Best regards Alain From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jan 11 16:55:27 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:55:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <47878D5C.8020705@ulb.ac.be> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be><1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <4787757D.5090408@t-online.de> <47878D5C.8020705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4787916F.4010503@t-online.de> Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > > > Okay, assume Herman reads TFLB wrongly. You seem not to consider one > basic fact of rhetorics and didactics (and in those domains, at least, I > claim high competence) : when a text is written in such a way that > people at whom it's aimed interpret it wrongly -in all good faith-, the > fault is the writers', not the readers', and the text, not the readers, > should be (a)mended. > Sure. I completely agree. But up to now we did not discuss how the rules should be written. We have discussed how the laws should be read. Best regards Matthias > > Regards > > > Alain > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 11 16:57:44 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:57:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be><1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <4787757D.5090408@t-online.de> Message-ID: <005401c8546a$cf6e7b90$a3ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 1:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook > > Speaking of misguidance: If I have people like Grattan, Ton and others, > members of the WBFLC and the DSC, who know from personal experience and > through personal involvement in the drafting process how the laws are > meant to be read (having, if not invented them, (that is too far in the > past) formed them into their present state to no small extent) and I > have Herman, someone not connected with the aforementioned bodies, who > has a different opinion on that, whose interpretation am I going to > follow? Hmm, that`s a really tough one. If I want an interpretation of > some text, whom do I ask? The guy who wrote it or some literary critic? > Another tough one. If I could talk to Shakespeare and to Chaucer about > some difficult point in Hamlet, whom would I ask? Maybe you can guess. > Now it so happens that Grattan, Ton and those other people in the WBFLC > have told me by way of the CoP that there is no design involved in > answering questions (one of your former hobby-horses), and that I do not > "indicate" (as in "actively seek to point out") anything through > answering questions, by way of posting in this list. Not that I didn`t > know that, I can read English, and I consult a good dictionary whenever > I am in doubt. Along comes Herman, who tells the people mentioned that > they have no command of English (which would be funny with regard to the > native speakers if it weren'tso tragic), do not know what "with design" > or "indicate" truly means, and generally are completely misguided. Wow. > That's a tough act to follow. > >> You may well believe that it's ok to break this law, but not that >> you're not breaking it. > > I may not? When the foks who actually made those rules tell me > different? I always was under the impression that the people who _make_ > the rules are the ones to ask, not Herman (or me, for that matter). > >> This is just too silly for words. > > I wholeheartedly agree. > >> It is the >> reaction of someone who feels the argument slipping away and finding >> aver stranger arguments to avoid having to admit that maybe one was >> wrong to begin with. >> >> > What strange arguments? There is official word on what the law is, and I > follow it. What is strange about that? You, on the other hand, argue > that the rule-makers actually do not know how their own words are to be > read, and you call my (or Peter`s, in this caase) arguments strange? > +=+ Your attitude is sound, Matthias, as far as it goes. But what Herman and his apostles tell us is that it is not officially in print anywhere (not strictly true, but it has not been refreshed for a time) so they do not have to pay homage to what we say. This was all right when Herman was a rather amusing wild card, but he appears to have recruited a small band of acolytes now and his ideas are in danger of escalating into a bush fire. So the pressure increases on the legislating bodies to deal with the subject. We will see what transpires. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Jan 11 17:18:34 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:18:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?DWS_-_internal_inconsistencies_in_lawbook?= In-Reply-To: <47876C81.4090402@skynet.be> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C81.4090402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1JDMaY-0unyPA0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> Herman, I know you sometimes behave as someone who can't read. Ok, but do me the favour and do not turn my own written words that are written just a line above your comment into the reverse sense. I wrote: "> > If they ask me about our agreements concerning RCKB, I will tell > > them our agreements;" And now tell me the law in TFNLB why they're entitled to know that partner has 0/3 KC and what is the 5th KC - under the premise, that 4NT was definitely minors and not ace asking. > Peter Eidt wrote: > > > > Peter2: > > No, they are not entitled to know, that partner has 0/3 KC ! And no, > > I will > > not tell them, that partner has 0/3 KC ! You got me wrong. > > If they ask me about our agreements concerning RCKB, I will tell > > them our agreements; but I will not tell them, that partner used > > RCKB. > > Partner showed (systemetically) preference for diamonds. > > > > > > Of course they are entitled to know this. They are entitled to know > our full system. That includes some form of Blackwood (presumably) and > one answering scheme therein. That answering scheme is part of our > system and they are entitled by L40A to know this. And you must answer > it. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 11 17:26:02 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:26:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <478767C9.3030002@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c8546e$a90a0100$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > >> If at any time you switched from the answer X1 to the answer Y2, do > >> you really believe that the laws can really prohibit you from saying > >> something, while requiring you to say that same thing the very next > >> moment? > > > > Of course, that is the law! You are not permitted to volunteer certain > > information while at the same time you are required to give that > information > > if/when asked. > > > > I find no hint of this in the laws, previous or current. You are not permitted to volunteer information about your agreements on call(s) made by your partner to your opponents (except by using alert), but if/when they ask you must give them all relevant information. Or would you claim that it is OK (for instance) when your partner bids 4NT to immediately without being asked say to your opponents: "That is Roman Key Card Blackwood" (or whatever your agreements are)? ................. > So I submit that it is just as wrong to see an opponent looking at the > Blackwood responses and say nothing Are you sure you know what he is looking for and why? You are not permitted to volunteer any information without being asked in such situations. > , than to answer "it's not > Blackwood" when he asks what 5Di means. 5Di in your example is not a (systemic) response to Blackwood although you may (even correctly) suspect that you partner meant it as such. By agreements (from your own words) 5Di is a preference for Diamonds and that is what you must answer if asked about this call. And you must not say anything about your own 4NT bid until the time this is permitted by 2007 Law 20F5(b). The fact that this was not the Blackwood 4NT bid your partner explained it to be is for your opponents to infer (for instance) from your explanation of the 5Di bid! > > Furthermore, I find the assertion that it is OK to answer "0/3" to the > question "how many?" but not OK to answer "0/3" to the question "what > is 5Di?" ludicrous. Neither of opponents' questions: "How many (aces)" or "what is 5Di" can legally be answered with "0/3"! You may chose between a direct answer that it is preference for Diamonds or you may answer that according to your agreements it doesn't show aces at all. "0/3" is a legal answer only to a question like: "How many aces does 5Di show in response to a 4NT RKCB bid (with your agreements)?" > It is being delusional. You would like to get away > with following the dWS, but you dare not in the face of a direct > question. If you want to follow the dWS, please do so. There is no > need to shun away from it merely from the weight of the forces against > you on blml. Dare to be different! Rubbish Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 11 17:32:00 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:32:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <003401c853e5$2b14d1a0$37cb403e@Mildred> References: <000401c8531d$971398a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <655B1D87-25BE-40BD-9A4C-B4C6A7F97513@rochester.rr.com> <08DCAFA3-87D4-4CC6-9ECA-EF99F1C66602@starpower.net> <003401c853af$36925100$f8c9403e@Mildred> <875BCC22-8505-423B-BA86-BABFA0A38EB5@rochester.rr.com> <003401c853e5$2b14d1a0$37cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Jan 10, 2008, at 6:22 PM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ ??? My copy reads: "... before making a call he *must* inspect > the faces of his cards." ~ G > ~ +=+ I fear I somehow got hold of copies of the 1997 and 2007 laws from some alternate universe. :-( From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 11 17:38:24 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:38:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <4786CE85.8050807@nhcc.net> References: <200801091545.m09FjFWu000838@cfa.harvard.edu> <4786CE85.8050807@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Jan 10, 2008, at 9:03 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > This was discussed in early days of BLML. Assuming the position is > that > the "required" pass of 3S is a sure zero, and 4S is illegal because of > the UI, the player might well perceive an advantage in bidding some > larger number of spades even though that would seem to be illogical in > normal circumstances. Allowing such a bid gives the player on > average a > better score than an honest player who makes the "required" pass, > so no > one wants to allow it. > > There are two routes to an adjusted score. The first is what Grattan > mentioned: the call the player chose is always logical in that > player's > mind (or strictly speaking, for "peers" of that player). The second > route is via L73C: the player failed to "carefully avoid" taking > advantage of the UI. L73C provides no indemnity, but 12A1 allows an > adjusted score. > > In the original discussion, there were several messages about which > route was more appropriate, but I can't see how it would matter. Erm. If you postulate that this bidding some high number of spades is bad because most of this player's peers will pass, I don't see how you can simultaneously call bidding that number of spades an LA in the minds of those peers. In the second scenario, the player is arguably not "taking advantage" of UI, he's desperately trying to avoid getting screwed by UI. What if his ploy doesn't work? Yeah, if you postulate that passing is a sure zero (at matchpoints) he can't do any worse, but suppose he could? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 11 17:39:27 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:39:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <000501c8543c$ac6f85e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000501c8543c$ac6f85e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Jan 11, 2008, at 5:28 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Sure it does, but the story dates back before 1987 and in those > laws they > didn't. Ah! That's it! Not an alternate universe at all. Though now I wonder what relevance the question has now. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 11 17:56:26 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:56:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Turn the other cheek. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47878259.6000609@ntlworld.com> References: <47878259.6000609@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: On Jan 11, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Guthrie wrote: > Richard is right to quote L81C2 in this context. Herman *is* a > director so we should take notice of his interpretation. You're missing the point. "A" director is not the same thing as "the" director. Hermann's status as a director is irrelevant when he is a mere player. Oh, I would listen, as "the" director, to his opinion, but I'd listen to the opinion of *any* player. I'm still going to rule IAW *my* understanding of the laws. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 11 17:57:22 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:57:22 -0600 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0801101122w7edbeb0fg1fbbc110682c5d4c@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801110857x57f09c5bw2cb6dfa06018bb95@mail.gmail.com> Richard Hills wrote: > Jerry Fusselman asked: > > >How is the [Law 16] footnoted phrase, "it is not an infraction > >to call the Director earlier or later," interpreted? E.g., is > >there some doctrine of "failure to protect oneself" that kicks > >in when calling too early or late, even though it is not an > >infraction per se? > > Richard Hills: > > My opinion is that the footnoted phrase is the exact opposite. > > It removes the last vestige of Edgar Kaplan's 1960s idea that > the non-offending side could lose its rights in a use-of-UI > case unless the non-offending side called the TD at a very > specific time. > I hope you are right. But it is one thing to say that "X is not an infraction," and quite another to say that "X is too little, too late---sorry, but we can't do anything for you because you chose an imperfect time to call the director." (This has often been said to me in the ACBL, but I still not sure exactly when they wanted me to call. I now think it varied by director.) I think the footnote could have easily been much clearer if the intention matched your reading. Do you see what I mean? Saying something is not an infraction is nothing like saying that your full rights are unchanged. Jerry Fusselman From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jan 11 18:00:57 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:00:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <47878DC8.60303@skynet.be> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <4787757D.5090408@t-online.de> <47878DC8.60303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4787A0C9.3070806@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> Herman De Wael schrieb: >> >>> Peter Eidt wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Peter2: >>>> If I answer an opponent's question with the correct systematic meaning, >>>> I'm not "_indicating_ in any manner" that a mistake has been made. >>>> >>>> >>> Peter, if you believe that, you are very very very misguided. >>> >>> >> Speaking of misguidance: If I have people like Grattan, Ton and others, >> > > So far, only two people have spoken out for this ridiculous argument. > Well, there is Kojak, too. That makes it 3 members of WBFLC. As far as I can make out that makes it 100% for WBFLC members who post to BLML. Apart from a number of EBL TDs, all of whom (speaking of only those whose opinion I know, and except you, of course) support what you call the MS. Plus some other members of BLM, who may not hold some fancy title, but are nevertheless people who give the problem much thought. Does that tell you anything, Herman? From what you have posted again and again I think it does not..... > >> members of the WBFLC and the DSC, who know from personal experience and >> through personal involvement in the drafting process how the laws are >> meant to be read (having, if not invented them, (that is too far in the >> past) formed them into their present state to no small extent) and I >> have Herman, someone not connected with the aforementioned bodies, who >> has a different opinion on that, whose interpretation am I going to >> follow? Hmm, that`s a really tough one. If I want an interpretation of >> some text, whom do I ask? The guy who wrote it or some literary critic? >> Another tough one. If I could talk to Shakespeare and to Chaucer about >> some difficult point in Hamlet, whom would I ask? Maybe you can guess. >> Now it so happens that Grattan, Ton and those other people in the WBFLC >> have told me by way of the CoP that there is no design involved in >> answering questions (one of your former hobby-horses), and that I do not >> "indicate" (as in "actively seek to point out") anything through >> answering questions, by way of posting in this list. Not that I didn`t >> know that, I can read English, and I consult a good dictionary whenever >> I am in doubt. Along comes Herman, who tells the people mentioned that >> they have no command of English (which would be funny with regard to the >> native speakers if it weren'tso tragic), do not know what "with design" >> or "indicate" truly means, and generally are completely misguided. Wow. >> That's a tough act to follow. >> >> > > Surely you do not wish to join the shortlist of 2 people so far who > think that > > "indicate in any manner that a mistake ahs been made" > > does not apply to the exchange: > > "How many aces?" "Diamond preference" > > I do not wish to enter into discussion on that point. It is simply too > ridiculous. > I would like to hear from a great majority of people who agree with me > on this small issue. > Hm. Actually I can not remember anyone supporting that notion. The fault may be with my memory, or with my attention to some postings, but great majority? What majority? > > But Matthias, we are talking about two totally different things here. > So far, most people have agreed with me that the MS are breaking > L20F5. I do not think so. I think that everybody agrees that the MS answer to opps question will (in certain situations) lead to UI to partner. I do not think that anyone has tried to deny that. But the MS holds that this does not break 20F5, as I do not indicate anything, rather it is my opponents who draw conclusions, which they have every right to do. > They believe this is acceptable because of some higher > necessity. No, they believe that there is no violation of 20F5, so no higher necessity is needed. > I have respect for that vision and my point has always been > that both schools are acceptable. > > But now, Grattan and Peter have gone a step further. They believe that > acting like the majority school does not even break L20F5. So they believe, but they did not have to go any step further. There was no development in this respect. The laws have been that way, and they still are. It is only you who thinks something has changed. > Simply > reading L20F5 should convince anyone of the error in their ways, but > no-one wants to utter the words "Herman is right", so you join in. > Simply reading the dictionary explanation of "to indicate" should convince you of the error of your ways, but since for Herman it means what Herman thiks it should mean, we are at a bit of an impasse here, aren`t we? As long as you continue to believe that English must be read your way we are not going to get anywhere. It was the same with "without design" a couple of months ago, which had a certain meaning for you, so it had to be that way. Perish the thought that a native speaker or a dictionary could know better what a word or phrase means than Herman does. > I am quite certain that most of you will find this interpretation of > Grattan's very strange, but no. This is the Great Grattan, so he must > be right. Where does being right really come into this? If it comes to the question how a game should best be played anyone may join in. But as long as the question is what the rules actually are the makers of those rules have the last word. If I were to invent a game, or be member of a body that defines the rules, I am in a position to speak about how the game is played. That does not make me "right". The top people ofthe FIFA are violently opposed to video decisions. Does that make them right? In my eyes they are fools to do so, but even if I told them the game woud be played as it is now until that body changes the rules. Right or wrong does not come into it. It just is. Every available (to BLML) member of WBFLC has told anyone willing to read what they wrote how that situation is to be handled. Now we may concur or we may disagree, but that does not change what the rules actually are. I even say that you have a point. I disagree with the remedy for the problem, but that does not mean that there isn`t a problem. Personally I believe that dWs brings more new problem than it cures, but you knew that. You disagree, which is your privilege. But even if I completely agreed with you I still would play the game according to the rules as explained to me by the responsible body. > And in the meantime you drag in all the other luminaries, > who apparently are in agreement with Grattan. Apart from Peter, I have > not heard anyone yet. That is the problem, Herman, you don`t listen. Lots of people are in agreement with Grattan, and have said so repeatedly. But for you, they do not count. > Not even you have given support to this > reasoning, other than by saying that Grattan must be right, since he > wrote the laws in the first place. > Oh,Herman. I gave lots of reasons and arguments, but apparently they are completely lost on you. But even if had not: what does it matter? This is not an OpenSource enterprise, it is an organization with a hierarchical structure. So the top level of this structure defines the rules. Yes, Grattan and his colleagues wrote the rules. So they tell us how to apply them if there is any doubt. You cannot run something like the WBF (or any comparable body) with majority decisions amongst players and polls and so on. The majority decisions are only taken in committees, such as WBFLC, to name only one. Do you think that you or I really run our countries? The most we can do is contribute to the process of deciding the composition of the bodies that actually govern our countries, and a mighty small contribution it is, though an indispensable one. We can appeal to certain courts or committees, or hang some banners from our windows, but short of actually joining the political world that is all we can do. So Grattan is not "right", as I mentioned repeatedly. But he communicates to us (and we should be rather grateful that someone does) what the body he is part of decided about the rules. > I repeat: it is too silly for words. > And I repeat: I wholeheartedly agree, which is why this is my last posting in this thread. > Please read L20F5 and the example again, and state categorically that > you believe there is no "indicating in any manner that a mistake has > been made". > *I categorically state that there is no "indicating in any manner that a mistake has been made".* > I urge others to reply in like way. This is a totally wrong argument, > and it should be quenched before people start believing it for truth, > simply because it was Grattan who said it. > They didn`t do so the last times you asked them to. That may be because the number of those agreeing with you is far removed from the "great majority" you believe them to be. Of course, it could be because they are too lazy to write or because of some other reason, but I doubt it. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 11 18:31:50 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:31:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <1JDMaY-0unyPA0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C81.4090402@skynet.be> <1JDMaY-0unyPA0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4787A806.3000800@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > Herman, I know you sometimes behave as someone > who can't read. Ok, but do me the favour and do not turn > my own written words that are written just a line above > your comment into the reverse sense. > > I wrote: > "> > If they ask me about our agreements concerning RCKB, I will tell >>> them our agreements;" > > And now tell me the law in TFNLB why they're entitled to know > that partner has 0/3 KC and what is the 5th KC - under the premise, > that 4NT was definitely minors and not ace asking. > I think I've already answered that one: L40A. They are supposed to have our complete system before the play starts. That includes, IMO, the answers to the conventions we are playing. It's not because 4NT was not Blackwood, that the responses are suddenly different. It's up to opponents to conclude that probably partner has the right number of aces, but it's up to you to tell them what kind of Blackwood you would be playing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 11 18:37:16 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:37:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <000001c8546e$a90a0100$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c8546e$a90a0100$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4787A94C.8060001@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>> >> I find no hint of this in the laws, previous or current. > > You are not permitted to volunteer information about your agreements on > call(s) made by your partner to your opponents (except by using alert), but > if/when they ask you must give them all relevant information. > I do not find that in the laws - do you? > Or would you claim that it is OK (for instance) when your partner bids 4NT > to immediately without being asked say to your opponents: "That is Roman Key > Card Blackwood" (or whatever your agreements are)? > Whyever not? Have you never volunteered information that you knew your opponents would not realize they needed if you did not tell them? I see no law stating that this is not permitted. But we digress, I think. > ................. > >> So I submit that it is just as wrong to see an opponent looking at the >> Blackwood responses and say nothing > > Are you sure you know what he is looking for and why? You are not permitted > to volunteer any information without being asked in such situations. > I do not believe that is true - and yes, I will quite certainly know what opponent is looking for when my partner has just bid 5Di over what he said was Blackwood. >> , than to answer "it's not >> Blackwood" when he asks what 5Di means. > > 5Di in your example is not a (systemic) response to Blackwood although you > may (even correctly) suspect that you partner meant it as such. > > By agreements (from your own words) 5Di is a preference for Diamonds and > that is what you must answer if asked about this call. And you must not say > anything about your own 4NT bid until the time this is permitted by 2007 Law > 20F5(b). And you really delude yourself that "diamond preference" is not "anything about your 4NT bid"? Go on deluding yourself then. > The fact that this was not the Blackwood 4NT bid your partner > explained it to be is for your opponents to infer (for instance) from your > explanation of the 5Di bid! > But isn't that very easy? And isn't that "indicating that 4NT was not Blackwood"? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From adam at tameware.com Fri Jan 11 19:07:16 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:07:16 -0600 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801101122w7edbeb0fg1fbbc110682c5d4c@mail.gmail.com> References: <008201c84f3d$5752e970$afc9403e@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0801101122w7edbeb0fg1fbbc110682c5d4c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: At 1:22 PM -0600 1/10/08, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > 10. 40B3: ACBL should select this option to >> disallow prior agreement to vary partnership >> understandings during the auction following a >> question, response or irregularity. > >Ah, but what does this mean? They must not be using anything like >Grattan's meaning of "vary partnership understandings." We had no idea what the drafting committee meant when they wrote 40B3. After following the discussion on BLML I still have no idea. -- Adam Wildavsky adam at tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Fri Jan 11 19:07:25 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:07:25 -0600 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4786CB58.2000604@nhcc.net> References: <200801102147.m0ALl2ah025608@cfa.harvard.edu> <4786CB58.2000604@nhcc.net> Message-ID: At 8:50 PM -0500 1/10/08, Steve Willner wrote: (In the ACBL) > > 12C1(e)(ii) is to be interpreted such that the > > words "had the irregularity not occurred" are >> inserted between "probable" and the period >> ending the sentence. > >This will differ from international practice, though it will seldom be >important. Years ago I asked here for an example case where the differing interpretations would result in different rulings. I haven't yet received one. -- Adam Wildavsky adam at tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 11 19:18:25 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:18:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <4787A0C9.3070806@t-online.de> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <4787757D.5090408@t-online.de> <47878DC8.60303@skynet.be> <4787A0C9.3070806@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4787B2F1.50806@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> >>> Herman De Wael schrieb: >>> >>>> Peter Eidt wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Peter2: >>>>> If I answer an opponent's question with the correct systematic meaning, >>>>> I'm not "_indicating_ in any manner" that a mistake has been made. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Peter, if you believe that, you are very very very misguided. >>>> >>>> >>> Speaking of misguidance: If I have people like Grattan, Ton and others, >>> >> So far, only two people have spoken out for this ridiculous argument. >> > > Well, there is Kojak, too. That makes it 3 members of WBFLC. As far as I No Mathias, you are mistaken. I am talking about the crazy argument that answering "diamond preference" to the question "how many aces?" is not "indicating in any manner that a mistake has been made". That argument was written by Grattan, and was defended by Peter. It's ludicrous, to say the least. Ton has not yet commented on this sub-argument. I don't recall reading a comment by Kojak on the DWS, although I would not venture to believe he would be on my side, if only because of my persona. > can make out that makes it 100% for WBFLC members who post to BLML. > Apart from a number of EBL TDs, all of whom (speaking of only those > whose opinion I know, and except you, of course) support what you call > the MS. Plus some other members of BLM, who may not hold some fancy > title, but are nevertheless people who give the problem much thought. > Does that tell you anything, Herman? From what you have posted again and > again I think it does not..... > I have no problem admitting that the MS is a great and poswerful majority. But that is the main argument - this thread is about a sub-argument that is really very wrong. I would not count as a dws supporter someone who agrees with me that Grattan is wrong in this small point. >> >> "How many aces?" "Diamond preference" >> >> I do not wish to enter into discussion on that point. It is simply too >> ridiculous. >> I would like to hear from a great majority of people who agree with me >> on this small issue. >> > > Hm. Actually I can not remember anyone supporting that notion. The fault > may be with my memory, or with my attention to some postings, but great > majority? What majority? > >> But Matthias, we are talking about two totally different things here. >> So far, most people have agreed with me that the MS are breaking >> L20F5. > > I do not think so. I think that everybody agrees that the MS answer to > opps question will (in certain situations) lead to UI to partner. I do > not think that anyone has tried to deny that. But the MS holds that this > does not break 20F5, as I do not indicate anything, rather it is my > opponents who draw conclusions, which they have every right to do. > Ok, so there are now in fact 3 of you. Crazy! >> They believe this is acceptable because of some higher >> necessity. > > No, they believe that there is no violation of 20F5, so no higher > necessity is needed. > Crazy. >> I have respect for that vision and my point has always been >> that both schools are acceptable. >> >> But now, Grattan and Peter have gone a step further. They believe that >> acting like the majority school does not even break L20F5. > > So they believe, but they did not have to go any step further. There was > no development in this respect. The laws have been that way, and they > still are. It is only you who thinks something has changed. > No, nothing has changed, except that some people apparently need cray arguments to defend the MS. Something which was not even under attack. >> Simply >> reading L20F5 should convince anyone of the error in their ways, but >> no-one wants to utter the words "Herman is right", so you join in. >> > > Simply reading the dictionary explanation of "to indicate" should > convince you of the error of your ways, but since for Herman it means > what Herman thiks it should mean, we are at a bit of an impasse here, > aren`t we? As long as you continue to believe that English must be read > your way we are not going to get anywhere. It was the same with "without > design" a couple of months ago, which had a certain meaning for you, so > it had to be that way. Perish the thought that a native speaker or a > dictionary could know better what a word or phrase means than Herman does. > Neither of us has English as their first language, but to me "indicate" means "let it be known". More inclusive than "tells" or "says". Including shrugs and the like. "In any manner" includes "by any words". Saying "Lunatic" to partner does not "indicate" anything about the intended meaning of the bid, but it does confer to the table that the explanation was wrong. That is what I believe is meant by "indicate", and to say otherwise is, I repeat, just crazy. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Jan 11 19:18:48 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:18:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?DWS_-_internal_inconsistencies_in_lawbook?= In-Reply-To: <4787A806.3000800@skynet.be> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C81.4090402@skynet.be> <1JDMaY-0unyPA0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> <4787A806.3000800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1JDOSu-0MYpn60@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > Peter Eidt wrote: > > Herman, I know you sometimes behave as someone > > who can't read. Ok, but do me the favour and do not turn > > my own written words that are written just a line above > > your comment into the reverse sense. > > > > I wrote: > > "> > If they ask me about our agreements concerning RCKB, I will > > tell > > > > them our agreements;" > > > > And now tell me the law in TFNLB why they're entitled to know that > > partner has 0/3 KC and what is the 5th KC - under the premise, that > > 4NT was definitely minors and not ace asking. > > > > > > I think I've already answered that one: > L40A. They are supposed to have our complete system before the play > starts. That includes, IMO, the answers to the conventions we are > playing. It's not because 4NT was not Blackwood, that the responses > are suddenly different. It's up to opponents to conclude that probably > partner has the right number of aces, but it's up to you to tell them > what kind of Blackwood you would be playing. :) No, Herman, no :) You did not answer _my_ question. Perhaps (most likely) it was not worded properly. I did _not_ ask you to show me the law, that opponents are entitled to know our way of asking aces and our responses thereupon. Of course they are entitled and of course it is Law 40 A. I _did_ ask you the show me the law, that opponents are entitled to the information the my partner now has 0/3 aces and that he counts the K of spades as the 5th ace. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 11 19:30:44 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:30:44 -0600 Subject: [blml] Announce [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <47862CA4.7000408@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801111030i43a6c69o9e1e1749f64b0578@mail.gmail.com> Richard: > > And fortunately "general bridge knowledge and experience" is no > longer a Secretary Bird excuse, since the rewritten 2007 laws say > that partnership understandings must always be disclosed. > > 2007 Law 40B6(a): > > When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in > reply to opponent's enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose > all special information conveyed to him through partnership > agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose > inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters > generally known to bridge players. > Is this such a big difference? Might an opponent say, "I am required neither to give bridge lessons nor to disclose inferences I have drawn that should be easy from general bridge knowledge." ? How is "general bridge knowledge and experience" (1997) so vastly different from "knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players" (2007)? Jerry Fusselman From mustikka at charter.net Fri Jan 11 20:50:23 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:50:23 -0800 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <4787757D.5090408@t-online.de><47878DC8.60303@skynet.be> <4787A0C9.3070806@t-online.de> <4787B2F1.50806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01c8548b$3479e450$62025e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" [snipped] > ++++++ Herman wrote: > I am talking about the crazy argument that answering "diamond > preference" to the question "how many aces?" is not "indicating in any > manner that a mistake has been made". That argument was written by > Grattan, and was defended by Peter. It's ludicrous, to say the least. ++++++ Now I think I must say something. I have read all the posts in this new thread of the oft repeated DWS versus official view. I believe it is polite to quote people by inserting an original post - or a paragraph from it - not wildly paraphrasing. Especially when calling an argument crazy. Raija From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 11 22:55:10 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:55:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <47878DC8.60303@skynet.be> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <4787757D.5090408@t-online.de> <47878DC8.60303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47BAE704-7797-4DAF-8020-35BCBE7D0A1C@starpower.net> On Jan 11, 2008, at 10:39 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I am quite certain that most of you will find this interpretation of > Grattan's very strange, but no. This is the Great Grattan, so he must > be right. Apparently Herman doesn't read any of the other threads. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at tameware.com Fri Jan 11 23:28:48 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:28:48 -0600 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001601c85436$9f353290$47c9403e@Mildred> References: <001601c85436$9f353290$47c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: At 9:03 AM +0000 1/11/08, Grattan wrote: > >>>12C1(e)(ii) is to be interpreted such that the >>>>words "had the irregularity not occurred" are >>>>inserted between "probable" and the period > >>>ending the sentence. >+=+ Did the ACBL regulations also add these words >into the 1997 Law 12C2? - or is it a change of policy? It's new. The 1997 version could have been interpreted either way, and as far as I know the ACBL LC never took an official position on the matter. As you no doubt recall, I don't believe the sentence has any meaning without the additional phrase. -- Adam Wildavsky adam at tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 12 01:04:17 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:04:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <4787A94C.8060001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c854ae$ad4c98a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ................. > And isn't that "indicating that 4NT was not > Blackwood"? You are always returning to your understanding of "indicate that an error has been made" in Law 20F5 and refuse to see that this understanding can be false. Now please answer this question: I make a call for which my partner gives an incorrect explanation. Partner then makes his call, and no explanation from me is requested. Am I now permitted to make my next call in accordance with our partnership agreements if this call not only "indicates" but even clearly demonstrates for everybody that partner made an error in his explanation of my previous call? Sven From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Jan 12 01:14:00 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:14:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <000001c854ae$ad4c98a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c854ae$ad4c98a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47880648.6080204@t-online.de> Sven Pran schrieb: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> >>> ................. >>> >> And isn't that "indicating that 4NT was not >> Blackwood"? >> > > You are always returning to your understanding of "indicate that an error > has been made" in Law 20F5 and refuse to see that this understanding can be > false. > > Now please answer this question: > > I make a call for which my partner gives an incorrect explanation. > > Partner then makes his call, and no explanation from me is requested. > > Am I now permitted to make my next call in accordance with our partnership > agreements if this call not only "indicates" but even clearly demonstrates > for everybody that partner made an error in his explanation of my previous > call? > Hehe. Good one, Sven. Best regards Matthias > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 12 01:14:51 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:14:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <4787757D.5090408@t-online.de><47878DC8.60303@skynet.be> <4787A0C9.3070806@t-online.de> <4787B2F1.50806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004401c854b0$9b45f690$08cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook > > I am talking about the crazy argument that answering > "diamond preference" to the question "how many aces?" > is not "indicating in any manner that a mistake has been > made". That argument was written by Grattan, and was > defended by Peter. It's ludicrous, to say the least. > +=+ Written by Grattan, but it is not Grattan's argument, it is an argument that was handed down to me. It is what I was taught when I was introduced into the company of lawgivers. I do believe it to be right. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 12 01:17:45 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:17:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001601c85436$9f353290$47c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <004501c854b0$9c5a73d0$08cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" >>+=+ Did the ACBL regulations also add these words >>into the 1997 Law 12C2? - or is it a change of policy? > > It's new. The 1997 version could have been interpreted either way, > and as far as I know the ACBL LC never took an official position on > the matter. > > As you no doubt recall, I don't believe the sentence has any meaning > without the additional phrase. > +=+ Edgar and others opined that, left open-ended, the effect was to take into consideration potential results arrived at whether through the infraction or not. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 12 01:34:06 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:34:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <000001c854ae$ad4c98a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <005e01c854b3$661e7390$08cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook > Now please answer this question: > > I make a call for which my partner gives an incorrect > explanation. > > Partner then makes his call, and no explanation from > me is requested. > > Am I now permitted to make my next call in accordance > with our partnership agreements if this call not only "indicates" > but even clearly demonstrates for everybody that partner > made an error in his explanation of my previous call? > +=+ For the nth time, let me say again, the prohibition is on an action that is done with the objective of indicating, the purpose of which is to expose the erroneous explanation.... . ~ G ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Sat Jan 12 03:33:35 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:33:35 +0900 Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 In-Reply-To: <005e01c854b3$661e7390$08cd403e@Mildred> References: <005e01c854b3$661e7390$08cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200801120233.AA12000@geller204.nifty.com> It appears to me (and to my colleagues in the JCBL translation team) that ** REDOUBLE** needs to be added to L27C1 as shown. If we are wrong, could someone from the DSC please explain the reasons for treating ** REDOUBLE** differently. Otherwise, could this (apparent) typo please be corrected as soon as possible. Thanks, -Bob L27C1 C. Replaced at Lowest Level by Bid, Double or Pass 1. If the insufficient bid is replaced by a bid at the lowest legal level or double or pass that incorporates the information contained in the insufficient bid, the auction and play continues with the information arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides (Law 16D does not apply), but see 2 following. --> **, REDOUBLE** C. Replaced at Lowest Level by Bid, Double**, REDOUBLE** or Pass 1. If the insufficient bid is replaced by a bid at the lowest legal level or double**, REDOUBLE** or pass that incorporates the information contained in the insufficient bid, the auction and play continues with the information arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides (Law 16D does not apply), but see 2 following. ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Jan 12 04:46:20 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:46:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <000001c854ae$ad4c98a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <4787A94C.8060001@skynet.be> <000001c854ae$ad4c98a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <000d01c854cd$b1f6f5c0$15e4e140$@com> [HdW] And isn't that "indicating that 4NT was not Blackwood"? [SP] You are always returning to your understanding of "indicate that an error has been made" in Law 20F5 and refuse to see that this understanding can be false. [DALB] I seem to remember suggesting not all that long ago a useful legal fiction: my partner is assumed to be deaf and blind to anything I might do other than the legitimate calls or plays I make. Indeed, it seems to me that the Laws may function best if this approach is adopted. Thus, a correct answer to an opponent's question about our methods is not legally an indication of anything at all as far as Law 20F5 is concerned. After all, the only person that might benefit from this "indication" is partner, and he can't legally see the indication. Moreover, since I am legally deaf and blind to partner's explanation of 4NT, I do not legally know that a mistake has been made, so how can I indicate that it has? Recent discussion on some other thread (or it may have been the same one - the dWS has been haunting all of us for many years) confirms the notion that "in any manner" may originally not have been intended to refer to answers to questions, but may have meant no more than "by any mannerism". I expect it probably did; Edgar Kaplan always knew what he meant, even though he didn't always trouble to say it. His successors may need to take more care. David Burn London, England From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sat Jan 12 09:11:38 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:11:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de><47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook > Peter Eidt wrote: >> >> Peter2: >> If I answer an opponent's question with the correct systematic meaning, >> I'm not "_indicating_ in any manner" that a mistake has been made. > > Peter, if you believe that, you are very very very misguided. > You may well believe that it's ok to break this law, but not that > you're not breaking it. This is just too silly for words. It is the > reaction of someone who feels the argument slipping away and finding > aver stranger arguments to avoid having to admit that maybe one was > wrong to begin with. > Herman, I've yet to see your response to my suggestion (although David Burn told us that Jeff Rubens came up with the idea previously, I hadn't seen that article). If you perceive giving a correct answer to opponents as UI, and feel that you must go so far as to create deliberate MI to avoid it, why not simply carry around pads of paper, and give your explanations in writing to the opponents? You will not see your partner's explanations, so you won't know whether or not partner has given MI or not. Any explanation you give will only be seen by the opponents, so you can't give UI to partner. Therefore, you will have no excuse to give MI to the opponents. Further, I see nothing in the Laws that would prevent you from giving written explanations now. There is nothing saying an explanation has to be spoken. So there exists a method for you to avoid giving partner UI, without giving intentional MI. No Laws broken at all. I'm curious that you haven't responded to this idea with enthusiasm, as it would allow you to not "awaken" partner, yet still fully inform your opponents about your agreements. Well? Problem solved without breaking any Laws. Does this render dWs obsolete at last? Hirsch From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jan 12 12:00:54 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:00:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de><47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> Hello Hirsh, Hirsch Davis wrote: > > Herman, > > I've yet to see your response to my suggestion (although David Burn told us > that Jeff Rubens came up with the idea previously, I hadn't seen that > article). I thik I did give a reply to this suggestion. I'll do so again. > If you perceive giving a correct answer to opponents as UI, and > feel that you must go so far as to create deliberate MI to avoid it, why not > simply carry around pads of paper, and give your explanations in writing to > the opponents? If this were to be the general way all explanations were given, this might work, but if it's only done when a dws problem arises, the mere fact that I suddenly start writing "indicates that a mistake has been made". As such, I don't believe it's a practical idea. But let's look at it in more detail: this method would certainly solve one of the problems the dWS is trying to solve: the UI. But it does not solve a secondary problem, which is that I would reveal that a mistake has been made, something L20F5 still forbids me to do (although the reason for that is not clear and I would not mind seeing it disappear). And it certainly does not solve a third problem: the one of revealing to opponents that a misunderstanding is under way, and that they might well sit back and double the final outcome. That is knowledge to which they are not entitled, and if I can hide it from them, I will. So you might see me writing the dws explanation on a piece of paper. And we'd be no further off. > You will not see your partner's explanations, so you won't > know whether or not partner has given MI or not. Any explanation you give > will only be seen by the opponents, so you can't give UI to partner. > Therefore, you will have no excuse to give MI to the opponents. Further, I > see nothing in the Laws that would prevent you from giving written > explanations now. There is nothing saying an explanation has to be spoken. > > So there exists a method for you to avoid giving partner UI, without giving > intentional MI. No Laws broken at all. I'm curious that you haven't > responded to this idea with enthusiasm, as it would allow you to not > "awaken" partner, yet still fully inform your opponents about your > agreements. > Well, I believe there is a better solution still: play with screens! > Well? Problem solved without breaking any Laws. Does this render dWs > obsolete at last? > Screens render the dws obsolete indeed. In Belgium, all team matches downto the fifth division are played with screens, and some of the sixth as well (there is a seventh division below that). > Hirsch > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Jan 12 12:05:10 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:05:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <1JDOSu-0MYpn60@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C81.4090402@skynet.be> <1JDMaY-0unyPA0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> <4787A806.3000800@skynet.be> <1JDOSu-0MYpn60@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <47889EE6.9020107@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Herman De Wael >> Peter Eidt wrote: >>> Herman, I know you sometimes behave as someone >>> who can't read. Ok, but do me the favour and do not turn >>> my own written words that are written just a line above >>> your comment into the reverse sense. >>> >>> I wrote: >>> "> > If they ask me about our agreements concerning RCKB, I will >>> tell >>>>> them our agreements;" >>> And now tell me the law in TFNLB why they're entitled to know that >>> partner has 0/3 KC and what is the 5th KC - under the premise, that >>> 4NT was definitely minors and not ace asking. >>> >>> >> I think I've already answered that one: >> L40A. They are supposed to have our complete system before the play >> starts. That includes, IMO, the answers to the conventions we are >> playing. It's not because 4NT was not Blackwood, that the responses >> are suddenly different. It's up to opponents to conclude that probably >> partner has the right number of aces, but it's up to you to tell them >> what kind of Blackwood you would be playing. > > :) No, Herman, no :) > You did not answer _my_ question. Perhaps (most likely) > it was not worded properly. > > I did _not_ ask you to show me the law, that opponents are entitled > to know our way of asking aces and our responses thereupon. > Of course they are entitled and of course it is Law 40 A. > > I _did_ ask you the show me the law, that opponents are entitled > to the information the my partner now has 0/3 aces and that he > counts the K of spades as the 5th ace. > > Isn't that the same thing? If your opponents believe that partner has given a Blackwood response with 5Di, and they are told your complete Blackwood response scheme, then they are quite able to deduce that he has 0/3 aces with the king of spades (your rule for determining trups is part of the system you explain, of course). Of course I have used a shortcut here: I have supposed the whole table has heard your partner say "Blackwood" and "5Di". I have supposed everyone believes 5Di to be a representation of the number of aces in his hand. So yes, in reality, you would merely need to explain your Blackwood responses. In practice, you may as well say, "he has 0/3 with KS as fifth KC". Is that clear? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jan 12 12:10:37 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:10:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <000001c854ae$ad4c98a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c854ae$ad4c98a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4788A02D.2010205@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> ................. >> And isn't that "indicating that 4NT was not >> Blackwood"? > > You are always returning to your understanding of "indicate that an error > has been made" in Law 20F5 and refuse to see that this understanding can be > false. > > Now please answer this question: > > I make a call for which my partner gives an incorrect explanation. > > Partner then makes his call, and no explanation from me is requested. > > Am I now permitted to make my next call in accordance with our partnership > agreements if this call not only "indicates" but even clearly demonstrates > for everybody that partner made an error in his explanation of my previous > call? > Yes, that one has been asked before. And my answer was, and is: Yes indeed, maybe L20F5 forbids you from making certain calls. But I call it L16 instead. Suppose the following situation arises: After your partner's misexplanation, you have 2 calls available for you. Neither of them is particularly suggested by the UI (directly), but one of them clearly reveals the misunderstanding, while the other keeps it hidden. It is my belief that L16 (and maybe L20F5) forbid you now to make the "clear" bid, since this bid is "suggested" in some way by the UI. Of course, when after all L16 obligations only one bid remains, and that bid is an indication that a mistake has happened, something has to give. I believe that your L16 obligations are stronger than the obligation you have of not giving UI to partner. Is that a satisfactory answer? It was a good question, Sven. Thank you for being positive in trying to worm our way out of this whole mess. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 12 12:44:47 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:44:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 References: <005e01c854b3$661e7390$08cd403e@Mildred> <200801120233.AA12000@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <001b01c85510$8c919d10$43ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:33 AM Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 > It appears to me (and to my colleagues in the JCBL > translation team) that ** REDOUBLE** needs to be > added to L27C1 as shown. If we are wrong, could > someone from the DSC please explain the reasons for > treating ** REDOUBLE** differently. Otherwise, > could this (apparent) typo please be corrected as soon > as possible. > > Thanks, > > -Bob > > +=+ There is no intention of changing the text of the 2007 Laws as now established. The item in question is not a typo; it is as the DSC agreed it. The reason 'redouble' is not there is that no member of the DSC advocated its inclusion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 12 13:13:33 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:13:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <4788A02D.2010205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c85514$8dc194c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >>> ................. > >> And isn't that "indicating that 4NT was not > >> Blackwood"? > > > > You are always returning to your understanding of "indicate that an > error > > has been made" in Law 20F5 and refuse to see that this understanding can > be > > false. > > > > Now please answer this question: > > > > I make a call for which my partner gives an incorrect explanation. > > > > Partner then makes his call, and no explanation from me is requested. > > > > Am I now permitted to make my next call in accordance with our > partnership > > agreements if this call not only "indicates" but even clearly > demonstrates > > for everybody that partner made an error in his explanation of my > previous > > call? > > > > Yes, that one has been asked before. > And my answer was, and is: > > Yes indeed, maybe L20F5 forbids you from making certain calls. > > But I call it L16 instead. > > Suppose the following situation arises: > > After your partner's misexplanation, you have 2 calls available for > you. Neither of them is particularly suggested by the UI (directly), > but one of them clearly reveals the misunderstanding, while the other > keeps it hidden. It is my belief that L16 (and maybe L20F5) forbid you > now to make the "clear" bid, since this bid is "suggested" in some way > by the UI. > > Of course, when after all L16 obligations only one bid remains, and > that bid is an indication that a mistake has happened, something has > to give. I believe that your L16 obligations are stronger than the > obligation you have of not giving UI to partner. > > Is that a satisfactory answer? > It was a good question, Sven. Thank you for being positive in trying > to worm our way out of this whole mess. My firm opinion is, and has always been that a player whose partner has given an incorrect explanation to opponents must not in any way let that incorrect explanation influence any of his actions (except of course notifying the Director and opponents in due time as prescribed in Law 20F5b). This means that he must not in any way: 1: indicate to opponents that there was an incorrect explanation. 2: let this incorrect explanation influence his own explanation of partner's calls or play. 3: let this incorrect explanation influence his own choice of calls or play. All his actions must still be as if he had not heard the incorrect explanation and thus would assume that all explanations were correct. In my archives I have found (in The Bridge World, November 1933 page 26) a discussion on a conflict that arose between Portland Club (England's lawgiver on bridge at the time) and the rest of the bridge society. The outcome of the dispute was that the Portland Club, not unlike DWS, had read the laws in a biased manner. The question in 1933 was if a card (or cards) held by a player and identified from particular calls during the auction should be ruled "exposed", or more specifically if the Four-Five Notrump Convention should be considered illegal. The laws at that time included the clause: "An exposed card is any card held by a player if he has said anything indicating that he holds it". As is will be known the Four-Five Notrump Convention will normally identify certain key cards precisely. The answer was that to make a call is not synonymous with "to say something". The parallel with DWS is of course that to make a (legal) call is not synonymous with to "indicate" as this word is used in Law 20F5. (If anybody should happen to be interested in this Bridge World article I shall gladly make it available from my home page) regards Sven From geller at nifty.com Sat Jan 12 14:21:39 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:21:39 +0900 Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 In-Reply-To: <001b01c85510$8c919d10$43ca403e@Mildred> References: <001b01c85510$8c919d10$43ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200801121321.AA12002@geller204.nifty.com> (1) And why, pray tell, did the DSC deem a redouble unworthy of inclusion in 27C1 (as opposed to bids at the lowest legal level, doubles and passes that incorporate the information)? (2) Under what laws does the DSC consider the omitted redouble should be handled? -Bob That being the case, what laws does gesta at tiscali.co.uk ????????: > >Grattan Endicott[following address discontinued: >grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >******************************* >"Matters of fact which, as Mr Budgell >somewhere observes, are very stubborn >things." > Will of Matthew Tindall > [1657-1733] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:33 AM >Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 > > >> It appears to me (and to my colleagues in the JCBL >> translation team) that ** REDOUBLE** needs to be >> added to L27C1 as shown. If we are wrong, could >> someone from the DSC please explain the reasons for >> treating ** REDOUBLE** differently. Otherwise, >> could this (apparent) typo please be corrected as soon >> as possible. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Bob >> >> >+=+ There is no intention of changing the text of the 2007 Laws >as now established. The item in question is not a typo; it is as the >DSC agreed it. The reason 'redouble' is not there is that no member >of the DSC advocated its inclusion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Jan 12 14:32:17 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:32:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 In-Reply-To: <001b01c85510$8c919d10$43ca403e@Mildred> References: <005e01c854b3$661e7390$08cd403e@Mildred> <200801120233.AA12000@geller204.nifty.com> <001b01c85510$8c919d10$43ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4788C161.7090609@ntlworld.com> [Robert Geller] It appears to me (and to my colleagues in the JCBL translation team) that ** REDOUBLE** needs to be added to L27C1 as shown. If we are wrong, could someone from the DSC please explain the reasons for treating ** REDOUBLE** differently. Otherwise, could this (apparent) typo please be corrected as soon as possible. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ There is no intention of changing the text of the 2007 Laws as now established. The item in question is not a typo; it is as the DSC agreed it. The reason 'redouble' is not there is that no member of the DSC advocated its inclusion. [Nige1] Most Bridge clubs and players have better access to the internet than to other forms of communication so why is the WBFLC is so intransigent about clarifying the text of the new law-book, in place, in an official authoritative web edition? Given the decline in the number of Bridge players, IMO, the WBFLC should consider *radical simplifications* more often than every ten years. But here we are considering only *small corrections*. Mainly ... [A] Cosmetic changes. For example, Robert Geller wonders whether law-makers intended "faulty" and "defective" to mean subtly different concepts or whether they are just elegant variation that should be eliminated for clarity and ease of translation. Similarly, for ease of comprehension, some long sentences could be split into two or more. [B] Disambiguation. For example, see the current threads on claims, concessions, and dWS. To remove such ambiguities and resolve some endless controversies, the WBFLC would need to change only a few words in the law book. [C] Minor typos. Such as the omission of "Redouble" from L27C1, highlighted above by Robert Geller. [D] Removal of padding. For example, Jerry Fusselman, Adam Wildavsky and I complain that we don't understand the purport of the new L40B3. Perhaps, however it is too much to ask for the removal of meaningless and superfluous items, since law-makers may have deliberately included them to enhance the air of sophistication and mystery. Item [D] is a hot-potato stuffed with red-herring, so may be set aside for future consumption. Presumably, however,the resulting text after {A] [B] and {C] will still exactly reflect current intentions of law-makers. For law-makers who see no problems or ambiguity in the current formulation, there would be no effective change whatsoever. For ordinary players and directors, however, who seem to have difficulty understanding the new law book, such changes would be welcome. From svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 12 14:44:34 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:44:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? Message-ID: <000001c85521$44c1c350$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> So far the discussion on DWS seems to have been centered around a 4NT bid showing both minors being mistaken for Blackwood RKCB. If a rule like DWS shall be justified it must treat all comparable situations the same, and I believe my example below clearly shows that DWS is untenable: South, dealer, white against red opens 1C (natural) with Ax xxx Axxx Axxx and North (with or without alert) explains this bid as Vienna when asked. West passes and North bids 1NT. If I have understood DWS at all they say that South must now explain this bid as showing an opening hand and forcing. My assertion is that South must not alert 1NT, and if asked for an explanation he must state that it shows 6-9 HCP with no 4-card major suit. (In my system it also denies 4 cards in diamonds). Whenever next it is South to call he has no other alternative call than to pass (because of his hand, not because of the misexplanation). Anybody disagreeing with me will please show how South can justify any other action. And if anybody doubts the mix-up between Natural and Vienna I can just guarantee them: I have seen it happen more than once. Sven From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sat Jan 12 17:00:52 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:00:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be><1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de><47875243.9080306@skynet.be><1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be><001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 6:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook > Hello Hirsh, > > Hirsch Davis wrote: >> > >> If you perceive giving a correct answer to opponents as UI, and >> feel that you must go so far as to create deliberate MI to avoid it, why >> not >> simply carry around pads of paper, and give your explanations in writing >> to >> the opponents? > > If this were to be the general way all explanations were given, this > might work, but if it's only done when a dws problem arises, the mere > fact that I suddenly start writing "indicates that a mistake has been > made". As such, I don't believe it's a practical idea. > > But let's look at it in more detail: this method would certainly solve > one of the problems the dWS is trying to solve: the UI. But it does > not solve a secondary problem, which is that I would reveal that a > mistake has been made, something L20F5 still forbids me to do > (although the reason for that is not clear and I would not mind seeing > it disappear). And it certainly does not solve a third problem: the > one of revealing to opponents that a misunderstanding is under way, > and that they might well sit back and double the final outcome. That > is knowledge to which they are not entitled, and if I can hide it from > them, I will. > So you might see me writing the dws explanation on a piece of paper. > And we'd be no further off. To address your issues in order: I believe that you are misunderstanding me. I'm talking about ALL explanations, not just those in "dWs" situations. If all explanations were written instead of oral, there would be no revelation to partner that there was a "dWs situation". As far as the opponents knowing the wheels have come off, they are only entitled to know your system. However, if you and your partner's explanations revealed that the wheels had come off, they are certainly entitled to sit back and take the top. That's generally what's supposed to happen when someone forgets system. There is nothing in the Law about letting the opponents know that you're having a misunderstanding, but the Laws are very explicit about providing the opponents with full and complete knowledge of your partnership agreements and understandings. You've indicated previously that you believe (IMO incorrectly) that the Laws prevent you from answering questions accurately if you know that partner has given MI (in your opinion). So, you choose which Laws you wish to break (again, I believe that no Laws are broken by correct explanations). However, I'm offering you a different choice. Here, you may be giving additional information to opponents that you're having an auction breakdown. But that's not against any Law. So, the choice is now, break the Laws about giving correct explanations (illegal), or give opponents information that you and partner are not on the same wavelength (legal). I've previously listed the Laws violated by dWs. If you feel that written explanations of all agreements violates any Laws, which are they? Given a choice between a legal and an illegal method of dealing with a UI issue, which do you choose? Hirsch From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jan 12 17:12:38 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:12:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> So far, I've seen very little in the way of logical argument against the dWS. What I have seen are misunderstandings, illogical arguments, appeals to authority, and personal invective. At the bridge table, the latter usually comes from a player who knows that he has just made an egregious blunder. In the end, appeals to authority may be decisive, but only if a competent authority considers the matter and renders an official conclusion. While there are arguments against the dWS -- at least one not yet presented on BLML -- I am becoming convinced that the game would be better if the dWS were established policy. If authorities do consider the matter, I hope they will give dWS versus MS a thorough review and not just ratify "the way things have always been." Let me ask the MS proponents this question: suppose on a particular deal EW will always pass, regardless of explanations. NS have a bidding misunderstanding. In the MS approach, the chances of recovery will be much reduced if EW ask questions about the auction because both North and South will have UI. In the dWS approach, EW questions may still matter but are less likely to do so; only one of North or South will have UI. Can anyone make a logical argument why the MS is _in these circumstances_ better for the game? One further comment: > From: Eric Landau > dWS would have you alert and explain, from that point forward, in > accordance with what partner thought your bid actually meant. > > But the dWS does not explain how you're supposed to know what that is. As Herman says, usually you will know. If you don't, you won't be able to comply with the dWS approach and will just have to do the best you can. The position is similar to being unable to remember an agreement. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Jan 13 00:06:44 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:06:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Jan 12, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > Let me ask the MS proponents this question: suppose on a particular > deal > EW will always pass, regardless of explanations. NS have a bidding > misunderstanding. In the MS approach, the chances of recovery will be > much reduced if EW ask questions about the auction because both North > and South will have UI. In the dWS approach, EW questions may still > matter but are less likely to do so; only one of North or South will > have UI. Can anyone make a logical argument why the MS is _in these > circumstances_ better for the game? If EW will always pass, why are they asking questions? As I see it, the problem here is not one of dWS vs. MS, but of when to ask questions. If this debate (dWS vs. MS) is going to generate laws changes, the lawmakers should, imo, look at the Laws (and the culture) regarding questions as well. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Jan 13 00:26:37 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:26:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 In-Reply-To: <001b01c85510$8c919d10$43ca403e@Mildred> References: <005e01c854b3$661e7390$08cd403e@Mildred> <200801120233.AA12000@geller204.nifty.com> <001b01c85510$8c919d10$43ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <52F9C061-D198-4553-BCAD-FB8DDAAC364B@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 12, 2008, at 6:44 AM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ There is no intention of changing the text of the 2007 Laws > as now established. The item in question is not a typo; it is as the > DSC agreed it. The reason 'redouble' is not there is that no member > of the DSC advocated its inclusion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Which leads me to believe that either none of them thought of it, or one or more of them thought of it, but didn't think it was worthy of discussion, much less inclusion in the new law. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Jan 13 00:43:08 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:43:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 In-Reply-To: <4788C161.7090609@ntlworld.com> References: <005e01c854b3$661e7390$08cd403e@Mildred> <200801120233.AA12000@geller204.nifty.com> <001b01c85510$8c919d10$43ca403e@Mildred> <4788C161.7090609@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <3CF9A9C3-C0ED-42F3-8F27-956EBF5E8316@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 12, 2008, at 8:32 AM, Guthrie wrote: > IMO, the WBFLC should consider *radical simplifications* more often > than every ten > years. But here we are considering only *small corrections*. If I'm not mistaken, the original plan was a complete revamp of the laws. That was abandoned apparently at the objection of some members of the LC (who may have been expressing the objection of their respective NBOs or ZAs). As to what goes on in the ten year period between major revisions, don't forget that the WBF are also responsible to consider changes to the Rubber Laws as well. Apparently they didn't see a need for any this go-round, but who know what the future will bring? > Perhaps, however it is too much to ask for the removal of meaningless > and superfluous items, since law-makers may have deliberately included > them to enhance the air of sophistication and mystery. I think, Nigel, that you would do well to eliminate such innuendoes from your posts. I will agree with you on one thing: someone, preferably the WBF, should maintain on the web a copy of the current laws, annotated with any changes or interpretations issued by the WBF. It is not, however, as simple a thing as you seem to think - various *printed* copies of the laws are done, providing easily accessible copies of the laws to those who wish to purchase them, and providing income to the publishers. Probably not much income, but... if the laws are perceived as ever-changing (which might be one effect of an annotated web publication) then buyers will be more reluctant to buy, and seller my find they aren't making enough to justify publishing them. Since many, many directors will not have on-site access to the web, this might well result, in the end, in even more erroneous rulings than we have now. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 12 20:17:29 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:17:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 References: <001b01c85510$8c919d10$43ca403e@Mildred> <200801121321.AA12002@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <00ba01c85575$103a9b30$4dce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 > > (2) Under what laws does the DSC consider the > omitted redouble should be handled? > > -Bob > +=+ 27D2 +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jan 13 05:24:42 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:24:42 -0600 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801122024j62e37607oab299e03908c4aa2@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 12, 2008 5:06 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > If EW will always pass, why are they asking questions? As I see it, > the problem here is not one of dWS vs. MS, but of when to ask > questions. If this debate (dWS vs. MS) is going to generate laws > changes, the lawmakers should, imo, look at the Laws (and the > culture) regarding questions as well. > Oh, come now, Ed. You want players to ask questions only when they have good hands, thus giving UI to opponents and partner alike? And you do not think it valid to ask questions to try to construction a picture of the opponent's hands? Jerry Fusselman From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Jan 13 05:39:23 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:39:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801122024j62e37607oab299e03908c4aa2@mail.gmail.com> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> <2b1e598b0801122024j62e37607oab299e03908c4aa2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 12, 2008, at 11:24 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Oh, come now, Ed. You want players to ask questions only when they > have good hands, thus giving UI to opponents and partner alike? You really think whether a player does or does not ask a question gives UI to *opponents*? > And you do not think it valid to ask questions to try to > construction a > picture of the opponent's hands? I never said that. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jan 13 06:06:01 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:06:01 -0600 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801122106w6740fc20v36e434802edf7cd7@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 12, 2008 10:12 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > So far, I've seen very little in the way of logical argument against the > dWS. What I have seen are misunderstandings, illogical arguments, > appeals to authority, and personal invective. At the bridge table, the > latter usually comes from a player who knows that he has just made an > egregious blunder. > I certainly agree with this. I wrote something similar two days ago, but not so well. > In the end, appeals to authority may be decisive, but only if a > competent authority considers the matter and renders an official > conclusion. While there are arguments against the dWS -- at least one > not yet presented on BLML -- I am becoming convinced that the game would > be better if the dWS were established policy. If authorities do > consider the matter, I hope they will give dWS versus MS a thorough > review and not just ratify "the way things have always been." > I sure hope so, and I will believe this if I see it. Yes, I would like to see, instead of saying "This is how it is, and how else could it be?" I would like to see "This is how it is, this is why, and this is our careful analysis of the other side." I write specs (mathematical financial economics) for a living---usually for programmers. The audience is sometimes only three or four people. But I don't just write what is to be done, I write why it is to be done, and I don't spitefully belittle the alternatives. Often, a programmer cannot be sure what I wanted from my specs, so he goes to the paragraphs of theory and justification to figure out exactly what to do. The larger the audience, the greater the payoff of often explaining *why* rather than limiting yourself a tightly limited list of *what*. One advantage, just explained, is to help the reader understand your meaning. Even more important, sometimes, is that author error becomes less likely. Thinking about *why* for a rule is a good idea, and writing about the why helps you make sure that you think about it. Our laws being just a bundle of rules without any justifications anywhere of the more interesting components makes them far more difficult to understand, and more likely poorly thought out, than they otherwise would be. I agree with Steve that the dWS proponents have offered excellent logical justifications of the kind I am looking for, and that the MS proponents are weak in this department. If TPTB consider the dWS, I, like Steve, would like a careful consideration of the best arguments of the dWS. For example, it sure seems clear to me that UI is far far more dangerous than MI during any auction when it has become clear that the opposing side is almost sure to pass throughout, provided the MI is cleared up before the opening lead. One minute of MI that affects no one's action is tiny compared to the large amount of UI that generally occur in the kinds of situations we have been discussing. > Let me ask the MS proponents this question: suppose on a particular deal > EW will always pass, regardless of explanations. NS have a bidding > misunderstanding. In the MS approach, the chances of recovery will be > much reduced if EW ask questions about the auction because both North > and South will have UI. In the dWS approach, EW questions may still > matter but are less likely to do so; only one of North or South will > have UI. Can anyone make a logical argument why the MS is _in these > circumstances_ better for the game? > I would like to see this too. If TPTB will offer to explain that some rule or interpretation is better, please let them argue that it is better for the game, not that it is the way TPTB have always wanted everyone to do it. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jan 13 06:22:51 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:22:51 -0600 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> <2b1e598b0801122024j62e37607oab299e03908c4aa2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801122122n1ed3cbd8k1c96f1319445f180@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 12, 2008 10:39 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Jan 12, 2008, at 11:24 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > Oh, come now, Ed. You want players to ask questions only when they > > have good hands, thus giving UI to opponents and partner alike? > > You really think whether a player does or does not ask a question > gives UI to *opponents*? Thanks so much, I will fix it: Oh, come now, Ed. You want players to ask questions only when they have good hands, thus giving information about their hands to opponents and partner alike? I am interested in your answer. Where ever regulations call for questions to be asked only when a nonpass is possible, it actually does seem to me like UI to the opponents that (by regulation) you were forced to announce you have a hand that is sure to pass, but that is a side issue that I would rather not debate here now. Better to just allow questions when you are sure to pass than to have to deal with the mess that the alternative causes. > > > And you do not think it valid to ask questions to try to > > construction a > > picture of the opponent's hands? > > I never said that. > What you asked was "If EW will always pass, why are they asking questions?" Who would ask such as question as yours if he thought it was valid to ask questions to try to construction a picture of the opponent's hands? I think no one. Oh, you did not mean it rhetorically? OK, I can take it literally. Question: "If EW will always pass, why are they asking questions?" Answer: To try to construction a picture of the opponent's hands, and to avoid taking an action of asking or not asking that passes information (technically not UI to the opponents, I suppose) about their hands to anyone at the table. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jan 13 06:25:29 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:25:29 -0600 Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 In-Reply-To: <001b01c85510$8c919d10$43ca403e@Mildred> References: <005e01c854b3$661e7390$08cd403e@Mildred> <200801120233.AA12000@geller204.nifty.com> <001b01c85510$8c919d10$43ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801122125v42e88cbcwf014591b7bd31955@mail.gmail.com> > +=+ There is no intention of changing the text of the 2007 Laws > as now established. The item in question is not a typo; it is as the > DSC agreed it. The reason 'redouble' is not there is that no member > of the DSC advocated its inclusion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Care to explain why excluding redouble is better for the game? Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jan 13 06:32:16 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:32:16 -0600 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? In-Reply-To: <000001c85521$44c1c350$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c85521$44c1c350$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801122132m482e94dam794dbad2d5e3fea3@mail.gmail.com> Would you please tell us a little bit about what Vienna is? From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sun Jan 13 06:41:10 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:41:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > > Let me ask the MS proponents this question: suppose on a particular deal > EW will always pass, regardless of explanations. NS have a bidding > misunderstanding. In the MS approach, the chances of recovery will be > much reduced if EW ask questions about the auction because both North > and South will have UI. In the dWS approach, EW questions may still > matter but are less likely to do so; only one of North or South will > have UI. Can anyone make a logical argument why the MS is _in these > circumstances_ better for the game? > I'll reiterate the proposition I've been asking Herman about. If N-S write out their explanations and show them only to opponents, instead of giving them orally, there is no UI at all, and neither player is constrained by E-W questions. Simple procedure, actually, and any pair can do it right now. IMO anyone who would consider violating the disclosure Laws should be considering alternatives to dWs that would address UI issues without violating any Laws at all. Full and complete disclosure does not have to be spoken. And yes, I'm concerned about the case where a pair can ask questions of another pair for the specific purpose of creating UI, thereby limiting their opponents' auction. However, the MS is far better for the game than dWs simply because the game is played under a set of Laws. The MS follows those Laws as written, dWs involves a deliberate Law violation. While those Laws may not have desireable results on any particular hand, if we start allowing deliberate violation to go unpunished, then the game as we know it ceases to exist. We set the precendent for allowing players to make up their own rules as they go along, which IMO is far worse for the game than any form of UI or MI. Hirsch From svenpran at online.no Sun Jan 13 10:37:51 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:37:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801122132m482e94dam794dbad2d5e3fea3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c855c7$f8141e20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > Would you please tell us a little bit about what Vienna is? It was THE system to replace Culbertson in the forties. It introduced HCP with the scale 7-5-3-1 for Ace, King, Queen and Jack. The essential parts for understanding my example are (with all strength values recalculated to the now common 4-3-2-1 scale!): Opening one in a suit shows 13-18 HCP and 5+ cards in that suit except that 1C is used when you do not have 5 cards in any of the other suits. (Opening 1NT shows 19+ HCP regardless of distribution.) Responses to 1C opening bid are: With less than 6 HCP you may pass with long clubs and bid 1D otherwise. 1H and 1S show 4 cards and 6-12. With at least 13 HCP you bid 1NT. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 13 13:34:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:34:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <478A054A.9030709@skynet.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Jan 12, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > >> Let me ask the MS proponents this question: suppose on a particular >> deal >> EW will always pass, regardless of explanations. NS have a bidding >> misunderstanding. In the MS approach, the chances of recovery will be >> much reduced if EW ask questions about the auction because both North >> and South will have UI. In the dWS approach, EW questions may still >> matter but are less likely to do so; only one of North or South will >> have UI. Can anyone make a logical argument why the MS is _in these >> circumstances_ better for the game? > > If EW will always pass, why are they asking questions? As I see it, > the problem here is not one of dWS vs. MS, but of when to ask > questions. If this debate (dWS vs. MS) is going to generate laws > changes, the lawmakers should, imo, look at the Laws (and the > culture) regarding questions as well. > True, but you cannot legislate against asking questions. Even if you have no intention of bidding, you are allowed to follow the bidding. You might be thinking of your lead, or simply wish to not show that you have no reasons for asking. The point Steve was making is that the askers of questions have an advantage over the silent opponents, when the MS is in operation. The reason why they are asking questions is irrelevant. They might simply do so because they know the MS is in operation at this table. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 13 13:40:59 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:40:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> <000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: >> > > I'll reiterate the proposition I've been asking Herman about. If N-S write > out their explanations and show them only to opponents, instead of giving > them orally, there is no UI at all, and neither player is constrained by E-W > questions. Simple procedure, actually, and any pair can do it right now. > IMO anyone who would consider violating the disclosure Laws should be > considering alternatives to dWs that would address UI issues without > violating any Laws at all. Full and complete disclosure does not have to be > spoken. > Hirsh, asked and answered twice already - if you want to change the conditions, there is no need to invent a third form, just use screens. Meanwhile, lots of bridge will be left being played without screens (or without your notepads) and it is for those tables that the question remains. > And yes, I'm concerned about the case where a pair can ask questions of > another pair for the specific purpose of creating UI, thereby limiting their > opponents' auction. > > However, the MS is far better for the game than dWs simply because the game > is played under a set of Laws. The MS follows those Laws as written, dWs > involves a deliberate Law violation. As I've stated often before, the MS also involve a deliberate law violation. But the question specifically was NOT to say what is the "way it's always been" but "what is best for the game". If that means condoning a law violation or writing a specific exception to that law, there is no more question of "it's better because it follows the law as written". > While those Laws may not have > desireable results on any particular hand, if we start allowing deliberate > violation to go unpunished, then the game as we know it ceases to exist. We > set the precendent for allowing players to make up their own rules as they > go along, which IMO is far worse for the game than any form of UI or MI. > > Hirsch > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 13 13:48:58 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:48:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be><1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de><47875243.9080306@skynet.be><1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be><001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > >> Hello Hirsh, >> > > To address your issues in order: > > I believe that you are misunderstanding me. I'm talking about ALL > explanations, not just those in "dWs" situations. If all explanations were > written instead of oral, there would be no revelation to partner that there > was a "dWs situation". > I think I also covered that basis, but I'm glad you are in fact talking about all explanations. > As far as the opponents knowing the wheels have come off, they are only > entitled to know your system. Indeed. They are not entitled to know that the wheels have come off. > However, if you and your partner's > explanations revealed that the wheels had come off, they are certainly > entitled to sit back and take the top. Yes, but that's not what I meant. They are entitled to take the top if it is revealed, but they are not entitled to know that the wheels have come off in the first place! > That's generally what's supposed to > happen when someone forgets system. There is nothing in the Law about > letting the opponents know that you're having a misunderstanding, but the > Laws are very explicit about providing the opponents with full and complete > knowledge of your partnership agreements and understandings. > Yes, but the laws are only talking about the principle, and the way it will be treated if the principle is not upheld. > You've indicated previously that you believe (IMO incorrectly) that the Laws > prevent you from answering questions accurately if you know that partner has > given MI (in your opinion). So, you choose which Laws you wish to break > (again, I believe that no Laws are broken by correct explanations). > And I believe that there are. L20F5. > However, I'm offering you a different choice. Here, you may be giving > additional information to opponents that you're having an auction breakdown. > But that's not against any Law. So, the choice is now, break the Laws about > giving correct explanations (illegal), or give opponents information that > you and partner are not on the same wavelength (legal). > Only true if your bracketed (illegal) were true. It is not. > I've previously listed the Laws violated by dWs. If you feel that written > explanations of all agreements violates any Laws, which are they? > I do not believe they violate laws - I believe they create a different game. One in which bidding misunderstandings are more heavily punished (at the table, not by the director) than in two of the forms currently being played (screens and F2F). I also believe that F2F, with MS in operation, is a different game than with screens. In fact, F2F with DwS more closely resembles screens, if not entirely (there is always the UI in one direction left over, and a player with UI is not free to make a choice that a player without the information might take. > Given a choice between a legal and an illegal method of dealing with a UI > issue, which do you choose? > The legal one, of course, who wouldn't. But there is a name for the logical fallacy you have just committed. Richard, which fallacy is this? > Hirsch > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 13 13:59:25 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:59:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? In-Reply-To: <000001c85521$44c1c350$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c85521$44c1c350$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <478A0B2D.9040703@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > So far the discussion on DWS seems to have been centered around a 4NT bid > showing both minors being mistaken for Blackwood RKCB. If a rule like DWS > shall be justified it must treat all comparable situations the same, and I > believe my example below clearly shows that DWS is untenable: > I do not believe any other example makes it untenable, and I am willing to prove this by answering Sven on this one. > South, dealer, white against red opens 1C (natural) with > Ax > xxx > Axxx > Axxx > > and North (with or without alert) explains this bid as Vienna when asked. > > West passes and North bids 1NT. > > If I have understood DWS at all they say that South must now explain this > bid as showing an opening hand and forcing. > Indeed he must. I do not see why that is so terrible. That is, after all, what North actually holds. > My assertion is that South must not alert 1NT, and if asked for an > explanation he must state that it shows 6-9 HCP with no 4-card major suit. > (In my system it also denies 4 cards in diamonds). > Well, if he does that, not only does he break L20F5, but he also withholds from East-West vital systemic information, namely what the responses are to a Vienna 1C. > Whenever next it is South to call he has no other alternative call than to > pass (because of his hand, not because of the misexplanation). > Of course he must pass. > Anybody disagreeing with me will please show how South can justify any other > action. > If you mean by action: pass, then OK. But if you men the explanation, I have just given you one very good reason why this is wrong. The Vienna system may not be known to opponents. They will be defending 1NT under the impression that North holds 9 points, while he holds 13. If you believe that this is ok, because you can "prove" that your explanation is correct, then I shall tell you that your partner has given doubly MI, by not fully explaining "Vienna". His answers under Vienna are a part of the explanation he is supposed to be giving to his opponents. Nobody does it, I agree, but it is necessary under full disclosure nevertheless. I shall rule MI on both your explanations. If I am there, playing DWS, I shall explain 1NT as 13+, and you are allowed, as TD to rule against me for the misinformation that I did not tell them the bid shows 6-9, systemically. How can they be damaged by that, when North indeed holds 13+? > And if anybody doubts the mix-up between Natural and Vienna I can just > guarantee them: I have seen it happen more than once. > I can imagine that it does. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 13 15:01:44 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:01:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 References: <005e01c854b3$661e7390$08cd403e@Mildred><200801120233.AA12000@geller204.nifty.com><001b01c85510$8c919d10$43ca403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801122125v42e88cbcwf014591b7bd31955@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004d01c855ed$e1da2840$a1d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 5:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 >> +=+ There is no intention of changing the text of the >> 2007 Laws as now established. The item in question >> is not a typo; it is as the DSC agreed it. The reason >> 'redouble' is not there is that no member of the DSC >> advocated its inclusion. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Care to explain why excluding redouble is better for > the game? > +=+ I do not recall having argued what is better for the game. I have restricted myself, as I recall, to stating what is the law and that there is now no intention of changing the text of the law. I consider it best for the game if players comply with the law. Since inclusion of 'redouble' was not proposed it is not there; possibly colleagues may have felt that the relaxations proposed were quite enough, but it is not for me to say. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 13 15:08:44 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:08:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <4787A94C.8060001@skynet.be><000001c854ae$ad4c98a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <000d01c854cd$b1f6f5c0$15e4e140$@com> Message-ID: <004e01c855ed$e3803720$a1d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 3:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook > > Thus, a correct answer to an opponent's question about our > methods is not legally an indication of anything at all as far > as Law 20F5 is concerned. After all, the only person that > might benefit from this "indication" is partner, and he can't > legally see the indication. > > Moreover, since I am legally deaf and blind to partner's > explanation of 4NT, I do not legally know that a mistake > has been made, so how can I indicate that it has? > > Recent discussion on some other thread (or it may have > been the same one - the dWS has been haunting all of us > for many years) confirms the notion that "in any manner" may > originally not have been intended to refer to answers to > questions, but may have meant no more than "by any > mannerism". I expect it probably did; Edgar Kaplan always > knew what he meant, even though he didn't always trouble > to say it. His successors may need to take more care. > +=+ I agree that it is for the lawgivers to establish how the law operates. It is not a matter that can be decided by the player for himself. In this matter I do not believe the current generation of lawgivers has any intention to change the position adopted in their pronouncements by past authorities. However, I shall seek to have them issue a 2008 statement. Herman and his acolytes choose to explain partner's call in conformity with partner's prior mistaken explanation of the partnership understanding. They argue that in doing so they exercise discretion to choose between violation of Law 40B6(a) and violation of Law 20F5. Of course in the instant of their decision we do not actually know which of the partners has correct knowledge of the partnership understanding. However, if partner has given a mistaken explanation - an infraction, see Law 75B - as they believe, Herman and friends have opted not merely to avoid drawing attention to partner's wrong explanation, but also to act positively to conceal that infraction, contrary to Law 72B3. Apparently they fail to recognize that in doing so they can be accused of acting to gain an advantage from the UI conveyed by partner's mistaken explanation (see Law 73C). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Sun Jan 13 15:26:02 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:26:02 +0900 Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 In-Reply-To: <004d01c855ed$e1da2840$a1d3403e@Mildred> References: <004d01c855ed$e1da2840$a1d3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200801131426.AA12007@geller204.nifty.com> The WBFLC could adopt "no reason" as their slogan, except that CocaCola has already used it (see Japanese language "no reason" commercial for COKE below on YouTube) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ABJbT7y3_I Cheers, Bob gesta at tiscali.co.uk ????????: > >Grattan Endicott[following address discontinued: >grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >******************************* >Birthday wisdom. >My son informs me that when you >have accumulated the knowledge >you get to be too old to remember >it. I told him I am still accumulating. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jerry Fusselman" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 5:25 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 > > >>> +=+ There is no intention of changing the text of the >>> 2007 Laws as now established. The item in question >>> is not a typo; it is as the DSC agreed it. The reason >>> 'redouble' is not there is that no member of the DSC >>> advocated its inclusion. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> Care to explain why excluding redouble is better for >> the game? >> >+=+ I do not recall having argued what is better for >the game. I have restricted myself, as I recall, to stating >what is the law and that there is now no intention of >changing the text of the law. I consider it best for the >game if players comply with the law. Since inclusion of >'redouble' was not proposed it is not there; possibly >colleagues may have felt that the relaxations proposed >were quite enough, but it is not for me to say. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Sun Jan 13 16:42:16 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:42:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? In-Reply-To: <478A0B2D.9040703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c855fa$e0579400$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > I do not believe any other example makes it untenable, and I am > willing to prove this by answering Sven on this one. > > > South, dealer, white against red opens 1C (natural) with > > Ax > > xxx > > Axxx > > Axxx > > > > and North (with or without alert) explains this bid as Vienna when > asked. > > > > West passes and North bids 1NT. > > > > If I have understood DWS at all they say that South must now explain > > this bid as showing an opening hand and forcing. > > > > Indeed he must. I do not see why that is so terrible. > That is, after all, what North actually holds. Where in the laws do they say that an explanation shall disclose the cards actually held? Ever so often is it emphasized that an explanation shall disclose the partnership agreements and understandings, NOT the cards actually held. Most clearly is this seen in the few situations when a player must explain his own calls when he has deviated from his partnership agreements, i.e. when partner has temporarily been taken away from the table during the auction, or when declarer or dummy shall correct an incorrect explanation during the clarification period (2007 Law 22). So no, when the agreement is to play a natural system (and not Vienna) South must not explain 1NT as an opening hand. That would be a deliberate and grave violation of Law 20F. > > > My assertion is that South must not alert 1NT, and if asked for an > > explanation he must state that it shows 6-9 HCP with no 4-card major > > suit. (In my system it also denies 4 cards in diamonds). > > > > Well, if he does that, not only does he break L20F5, but he also > withholds from East-West vital systemic information, namely what the > responses are to a Vienna 1C. He does nothing of the kind. If opponents want to know about responses in Vienna they are free to ask. If they are unfamiliar with Vienna they have in fact every reason to make sure they are told what they need to know. There is one possibility left: East/West may think (incorrectly) that the 1NT response to a 1C opening bid in Vienna in fact shows 6-9 as explained by South. This is a fully acceptable mistake and they must live with that until the clarification period when South makes it clear that incorrect explanation has been given. But this will not be any cause for damage to East/West during the play because at that time they will have all information available to infer what North actually holds from what has happened so far. The only cause for damage that is left is if East/West is unable to reach their most favourable contract, not because of the misbid by North but because of his incorrect explanation. I am returning to this situation at the end of my post. South did not say that Vienna was an incorrect explanation of his 1C opening bid; he correctly explained the 1NT bid according to their partnership agreements. I know that DWS alleges this to be an "indication" in conflict with L20F5, but so is in case the subsequent pass by South. Should this make that pass a violation of L20F5? (See later) And be aware: The information that North (most likely) holds a hand stronger than 9HCP is UI to South, as well as the information that South plays a natural system is now UI to North! > > > Whenever next it is South to call he has no other alternative call than > > to pass (because of his hand, not because of the misexplanation). > > > > Of course he must pass. I am very surprised that you agree to this after what you have written above. Isn't a pass from South "an indication" as good as anything that he does not play Vienna and therefore that North has given an incorrect explanation? > > Anybody disagreeing with me will please show how South can justify any > other > > action. > > > > If you mean by action: pass, then OK. But if you men the explanation, > I have just given you one very good reason why this is wrong. The > Vienna system may not be known to opponents. They will be defending > 1NT under the impression that North holds 9 points, while he holds 13. > If you believe that this is ok, because you can "prove" that your > explanation is correct, then I shall tell you that your partner has > given doubly MI, by not fully explaining "Vienna". His answers under > Vienna are a part of the explanation he is supposed to be giving to > his opponents. Nobody does it, I agree, but it is necessary under full > disclosure nevertheless. I shall rule MI on both your explanations. > If I am there, playing DWS, I shall explain 1NT as 13+, and you are > allowed, as TD to rule against me for the misinformation that I did > not tell them the bid shows 6-9, systemically. How can they be damaged > by that, when North indeed holds 13+? If East/West is unfamiliar with Vienna they have every reason to ask clarifying questions. If they are satisfied with "Vienna" as an explanation they cannot afterwards expect to be heard on a claim for damage because they did not know what "Vienna" is. During the clarification period they should definitely ask "What are we entitled to know" if they have the slightest suspicion that there can be details they are unaware of. I do not accept that East/West can claim damage if South during the clarification period has revealed that North had given an incorrect explanation, unless East can show probable damage because he was misled to pass after the 1NT bid. (East cannot be allowed to withdraw his final pass after the clarification made by South, an option that is still open to West). And both defenders have access to all the information they may need and are entitled to after South has revealed the incorrect explanation from North. And if the Director rules damage to East/West he will in any case adjust the score. So your concern on misinformation to East/West has little foundation. Sven From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sun Jan 13 17:52:14 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:52:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be><1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de><47875243.9080306@skynet.be><1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be><001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook > >> However, I'm offering you a different choice. Here, you may be giving >> additional information to opponents that you're having an auction >> breakdown. >> But that's not against any Law. So, the choice is now, break the Laws >> about >> giving correct explanations (illegal), or give opponents information that >> you and partner are not on the same wavelength (legal). >> > > Only true if your bracketed (illegal) were true. It is not. > ?? Please explain how dWs avoids violation of the following: L20.F.1 L20.F.4 L40.B.6.a L72.A L72.B.3 L73.C L73.D.2 Hirsch From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Jan 13 17:53:54 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:53:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] Glossary Message-ID: <478A4222.6090907@ntlworld.com> [TFLB L40A1a] "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players." IMO a more specific definition of "partnership understanding" is needed, for the purposes of Bridge rules about disclosure. For example, a more specific definition would help to resolve the dWs dispute. For example LHO opens 1C, RHO reponds 1S, and you overcall 1N. Here a better definition would determine which of the following is a *partnership understanding* [A] What you think had been agreed (even if you suspect partner has other ideas) e.g. You think that you agreed a 1N overcall to be "Natural". [B] What Partner seems to understand the call to mean, in spite of your different idea of what it means. e.g. you intended your 1N overcall as natural but partner seems to be treating it as unusual. I believe Herman thinks that you should explain his calls according to the latter interpretation. [C] A call, never discussed, and never previously used by the partnership but with a common interpretation of which you are both aware. e.g. you both know that your team-mates play it as natural. [D] A partnership agreement to play according to a book that you haven't both read? e.g. Just one (or neither) of you are aware that the relevant book recommends *Comic notrump* overcalls A resolution between [A] or [B] may help to resolve the de Wael controversy. IMO [C] and [D] are both "partnership understandings". I guess that Richard Hills would agree about [C] but disagree about [D]. [TFLB Definitions] "Psychic call (commonly ?psych[e]? or ?psychic?) ? a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length." [Nige1] A psych is a deliberate gross misstatement ... of what?" Does it flout (1) *disclosed* understandings? or (2) *actual* understandings? Only with the *former* interpretation is it possible for the EBU to classify a psych as "red" "amber" or "green". Pragmatically, (1), the definition implied by the EBU, is much the better, because it allows you to immediately specify a call as a *psych* with less mind-reading and to defer any judgement about a *concealed partnership understanding*. Again I feel that Richard Hills may disagree slightly. Furthermore, for legal purposes, IMO, the definition of psych should be widened to include a "deliberate minor deviation that misstates..." Anyway, if more definitions like these were first clarified, then the whole law book would become clearer. Also if terms were more rigorously defined, BLML disputes would be fewer. From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 13 18:17:01 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:17:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be><1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de><47875243.9080306@skynet.be><1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be><001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be> <005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <478A478D.4040402@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:48 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook > > >>> However, I'm offering you a different choice. Here, you may be giving >>> additional information to opponents that you're having an auction >>> breakdown. >>> But that's not against any Law. So, the choice is now, break the Laws >>> about >>> giving correct explanations (illegal), or give opponents information that >>> you and partner are not on the same wavelength (legal). >>> >> Only true if your bracketed (illegal) were true. It is not. >> > > ?? > > Please explain how dWs avoids violation of the following: > My phrase higher was wrong. It is the (legal) in your phrase higher which was not true. The choice is not between an illegal and a legal action, but between two illegal ones. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 13 18:33:13 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:33:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? In-Reply-To: <000101c855fa$e0579400$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000101c855fa$e0579400$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <478A4B59.9090401@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............ >>> >>> If I have understood DWS at all they say that South must now explain >>> this bid as showing an opening hand and forcing. >>> >> Indeed he must. I do not see why that is so terrible. >> That is, after all, what North actually holds. > > Where in the laws do they say that an explanation shall disclose the cards > actually held? > Godverdomme Jongen Astemblieft! Nowhere does it say that - but what is the penalty for MI? Correction if damage. How can there be damage when the description fits the hand perfectly? > Ever so often is it emphasized that an explanation shall disclose the > partnership agreements and understandings, NOT the cards actually held. > > Most clearly is this seen in the few situations when a player must explain > his own calls when he has deviated from his partnership agreements, i.e. > when partner has temporarily been taken away from the table during the > auction, or when declarer or dummy shall correct an incorrect explanation > during the clarification period (2007 Law 22). > We know all that. > So no, when the agreement is to play a natural system (and not Vienna) South > must not explain 1NT as an opening hand. That would be a deliberate and > grave violation of Law 20F. > Just reasserting what you've already said 27 times is not helping. And mentioning L20F, when it is precisely L20F5 that YOU are breaking, is not helping either. >>> My assertion is that South must not alert 1NT, and if asked for an >>> explanation he must state that it shows 6-9 HCP with no 4-card major >>> suit. (In my system it also denies 4 cards in diamonds). >>> >> Well, if he does that, not only does he break L20F5, but he also >> withholds from East-West vital systemic information, namely what the >> responses are to a Vienna 1C. > > He does nothing of the kind. If opponents want to know about responses in > Vienna they are free to ask. If they are unfamiliar with Vienna they have in > fact every reason to make sure they are told what they need to know. > Indeed, they may well ask. But it is your obligation to make certain that they know everything they need to know. And by replying "6-9", you have given the impression that such is the meaning of the bid under Vienna system. So they have no idea that what you're telling them is not in fact the Vienna response. You are in deep MI waters here, mate! > There is one possibility left: East/West may think (incorrectly) that the > 1NT response to a 1C opening bid in Vienna in fact shows 6-9 as explained by > South. This is a fully acceptable mistake and they must live with that until > the clarification period when South makes it clear that incorrect > explanation has been given. > No, it is not a fully acceptable mistake. They have no obligation of knowing what Vienna means, and if you have made them make that mistake, it is your fault, no-one else's. > But this will not be any cause for damage to East/West during the play > because at that time they will have all information available to infer what > North actually holds from what has happened so far. The only cause for > damage that is left is if East/West is unable to reach their most favourable > contract, not because of the misbid by North but because of his incorrect > explanation. I am returning to this situation at the end of my post. > OK, I'll return to it as well, then. > South did not say that Vienna was an incorrect explanation of his 1C opening > bid; he correctly explained the 1NT bid according to their partnership > agreements. I know that DWS alleges this to be an "indication" in conflict > with L20F5, but so is in case the subsequent pass by South. Should this make > that pass a violation of L20F5? (See later) > If there is no L16 LA available that makes the mistake less clear, Here is again a dilemma which can only be solved by deciding which law to break. > And be aware: The information that North (most likely) holds a hand stronger > than 9HCP is UI to South, as well as the information that South plays a > natural system is now UI to North! > Only in MS - in DWS, North has no idea that South is not playing Vienna. He may well deduce this from the subsequent pass, but that is not UI! >>> Whenever next it is South to call he has no other alternative call than >>> to pass (because of his hand, not because of the misexplanation). >>> >> Of course he must pass. > > I am very surprised that you agree to this after what you have written > above. Isn't a pass from South "an indication" as good as anything that he > does not play Vienna and therefore that North has given an incorrect > explanation? > But of course he must pass. The L16 obligations are, IMO, even stronger than the L20F5 obligation not to correct the mistake. > >>> Anybody disagreeing with me will please show how South can justify any >> other >>> action. >>> >> If you mean by action: pass, then OK. But if you men the explanation, >> I have just given you one very good reason why this is wrong. The >> Vienna system may not be known to opponents. They will be defending >> 1NT under the impression that North holds 9 points, while he holds 13. >> If you believe that this is ok, because you can "prove" that your >> explanation is correct, then I shall tell you that your partner has >> given doubly MI, by not fully explaining "Vienna". His answers under >> Vienna are a part of the explanation he is supposed to be giving to >> his opponents. Nobody does it, I agree, but it is necessary under full >> disclosure nevertheless. I shall rule MI on both your explanations. >> If I am there, playing DWS, I shall explain 1NT as 13+, and you are >> allowed, as TD to rule against me for the misinformation that I did >> not tell them the bid shows 6-9, systemically. How can they be damaged >> by that, when North indeed holds 13+? > > If East/West is unfamiliar with Vienna they have every reason to ask > clarifying questions. If they are satisfied with "Vienna" as an explanation > they cannot afterwards expect to be heard on a claim for damage because they > did not know what "Vienna" is. During the clarification period they should > definitely ask "What are we entitled to know" if they have the slightest > suspicion that there can be details they are unaware of. > Yes, but if they are unaware of anything about Vienna, they will ask your partner for more information. That information will not include that his 1NT is strange, and your explaining it as 6-9 will not cause them any concern. As to the clarification period - that is too late. The MI has been given, and any MI will be cleared up even before they ask anything. But the MI has been there and may have done it's damage. And that's where our methods strongly part: we have both given MI, but my MI (omitting the true system 6-9) does not cause damage, while yours (omitting the alternative system 13+) does cause damage; he has 13+, after all. When choosing between giving MI of one sort or another, is it not best to give the one that causes least damage? Of course in this issue it is even better to give no MI at all, a possibility which is perfectly available: you just explain both systems. That is what I urge MS adepts to do. > I do not accept that East/West can claim damage if South during the > clarification period has revealed that North had given an incorrect > explanation, unless East can show probable damage because he was misled to > pass after the 1NT bid. (East cannot be allowed to withdraw his final pass > after the clarification made by South, an option that is still open to > West). And both defenders have access to all the information they may need > and are entitled to after South has revealed the incorrect explanation from > North. > > And if the Director rules damage to East/West he will in any case adjust the > score. So your concern on misinformation to East/West has little foundation. > Well, your concern on Misinformation by the DWS has even less foundation. You keep saying I MI, but my MI does no damage. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 13 16:08:26 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:08:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 References: <004d01c855ed$e1da2840$a1d3403e@Mildred> <200801131426.AA12007@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000601c8560e$2be88a10$03ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1> their slogan, > > The WBFLC could adopt "no reason" as < +=+ Others hereabouts choose to discuss the reasons for the laws. Post production I do not regard that as a primary concern for me. I direct my attention chiefly to the intention of the laws and to the manner in which the laws are to be interpreted. In this I can turn to intra-DSC discussion and to WBFLC pronouncements for insight, but in the case in question I have no guidance from these sources. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 13 19:25:11 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:25:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Glossary References: <478A4222.6090907@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000401c85619$dd28f840$f6d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 4:53 PM Subject: [blml] Glossary [TFLB L40A1a] "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players." IMO a more specific definition of "partnership understanding" is needed, for the purposes of Bridge rules about disclosure. For example, a more specific definition would help to resolve the dWs dispute. +=+ The DSC has left the definition of 'partnership understanding' to the dictionary. 'partnership' - a contractual relationship between two or more persons 'understanding' - a mutual agreement. So by 'partnership understanding' we mean a mutual agreement between between the two members of the partnership. Law 40 indicates that the subject matter of the agreements to which the law refers is the methods of the partnership. In Law 40A1(a) the laws say how such understandings may be created. Any such understanding is subject to the rules of disclosure in the laws. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 13 19:25:11 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:25:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Glossary References: <478A4222.6090907@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000401c85619$dd28f840$f6d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 4:53 PM Subject: [blml] Glossary [TFLB L40A1a] "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players." IMO a more specific definition of "partnership understanding" is needed, for the purposes of Bridge rules about disclosure. For example, a more specific definition would help to resolve the dWs dispute. +=+ The DSC has left the definition of 'partnership understanding' to the dictionary. 'partnership' - a contractual relationship between two or more persons 'understanding' - a mutual agreement. So by 'partnership understanding' we mean a mutual agreement between between the two members of the partnership. Law 40 indicates that the subject matter of the agreements to which the law refers is the methods of the partnership. In Law 40A1(a) the laws say how such understandings may be created. Any such understanding is subject to the rules of disclosure in the laws. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sun Jan 13 21:04:57 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:04:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801122122n1ed3cbd8k1c96f1319445f180@mail.gmail.com> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> <2b1e598b0801122024j62e37607oab299e03908c4aa2@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0801122122n1ed3cbd8k1c96f1319445f180@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <53F7B0F6-0657-4D24-903D-872F01FAAF31@rochester.rr.com> This is taking on all the aspects of a budding flame war. I *will not* play that game. On Jan 13, 2008, at 12:22 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Thanks so much, I will fix it: Oh, come now, Ed. You want players to > ask questions only when they have good hands, thus giving information > about their hands to opponents and partner alike? I am interested in > your answer. My answer is no. > What you asked was "If EW will always pass, why are they asking > questions?" Who would ask such as question as yours if he thought it > was valid to ask questions to try to construction a picture of the > opponent's hands? I think no one. > > Oh, you did not mean it rhetorically? OK, I can take it literally. > Question: "If EW will always pass, why are they asking questions?" > Answer: To try to construction a picture of the opponent's hands, and > to avoid taking an action of asking or not asking that passes > information (technically not UI to the opponents, I suppose) about > their hands to anyone at the table. If a player is not going to participate in the auction, except to pass, then he can gather any additional information he needs to construct a picture of opponents' hands after the auction but before the opening lead is faced. I'm not saying that your points about passing UI by not asking aren't valid, I'm saying that the argument that a player should ask questions during the auction in order to gather information he will only need during the play doesn't hold water. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jan 13 23:57:02 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:57:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? In-Reply-To: <478A4B59.9090401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301c85637$9cc7d0f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............ > >>> > >>> If I have understood DWS at all they say that South must now > >>> explain this bid as showing an opening hand and forcing. > >>> > >> Indeed he must. I do not see why that is so terrible. > >> That is, after all, what North actually holds. > > > > Where in the laws do they say that an explanation shall > > disclose the cards actually held? > > > > Godverdomme Jongen Astemblieft! > > Nowhere does it say that Exactly. But (2007) Law 75C says very clearly that an explanation shall disclose the partnership agreement and not the cards actually held. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 14 00:39:56 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:39:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] Announce [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801111030i43a6c69o9e1e1749f64b0578@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: 2007 Law 40B6(a): >>When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in >>reply to opponent's enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose >>all special information conveyed to him through partnership >>agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose >>inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters >>generally known to bridge players. Jerry Fusselman: >Is this such a big difference? Might an opponent say, "I am >required neither to give bridge lessons nor to disclose >inferences I have drawn that should be easy from general bridge >knowledge." ? Richard Hills: As Director I would reply, "You are still required to disclose all special information conveyed to you through partnership agreement or partnership experience, whether or not you think that such disclosure would be a bridge lesson." Jerry Fusselman: >How is "general bridge knowledge and experience" (1997) so >vastly different from "knowledge and experience of matters >generally known to bridge players" (2007)? Richard Hills: In my opinion, the 2007 phrasing clarifies that partnership understandings must be disclosed directly. Under the 1997 Laws a blmler argued that he did not have to disclose that he was playing methods recommended by the generally known Charles Goren. 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 14 01:04:25 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:04:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? In-Reply-To: <478A4B59.9090401@skynet.be> References: <000101c855fa$e0579400$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478A4B59.9090401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c85641$06547380$12fd5a80$@com> [HdW] Nowhere does it say that - but what is the penalty for MI? Correction if damage. How can there be damage when the description fits the hand perfectly? [DALB] Quite easily. As I understand the matter (though I have not followed the example too closely) it concerns a situation in which: South opens 1C, explained by North as Vienna when it is in fact no such thing. West passes, and North bids 1NT. This by the actual North-South agreement shows 6-9 balanced with no major, but a dWS South explains it as game-forcing (and then passes it). As it happens, North-South cannot make more than 1NT due to an unfavourable lie of cards. But East would have bid 2S over a 6-9 1NT, and that would have made (or North would have bid on over it and gone minus). Over a game-forcing 1NT, East was understandably reluctant to enter the auction. I seem to recall a case involving (I think) Garozzo, who was told that his LHO had five hearts when the partnership agreement was that LHO's bidding only showed four hearts. The explanation was not corrected by LHO because she (I think it was Karen McCallum) actually had five hearts. Garozzo did not lead a heart against the final contract because of the explanation - but a heart lead would have worked better than his actual choice. The score was adjusted, and rightly so. Maybe Adam knows more about this than I can remember; it may have happened in an ACBL event. David Burn London, England From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Mon Jan 14 01:45:04 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:45:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be><1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de><47875243.9080306@skynet.be><1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be><001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be><004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be><005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <478A478D.4040402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000e01c85646$b4070ec0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 12:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook >> > > My phrase higher was wrong. It is the (legal) in your phrase higher > which was not true. The choice is not between an illegal and a legal > action, but between two illegal ones. > What Law is violated by giving your explanations to your opponents in writing, rather than orally? Hirsch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 14 02:31:57 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:31:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4788E6F6.7090803@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner ("A strory..." thread): >>So far, I've seen very little in the way of logical >>argument against the dWS. Richard Hills: I have always been willing to admit that Herman uses impeccable logic which is fully consistent with his axioms. But the axioms themselves cannot be logically argued about, since they are the basis of a logical system, created by assumption and adhered to by faith. For example, Euclid's fifth. Euclid's five axioms form the basis of theorems defining plane geometry. But tweak the fifth axiom and you now form the basis of theorems defining spherical geometry. So it is as futile to attempt to use logic alone to harmonise the differences between the De Wael School and the Majority School as it would be to use logic alone to harmonise the differences between plane geometry and spherical geometry. In both cases a more fundamental change is needed for harmonisation. Steve Willner: >>What I have seen are misunderstandings, illogical >>arguments, appeals to authority, Richard Hills: And listings of Laws the De Wael School infracts. Hirsch Davis: >>>Please explain how dWs avoids violation of the >>>following: >>> >>>L20.F.1 >>>L20.F.4 >>>L40.B.6.a >>>L72.A >>>L72.B.3 >>>L73.C >>>L73.D.2 [snip] >>In the end, appeals to authority may be decisive, >>but only if a competent authority considers the >>matter and renders an official conclusion. While >>there are arguments against the dWS -- at least >>one not yet presented on BLML -- I am becoming >>convinced that the game would be better if the >>dWS were established policy. [snip] Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Your attitude is sound, Matthias, as far as it >goes. But what Herman and his apostles tell us is >that it is not officially in print anywhere (not >strictly true, but it has not been refreshed for a >time) so they do not have to pay homage to what we >say. This was all right when Herman was a rather >amusing wild card, but he appears to have >recruited a small band of acolytes now and his >ideas are in danger of escalating into a bush fire. >So the pressure increases on the legislating bodies >to deal with the subject. >We will see what transpires. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 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 Sun Jan 13 21:33:45 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:33:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be><1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de><47875243.9080306@skynet.be><1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be><001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be><005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <478A478D.4040402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005d01c8564f$8950fb10$50cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:48 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook >> The choice is not between an illegal and a legal > action, but between two illegal ones. > +=+ The player has no choice. He is told the law and its effect. A fair case has been made to show that there has been no recent refreshment of the instructions to players. I accept that the absence of a recently issued statement should be remedied. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 14 02:48:12 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:48:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be><1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de><47875243.9080306@skynet.be><1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be><001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be><004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be><005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A478D.4040402@skynet.be> <000e01c85646$b4070ec0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <005e01c8564f$8a48efa0$50cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 12:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook > > What Law is violated by giving your explanations to your > opponents in writing, rather than orally? > > Hirsch > +=+ If there is a breach it will be a breach of regulation. +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jan 14 03:23:36 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:23:36 -0600 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <005d01c8564f$8950fb10$50cb403e@Mildred> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be> <005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <478A478D.4040402@skynet.be> <005d01c8564f$8950fb10$50cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801131823k3c9f2c16vb710973b01b464b@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 13, 2008 2:33 PM, wrote: > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Herman De Wael" > >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:48 AM > >> Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies > in lawbook > >> > The choice is not between an illegal and a legal > > action, but between two illegal ones. > > > +=+ The player has no choice. He is told the law and its > effect. A fair case has been made to show that there has > been no recent refreshment of the instructions to players. > I accept that the absence of a recently issued statement > should be remedied. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Will the remedy include instructions for when you are only about 55% sure that you are right as to which case is the actual partnership agreement? (Though seldom mentioned, the dWS looks better and better as that percentage falls.) Also, will it include any hints as to why the instruction is the best choice to improve the game? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 14 03:59:28 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:59:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801131823k3c9f2c16vb710973b01b464b@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >Will the remedy include instructions for when you are >only about 55% sure that you are right as to which case >is the actual partnership agreement? (Though seldom >mentioned, the dWS looks better and better as that >percentage falls.) Richard Hills: Under Law you are required to describe your partnership understanding accurately after an enquiry. If you are 55% confident that your partnership understanding is X, but your actual partnership understanding is the 45% chance of Y, and you explain X, then you have committed misinformation. Or if you explain X or Y, then you have committed misinformation, since the correct answer is Y alone. What you can do is call the Director. This new option appeared in the 2007 Law 20F1: "**Except on the instruction of the Director** replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question." A well-trained Aussie Director will: (a) tell you to move out of earshot, (b) ask your partner to explain your partnership's agreed system meaning for the call, then (c) ask you to return to the table. The above protocol applies only to a partnership understanding that you have _forgotten_. If the situation is different - if you and your partner never had an explicit or implicit partnership understanding in the first place - then the correct response to a question is, "We do not have any partnership understanding," even if the cards in your hand give you a 55% hint. 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 Jan 14 05:05:17 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:05:17 +1100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801122106w6740fc20v36e434802edf7cd7@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: [snip] >Often, a programmer cannot be sure what I wanted from my >specs, so he goes to the paragraphs of theory and >justification to figure out exactly what to do. > >The larger the audience, the greater the payoff of often >explaining *why* rather than limiting yourself a tightly >limited list of *what*. One advantage, just explained, >is to help the reader understand your meaning. [snip] Extracts explaining *why* from the 2007 Law 75: ...South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). (If he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score.)... ...This explanation is an infraction of Law, since East- West are entitled to an accurate description of the North-South agreement (when this infraction results in damage to East-West, the Director shall award an adjusted score)... ...Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands... 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 Jan 14 07:03:21 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:03:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] Rubber Laws? (was ACTION...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3CF9A9C3-C0ED-42F3-8F27-956EBF5E8316@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: ACTION is the name of the Canberra bus system. I believe it is a tortured acronym for: Australian Capital Territory Interurban Omnibus Network Ed Reppert: >the WBF are also responsible to consider changes to >the Rubber Laws as well. Richard Hills: In the past, yes. But the one issue that the WBF Executive over-ruled the Drafting Subcommittee on was on the name of the game. Once the new Lawbook takes effect, the game will no longer be "Duplicate Contract Bridge" but rather "Duplicate Bridge". This cuts a link with rubber bridge, whose formal name is "Contract Bridge". If duplicate and rubber are now two separate games, like Rugby Union and Rugby League, perhaps it is now appropriate for the WBF Laws Committee to assign all its rubber bridge powers to The Portland Club? 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 Jan 14 07:45:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:45:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01c854cd$b1f6f5c0$15e4e140$@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Burn: >I seem to remember suggesting not all that long ago a >useful legal fiction: my partner is assumed to be deaf >and blind to anything I might do other than the >legitimate calls or plays I make. Indeed, it seems to >me that the Laws may function best if this approach is >adopted. [snip] >Moreover, since I am legally deaf and blind to >partner's explanation of 4NT, I do not legally know >that a mistake has been made, so how can I indicate >that it has? [snip] 2007 Law 16B1(a), final phrase: "...the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." Richard Hills: The problem with David Burn's legal fiction is that it is not universally applicable. A call of X that a player would have automatically chosen behind screens - when blind to partner's explanation - may be contrary to Law 16B1(a) when playing without screens. That is, "I was always going to bid X" is an invalid excuse if X was demonstrably suggested and another non- suggested logical alternative of Y exists. Another key Law where a deaf-and-blind legal fiction leads to an awkward problem is the 2007 Law 20F4: "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4." What if it is UI from partner which causes you to subsequently realise that you previously gave MI? Do you consistently remain deaf-and-blind, or do you take note of Law 20F4's words "must" and "immediately"? 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jan 14 08:37:15 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:37:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <53F7B0F6-0657-4D24-903D-872F01FAAF31@rochester.rr.com> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> <2b1e598b0801122024j62e37607oab299e03908c4aa2@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0801122122n1ed3cbd8k1c96f1319445f180@mail.gmail.com> <53F7B0F6-0657-4D24-903D-872F01FAAF31@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On 13/01/2008, Ed Reppert wrote: > This is taking on all the aspects of a budding flame war. I *will > not* play that game. > > On Jan 13, 2008, at 12:22 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > Thanks so much, I will fix it: Oh, come now, Ed. You want players to > > ask questions only when they have good hands, thus giving information > > about their hands to opponents and partner alike? I am interested in > > your answer. > > My answer is no. > > > What you asked was "If EW will always pass, why are they asking > > questions?" Who would ask such as question as yours if he thought it > > was valid to ask questions to try to construction a picture of the > > opponent's hands? I think no one. > > > > Oh, you did not mean it rhetorically? OK, I can take it literally. > > Question: "If EW will always pass, why are they asking questions?" > > Answer: To try to construction a picture of the opponent's hands, and > > to avoid taking an action of asking or not asking that passes > > information (technically not UI to the opponents, I suppose) about > > their hands to anyone at the table. > > If a player is not going to participate in the auction, except to > pass, then he can gather any additional information he needs to > construct a picture of opponents' hands after the auction but before > the opening lead is faced. > > I'm not saying that your points about passing UI by not asking aren't > valid, I'm saying that the argument that a player should ask > questions during the auction in order to gather information he will > only need during the play doesn't hold water. If you don't ask any questions and thus might know nothing about what's going on, you're unprepared for making a lead directing double at some point in the auction. If you ask at the time you might make such a double, the replies might tell you that it's not a good idea to double now (maybe you learn that you'll be on lead and doubling will only benefit the opponents, maybe you learn that they have length in the actual suit and can play there doubled or redoubled). But that doesn't help you at all, since you've given the show away by staying silent until this moment and starting asking at the wrong time. It's by far better to always ask or put in "random" questions, whether you intend to make a bid or not during the auction. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 14 09:12:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:12:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? In-Reply-To: <000001c85641$06547380$12fd5a80$@com> References: <000101c855fa$e0579400$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478A4B59.9090401@skynet.be> <000001c85641$06547380$12fd5a80$@com> Message-ID: <478B1962.5020004@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > Nowhere does it say that - but what is the penalty for MI? Correction if > damage. How can there be damage when the description fits the hand > perfectly? > > [DALB] > > Quite easily. As I understand the matter (though I have not followed the > example too closely) it concerns a situation in which: > > South opens 1C, explained by North as Vienna when it is in fact no such > thing. West passes, and North bids 1NT. This by the actual North-South > agreement shows 6-9 balanced with no major, but a dWS South explains it as > game-forcing (and then passes it). > > As it happens, North-South cannot make more than 1NT due to an unfavourable > lie of cards. But East would have bid 2S over a 6-9 1NT, and that would have > made (or North would have bid on over it and gone minus). Over a > game-forcing 1NT, East was understandably reluctant to enter the auction. > David, you invent a case in which there is indeed damage. However, you should also then include the story from the other side: Sven has the same auction, and he does tell the opponents both systems (as, I repeat, he must); or he simply says the one system but they've been paying attention and ask for the other (as, he insists, is their right/duty). Sven's opponents know that Sven is playing 1NT with 25 points (just like my opponents do, in actual fact), and so they pass. There is only one case in which the opponents will bid 2S: that is if Sven tells them it's 6-9, and he somehow manages to avoid revealing that his partner actually has 13+. Now tell me, David, if you believe that 2S is a good contract in more than a small minority of cases? So yes, in the small minority of cases, I have managed, by my MI, to damage the opponents. I will even accept a score correction, if you insist. But in defence of the DWS I point out that in those minority cases the MS will do equally badly, and that the MS(Sven faction) will do much worse in a bigger majority of cases. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 14 09:15:02 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:15:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478B1A06.8010004@skynet.be> Richard finally sees a bit of sense through the fog: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Steve Willner ("A strory..." thread): > >>> So far, I've seen very little in the way of logical >>> argument against the dWS. > > Richard Hills: > > I have always been willing to admit that Herman uses > impeccable logic which is fully consistent with his > axioms. > Thank you. > But the axioms themselves cannot be logically argued > about, since they are the basis of a logical system, > created by assumption and adhered to by faith. > Indeed they cannot. > For example, Euclid's fifth. Euclid's five axioms > form the basis of theorems defining plane geometry. > But tweak the fifth axiom and you now form the basis > of theorems defining spherical geometry. > only one? I thought there were two alternatives - but I might be wrong there. doesn't matter. > So it is as futile to attempt to use logic alone to > harmonise the differences between the De Wael School > and the Majority School as it would be to use logic > alone to harmonise the differences between plane > geometry and spherical geometry. In both cases a > more fundamental change is needed for harmonisation. > Indeed Richard. Which is why I have always said that both schools produce "acceptable" actions. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 14 09:33:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:33:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478B1E4E.20102@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Jerry Fusselman: > >> Will the remedy include instructions for when you are >> only about 55% sure that you are right as to which case >> is the actual partnership agreement? (Though seldom >> mentioned, the dWS looks better and better as that >> percentage falls.) > > Richard Hills: > > Under Law you are required to describe your partnership > understanding accurately after an enquiry. If you are > 55% confident that your partnership understanding is X, > but your actual partnership understanding is the 45% > chance of Y, and you explain X, then you have committed > misinformation. Or if you explain X or Y, then you have > committed misinformation, since the correct answer is Y > alone. > > What you can do is call the Director. This new option > appeared in the 2007 Law 20F1: > > "**Except on the instruction of the Director** replies > should be given by the partner of the player who made > the call in question." > > A well-trained Aussie Director will: > > (a) tell you to move out of earshot, > (b) ask your partner to explain your partnership's > agreed system meaning for the call, then > (c) ask you to return to the table. > > The above protocol applies only to a partnership > understanding that you have _forgotten_. > > If the situation is different - if you and your > partner never had an explicit or implicit partnership > understanding in the first place - then the correct > response to a question is, "We do not have any > partnership understanding," even if the cards in your > hand give you a 55% hint. > Absolutely correct, Richard! I like the fact that you rule MI even if you say the two options. My option, at the table, is to guess. That way, I have a 45% chance of getting away without UI and MI. I take the 55% chance of MI (I always guess incorrectly, so the 45% chance is probably the right one). But I accept that you prefer to leave the table, thereby reducing the MI chance to 0%, and augmenting the UI chance to 100%. It's not a big UI anyway, since partner only knows you're uncertain, not that you have misinterpreted. The point about not having an understanding is correct as well. You are not required to guess then. Those are totally different situations though, and I don't think they apply here. It's like "do you play diamonds 4 or longer minor" - "we never discussed that, but it really does not matter, does it?". However Richard, Jerry was talking about a very different problem. Imagine you make a call, thinking you are playing system A. your partner explains it as system B. You are in the situation first described above where you are 55% certain A is the true system, and 45% certain that it's B. Now what do you do? A DWS adept has it easy: he explains it as system B, and continues to bid under system A. No problems. This is why I like this approach when explaining it to players. A MS adept has a much harder problem: should he forget about the 45% chance and simply do as if he's certain - thereby giving UI to partner, or should he gamble on the 45% chance, explain as system B, and hope that that turns out to be provable - he then has given no UI, and in 45% of the chance no MI either. Now you might say that the law (or some future regulation) instructs him to follow the MS, and to explain system A. So he does. But the next time he's in the situation, he estimates his chances of being correct at 35%, and partner's chances at 65%. What should he now do? It's a far better gamble now to explain system B. So he does. And then the matter is referred to you as TD. And this is in a future in which the MS has been written into the regulations. And you need to make a ruling. If that ruling is different depending on the percentage of certainty, you can bet that the player will mention a percentage that allows him to say B. So you have written your rule without a percentage, as in "if there is any doubt left in your mind that your partner's explanation is not the right one, then you must explain as system A". But that means all the time! So now you have written into the lawbook that even if explanation B is correct, even if the player knows the system notes are present and will back it up, you still rule that he should reveal the mistake, since nobody is ever 100% certain! And by then, you're in the SF story I told you a few months ago. It's a slippery slope. Let's not start it and allow the DWS approach. Don't go depending your rulings on how certain a player is about what his system really is. By definition, a player cannot be certain of anything - he is, after all, not allowed to check it at the time he needs to make the decision to explain as A or B. > > Best wishes > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 14 10:12:30 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:12:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Rubber Laws? (was ACTION...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000401c8568f$552cca90$fad4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Rubber Laws? (was ACTION...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > > ACTION is the name of the Canberra bus system. I > believe it is a tortured acronym for: > > Australian Capital Territory Interurban Omnibus > Network > > Ed Reppert: > >>the WBF are also responsible to consider changes to >>the Rubber Laws as well. > > Richard Hills: > > In the past, yes. But the one issue that the WBF > Executive over-ruled the Drafting Subcommittee on > was on the name of the game. > > Once the new Lawbook takes effect, the game will no > longer be "Duplicate Contract Bridge" but rather > "Duplicate Bridge". This cuts a link with rubber > bridge, whose formal name is "Contract Bridge". > > If duplicate and rubber are now two separate games, > like Rugby Union and Rugby League, perhaps it is > now appropriate for the WBF Laws Committee to > assign all its rubber bridge powers to The Portland > Club? > +=+ It has been agreed that the Portland Club will lead in discussing the rubber bridge laws with US counterparts. I expect that the WBF will simply accept whatever they agree. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 14 10:25:15 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:25:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] I will end quartered Message-ID: <478B2A7B.4020201@ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, When you, and you alone, start thinking you've made something wrong, it's time to call for help. Furthermore, the present situation very much looks like "if you lie, you'll be quartered ; if you tell the truth, you will be implaed". Ready for a headache ? 1. Our carding agreements against NT, as mentioned on our convention card of course, are that, when partner leads a long suit, partner's first signal will be Smith-like (stating or denying the presence of a yet-unshown useful card in the suit of the lead), if it make at all sense. When he led our suit, however, or when he made a neutral lead (usually easy to see from our "attitude"-type leads), the first priority thereafter is count. Is there anything to disallow this ? Please think of an answer and arguments NOW. 2. This was the bidding friday night : 2D D RD 3C p 3NT 2D was classical Multi. RD meant : "I own my personal long suit ; please bid 2H and I'll place the contract (or possibly bid 3H or 3S freely to suggest game)" (we call this "selfish redouble") Partner led the Jack of Hearts. I played the Queen. Declarer took the Ace. His holding was A7xx. On sight of dummy (1-1-5-6 pattern), it was obvious that our suits were Hearts and Spades. Declarer needed to find a crucial Diamond Queen. The first trick in Hearts was both consistent with a lead from Jx or from KJ10xxx(x). We both knew which it was ; declarer couldn't. By now, blml addicts will have realized, as I did, that we would be using encryped sugnalling ! . 3. So I asked myself whether we should switch off the distinction made in 1) above in cases where it would give us said advantage. But it has been said before that you aren't allowed to change your agreements based on your holding (only on circumstances known of everyone and on general bridge logic). So we appear to be in a situation of the kind Herman likes commenting on, one where the only thing that would save us is to say "I'll end quartered". Please heeelp ! Alain From emu at fwi.net.au Mon Jan 14 10:36:13 2008 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:36:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 In-Reply-To: <000601c8560e$2be88a10$03ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c85690$e76e8b40$0201a8c0@DESKTOP> > > The WBFLC could adopt "no reason" as < +=+ Others hereabouts choose to discuss the reasons for the laws. Post production I do not regard that as a primary concern for me. I direct my attention chiefly to the intention of the laws and to the manner in which the laws are to be interpreted. In this I can turn to intra-DSC discussion and to WBFLC pronouncements for insight, but in the case in question I have no guidance from these sources. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Re:the previous email, and this one, and with all due respect for the committee who did a long, difficult and ultimately fairly successful job, this is unfortunately the 'all care and no responsibility' defence. Why didn't someone - anyone! - raise it? Surely it was something that warranted some - any! - discussion? What else was missed in other laws I wonder? regards, Noel _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 14 10:39:38 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:39:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? References: <000101c855fa$e0579400$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><478A4B59.9090401@skynet.be> <000001c85641$06547380$12fd5a80$@com> Message-ID: <012e01c85691$6190b7e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > [DALB] > > I seem to recall a case involving (I think) Garozzo, who was told that his > LHO had five hearts when the partnership agreement was that LHO's bidding > only showed four hearts. The explanation was not corrected by LHO because > she (I think it was Karen McCallum) actually had five hearts. Garozzo did > not lead a heart against the final contract because of the explanation - > but > a heart lead would have worked better than his actual choice. The score > was > adjusted, and rightly so. Maybe Adam knows more about this than I can > remember; it may have happened in an ACBL event. > Actually, in the case you are recalling the explanation WAS corrected, but LHO's hand happened to match the erroneous explanation (which was a subset of the true agreement). I believe that it is true that the score was adjusted, and there is nothing at all right about it. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 14 10:46:48 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:46:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be> <005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A478D.4040402@skynet.be> <005d01c8564f$8950fb10$50cb403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801131823k3c9f2c16vb710973b01b464b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001801c85692$664ebfb0$fad4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 2:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook > On Jan 13, 2008 2:33 PM, wrote: >> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> >> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:48 AM >> >> Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies >> in lawbook >> >> >> The choice is not between an illegal and a legal >> > action, but between two illegal ones. >> > >> +=+ The player has no choice. He is told the law and its >> effect. A fair case has been made to show that there has >> been no recent refreshment of the instructions to players. >> I accept that the absence of a recently issued statement >> should be remedied. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Will the remedy include instructions for when you are only > about 55% sure that you are right as to which case is the > actual partnership agreement? (Though seldom mentioned, > the dWS looks better and better as that percentage falls.) > > Also, will it include any hints as to why the instruction is > the best choice to improve the game? > > Jerry Fusselman > +=+ I cannot say. Material has been circulated and opinions have been canvassed. A section of the dialogue has been copied. I await a consensus on what should be said. My gut feeling is that there will be those who wish, understandably, to shorten the amount of text involved. As to situations of uncertainty, inevitably it will devolve upon the Director in charge that day to resolve the question. He may well have guidance from the RA. ~ Grattan ~ +=+. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Jan 14 10:54:39 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:54:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] I will end quartered In-Reply-To: <478B2A7B.4020201@ulb.ac.be> References: <478B2A7B.4020201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <478B315F.5030508@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Dear blmlists, > > When you, and you alone, start thinking you've made something wrong, > it's time to call for help. > Furthermore, the present situation very much looks like "if you lie, > you'll be quartered ; if you tell the truth, you will be implaed". > Ready for a headache ? > > > 1. Our carding agreements against NT, as mentioned on our convention > card of course, are that, when partner leads a long suit, partner's > first signal will be Smith-like (stating or denying the presence of a > yet-unshown useful card in the suit of the lead), if it make at all > sense. When he led our suit, however, or when he made a neutral lead > (usually easy to see from our "attitude"-type leads), the first priority > thereafter is count. > > Is there anything to disallow this ? Please think of an answer and > arguments NOW. > > > 2. This was the bidding friday night : > > > 2D D RD 3C > p 3NT > > 2D was classical Multi. > RD meant : "I own my personal long suit ; please bid 2H and I'll place > the contract (or possibly bid 3H or 3S freely to suggest game)" > (we call this "selfish redouble") > > Partner led the Jack of Hearts. I played the Queen. Declarer took the > Ace. His holding was A7xx. > On sight of dummy (1-1-5-6 pattern), it was obvious that our suits were > Hearts and Spades. > Declarer needed to find a crucial Diamond Queen. > The first trick in Hearts was both consistent with a lead from Jx or > from KJ10xxx(x). > We both knew which it was ; declarer couldn't. > > By now, blml addicts will have realized, as I did, that we would be > using encryped sugnalling ! > > . > 3. So I asked myself whether we should switch off the distinction made > in 1) above in cases where it would give us said advantage. > But it has been said before that you aren't allowed to change your > agreements based on your holding (only on circumstances known of > everyone and on general bridge logic). > > So we appear to be in a situation of the kind Herman likes commenting > on, one where the only thing that would save us is to say "I'll end > quartered". > > Please heeelp ! sorry, i can't. you will be hung tomorrow at dawn. i have long ago thought that regulations about improperly named "encrypted signals" (conditional signals as i see it) are ill advised and unworkable. it's the same thing when you compel defenders to signal count in a suit where declarer shows out, or when you declare 30-41 blackwood to be an encrypted convention. jpr > > Alain -- _______________________________________________ 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 daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 14 11:02:15 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:02:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <014601c85694$8aa6e0c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> RH: > So it is as futile to attempt to use logic alone to > harmonise the differences between the De Wael School > and the Majority School as it would be to use logic > alone to harmonise the differences between plane > geometry and spherical geometry. In both cases a > more fundamental change is needed for harmonisation. Well, there is the small matter of the Laws. But suppose the dWS were in the same category of legality as proper procedure; Herman claims this, and indeed could not justify his practice if he claimed otherwise. In that case, one can look at the motivation. The dWS's raison d'etre is to protect the offenders -- to prevent the transmission of UI so that the offenders will not be in as awkward a position after a misunderstanding as they would be if they told their true agreements. The offenders will likely be able to obtain a better score than they otherwise would. This fact, if nothing else, should serve as an indictment of the dWS, because its purpose is clearly against the spirit of the laws. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 14 11:36:27 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:36:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <014601c85694$8aa6e0c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <014601c85694$8aa6e0c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <478B3B2B.5080900@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > RH: >> So it is as futile to attempt to use logic alone to >> harmonise the differences between the De Wael School >> and the Majority School as it would be to use logic >> alone to harmonise the differences between plane >> geometry and spherical geometry. In both cases a >> more fundamental change is needed for harmonisation. > > Well, there is the small matter of the Laws. But suppose the dWS were in the > same category of legality as proper procedure; Herman claims this, and > indeed could not justify his practice if he claimed otherwise. In that case, > one can look at the motivation. > > The dWS's raison d'etre is to protect the offenders -- to prevent the > transmission of UI so that the offenders will not be in as awkward a > position after a misunderstanding as they would be if they told their true > agreements. The offenders will likely be able to obtain a better score than > they otherwise would. > > This fact, if nothing else, should serve as an indictment of the dWS, > because its purpose is clearly against the spirit of the laws. > What is so clear about that? You say we "protect the offenders". What's so wrong with that? If I bid out of turn, and now I have to make a final call, and I gamble 3NT, that too is an action with which I believe I protect my intrests. Is it barred because of that? OK, we are offenders - my partner has (possibly) given MI. But why should I now be barred from taking my best action? And if your answer to that one is that I break a law in turn, my response will still be that I must break one law or another. I know that you don't believe this, and I grant you that doubt, but your current argument is only valid if the other, basic one (the fact that the MS would not be breaking any laws), is true. So we're still at the same problem, your current argument brings nothing new to it. Since I believe my actions are acceptable, they must be acceptable regardless of whether they are better for my side or not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 14 12:09:40 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:09:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478B3B2B.5080900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c8569d$f5cd3620$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................ > Since I believe my actions are acceptable, they must be acceptable This must be the most fantastic logical reasoning of the century! > regardless of whether they are better for my side or not. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 14 12:06:54 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:06:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 References: <000001c85690$e76e8b40$0201a8c0@DESKTOP> Message-ID: <000901c8569d$a9c1be40$a5c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 > > >> >> The WBFLC could adopt "no reason" as > > < > +=+ Others hereabouts choose to discuss the > reasons for the laws. Post production I do not > regard that as a primary concern for me. I direct > my attention chiefly to the intention of the laws > and to the manner in which the laws are to be > interpreted. In this I can turn to intra-DSC > discussion and to WBFLC pronouncements > for insight, but in the case in question I have no > guidance from these sources. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Re:the previous email, and this one, and with all due respect for the > committee who did a long, difficult and ultimately fairly successful job, > this is unfortunately the 'all care and no responsibility' defence. > > Why didn't someone - anyone! - raise it? Surely it was something that > warranted some - any! - discussion? > > What else was missed in other laws I wonder? > > regards, > Noel > +=+ I have hunted back through the history. When we were examining the possibility of allowing a bid with a 'similar' meaning to the withdrawn IB, and then thinking of a 'call' rather than a bid, the question of a redouble was raised on one occasion. There was no immediate response. Then the discussion was entirely overtaken by the widespread anxiety of NBOs over the interpretation of 'similar'. The solution was found in meetings in Shanghai. The question of a redouble did not re-emerge and the agreed text did not include it. As to 'what else?', time will show, but we hope to have included sufficient scope in the provisions for regulation to deal with the inventions of players to come. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 14 12:13:47 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:13:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <014601c85694$8aa6e0c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <001c01c8569e$8f9de3d0$a5c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > RH: >> So it is as futile to attempt to use logic alone to >> harmonise the differences between the De Wael School >> and the Majority School as it would be to use logic >> alone to harmonise the differences between plane >> geometry and spherical geometry. In both cases a >> more fundamental change is needed for harmonisation. > > Well, there is the small matter of the Laws. But suppose the dWS were in > the > same category of legality as proper procedure; Herman claims this, and > indeed could not justify his practice if he claimed otherwise. In that > case, > one can look at the motivation. > > The dWS's raison d'etre is to protect the offenders -- to prevent the > transmission of UI so that the offenders will not be in as awkward a > position after a misunderstanding as they would be if they told their true > agreements. The offenders will likely be able to obtain a better score > than > they otherwise would. > > This fact, if nothing else, should serve as an indictment of the dWS, > because its purpose is clearly against the spirit of the laws. > +=+ As I said before, if partner has given a mistaken explanation - an infraction, see Law 75B - as they believe, Herman and friends have opted not merely to avoid drawing attention to partner's wrong explanation, but also to act positively to conceal that infraction, contrary to Law 72B3. Apparently they fail to recognize that in doing so they can be accused of acting to gain an advantage from the UI conveyed by partner's mistaken explanation (see Law 73C). Not merely the spirit of the laws in my opinion. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 14 12:29:06 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:29:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c8569d$f5cd3620$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000701c8569d$f5cd3620$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <478B4782.6060806@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> > ................ > >> Since I believe my actions are acceptable, they must be acceptable >> > > This must be the most fantastic logical reasoning of the century! > > >> regardless of whether they are better for my side or not. >> > > I'm sorry, Sven, but by cutting Herman's sentence, you altered its meaning to such an extent that it was easy to make it look ridiculous. *This* is the kind of "reasoning" I don't like at all. If there is a Social Science specialist on blml, he'll be able to tell, better than I am, that / When people think that something is a fact about human activities, this thinking itself becomes a fact about human activities, and this very fact compels us to consider thuir opinion and ensuing acts, be they right or wrong. / Herman's (full) sentence looks to me like a mere rephrasing of this self-evident statement, and one should have it in for him to great extent to disagree. Regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 14 12:51:55 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:51:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 In-Reply-To: <000901c8569d$a9c1be40$a5c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000d01c856a3$dc80b6a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk ............ > +=+ I have hunted back through the history. When we were > examining the possibility of allowing a bid with a 'similar' > meaning to the withdrawn IB, and then thinking of a 'call' > rather than a bid, the question of a redouble was raised on > one occasion. There was no immediate response. Then the > discussion was entirely overtaken by the widespread anxiety > of NBOs over the interpretation of 'similar'. The solution was > found in meetings in Shanghai. The question of a redouble > did not re-emerge and the agreed text did not include it. > As to 'what else?', time will show, but we hope to have > included sufficient scope in the provisions for regulation to > deal with the inventions of players to come. > ~ G ~ +=+ I raised the question of the "missing" redouble in Law 27C1 with my NBO when we prepared for translations. But unlike a "double" we were completely unable to find any insufficient bid situations where a "redouble" as a replacement call could satisfy the requirement that it must incorporate the information contained in the insufficient bid. Consequently we were comfortable with the new Law 27C1 as it is. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 14 13:25:56 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:25:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 In-Reply-To: <000d01c856a3$dc80b6a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000d01c856a3$dc80b6a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <478B54D4.2090505@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > > > I raised the question of the "missing" redouble in Law 27C1 with my NBO when > we prepared for translations. > > But unlike a "double" we were completely unable to find any insufficient bid > situations where a "redouble" as a replacement call could satisfy the > requirement that it must incorporate the information contained in the > insufficient bid. > > AG : I can offer one, at least, and a genuine one, albeit a bit old : 1NT X 1D 1NT = 12-14. Responder saw 1C X and acted accordingly, showing a weak to limited hand and 4+ diamonds. In our system, a redouble of 1NT is an escape showing 4+ diamonds and a 4-card major. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 14 13:29:37 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:29:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478B4782.6060806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001101c856a9$213ce5c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sven Pran a ?crit : > >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >> > > ................ > > > >> Since I believe my actions are acceptable, they must be acceptable > >> > > > > This must be the most fantastic logical reasoning of the century! > > > > > >> regardless of whether they are better for my side or not. > >> > > > > > I'm sorry, Sven, but by cutting Herman's sentence, you altered its > meaning to such an extent that it was easy to make it look ridiculous. > *This* is the kind of "reasoning" I don't like at all. My reason for inserting my comment where I did was to emphasize the logical reasoning: "Because I believe something is true it must be true" The continuation which begins with the words "regardless of ..." doesn't change this logical statement at all. It still expresses the same cause and the same consequence, but to claim that the consequence follows from the given cause in this case????? > Herman's (full) sentence looks to me like a mere rephrasing of this > self-evident statement, and one should have it in for him to great > extent to disagree. By similar logic I could state that "because I believe my cheating is acceptable, it must be acceptable". Mathematics, including logic is a very precise science. Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 14 13:53:07 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:53:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101c856a9$213ce5c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <001101c856a9$213ce5c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <478B5B33.7010003@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> . >> > > My reason for inserting my comment where I did was to emphasize the logical > reasoning: "Because I believe something is true it must be true" > > Once again you're caught transforming statements. Surely "acceptable" isn't the same as "true". What people consider worth considering should be considered. Who said "true" ? > > Mathematics, including logic is a very precise science. > > And a mathematician tells you that, by considering "acceptable" to be a logical value, you're committing an absurdity. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 14 15:12:29 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:12:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001c01c8569e$8f9de3d0$a5c8403e@Mildred> References: <014601c85694$8aa6e0c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <001c01c8569e$8f9de3d0$a5c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <478B6DCD.2050709@skynet.be> I would like to do now what Sven did to me: cut a sentence in half and comment on the first half. I apologize immediately, but you'll see what I mean: gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> > +=+ As I said before, if partner has given a mistaken explanation > - an infraction, see Law 75B - as they believe, Herman and friends > have opted not merely to avoid drawing attention to partner's wrong > explanation, but also to act positively to conceal that infraction, in accordance with L20F5. > contrary to Law 72B3. Apparently they fail to recognize that in doing so > they can be accused of acting to gain an advantage from the UI > conveyed by partner's mistaken explanation (see Law 73C). > Not merely the spirit of the laws in my opinion. > ~ G ~ +=+ > I have left in Grattan's original of course. Please real L20F5 again: it compels people to "avoid drawing attention to partner's wrong explanation" and it states one should not indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. That last bit sounds very much (to me) like "act positively to conceal that infraction". Please tell me Grattan, how else I am going to follow L20F5. Yes, you've told me already that you are not breaking L20F5. I have not agreed with that conclusion. That leaves your argument lacking in foundation. We are still on square one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jan 14 15:14:26 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:14:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> <2b1e598b0801122024j62e37607oab299e03908c4aa2@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0801122122n1ed3cbd8k1c96f1319445f180@mail.gmail.com> <53F7B0F6-0657-4D24-903D-872F01FAAF31@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <478B6E42.8040604@ntlworld.com> [Hatald Skj??ran] It's by far better to always ask or put in "random" questions, whether you intend to make a bid or not during the auction. [nige1] NB. Please assume, for the rest of this post, that you can't easily find the meaning of opponent's alerted call on his system-card. EBU regulations insist that you ask only when you are currently contemplating a call. This seems to force you to break the law. Unnecessary unauthorised information seems inevitable: both when you ask and when you don't. Harald's "Random" questions also seem a flawed solution -- unless, you are a masochist who refrains from asking on randomly selected occasions when you *do* need to know the answer. The sensible solutions are: [A] Always ask immediately *or* [B] Always delay your questions to the end of the auction. However, with solution [A], drastic simplification is possible. Why not dispense with alerts and questions which just waste time? As soon as partner makes an alertable call, just *announce* its meaning, unprompted. Also, a simple refinement produces the effect of option [B] but eliminates even more time-wasting and unauthorised information. You should be able to *switch off* opponents' announcements. Thus, the auction proceeds smoothly, without alerts and explanations from opponents. At the end of the auction, you can still ask the meaning of opponents calls. As far as I remember, the only other BLMLer showing the least enthusiasm for the above recommendation is Grattan Endicott; but even he balked at the following suggestion... IMO this default protocol should be the official recommendation in the law-book. It would be quite understandable if some jurisdictions elected to keep their current regulations because of fear of annoying local players by depriving them of unauthorised information on which they have come to depend. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Jan 14 15:20:37 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:20:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] I will end quartered In-Reply-To: <478B2A7B.4020201@ulb.ac.be> References: <478B2A7B.4020201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <478B6FB5.8060808@t-online.de> Hello Alain, This is a somewhat quick reply, so I could be persuaded to change my opinion if someone convinces me that I am wrong. I see one quite fundamental difference between between encrypted signals and your methods. With encrypted signals as I know them (is there a clear definition somewhere?), thr trigger is something of which the defenders can be 100% sure, and which declarer can never read (except when one declarer shows out, too). In your methods declarer may occasionally know more than you do (even if it is unlikely, especially in the example you gave). Still, there is always the risk of declarer reading your card better than your partner does. Let us say you that you give a Smith signal with the 5, declarer holding 432 in the closed hand. So declarer can read your signal perfectly, while your partner may well have some difficulties. He is not going to tell you,is he? Or your partner may hold 432. He is not going to tell declarer, either. Your method is not designed to conceal something from declarer, so I see nothing illegal here. Best regards Matthias Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > Dear blmlists, > > When you, and you alone, start thinking you've made something wrong, > it's time to call for help. > Furthermore, the present situation very much looks like "if you lie, > you'll be quartered ; if you tell the truth, you will be implaed". > Ready for a headache ? > > > 1. Our carding agreements against NT, as mentioned on our convention > card of course, are that, when partner leads a long suit, partner's > first signal will be Smith-like (stating or denying the presence of a > yet-unshown useful card in the suit of the lead), if it make at all > sense. When he led our suit, however, or when he made a neutral lead > (usually easy to see from our "attitude"-type leads), the first priority > thereafter is count. > > Is there anything to disallow this ? Please think of an answer and > arguments NOW. > > > 2. This was the bidding friday night : > > > 2D D RD 3C > p 3NT > > 2D was classical Multi. > RD meant : "I own my personal long suit ; please bid 2H and I'll place > the contract (or possibly bid 3H or 3S freely to suggest game)" > (we call this "selfish redouble") > > Partner led the Jack of Hearts. I played the Queen. Declarer took the > Ace. His holding was A7xx. > On sight of dummy (1-1-5-6 pattern), it was obvious that our suits were > Hearts and Spades. > Declarer needed to find a crucial Diamond Queen. > The first trick in Hearts was both consistent with a lead from Jx or > from KJ10xxx(x). > We both knew which it was ; declarer couldn't. > > By now, blml addicts will have realized, as I did, that we would be > using encryped sugnalling ! > > . > 3. So I asked myself whether we should switch off the distinction made > in 1) above in cases where it would give us said advantage. > But it has been said before that you aren't allowed to change your > agreements based on your holding (only on circumstances known of > everyone and on general bridge logic). > > So we appear to be in a situation of the kind Herman likes commenting > on, one where the only thing that would save us is to say "I'll end > quartered". > > Please heeelp ! > > Alain > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 14 15:30:12 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:30:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478B5B33.7010003@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001201c856b9$f99acf30$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ................. > > My reason for inserting my comment where I did was to emphasize the > logical > > reasoning: "Because I believe something is true it must be true" > > > > > Once again you're caught transforming statements. Surely "acceptable" > isn't the same as "true". > > What people consider worth considering should be considered. Who said > "true" ? > > > > Mathematics, including logic is a very precise science. > > > > > And a mathematician tells you that, by considering "acceptable" to be a > logical value, you're committing an absurdity. "Acceptable" is not a logical value but "action is acceptable" is. So the logical statement presented by Herman is actually: "Because I believe 'true' then 'true'". If I should characterize this statement then I would say it demonstrates divine self confidence. I didn't expect it necessary to dot the i's for you? From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 14 16:10:06 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:10:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001201c856b9$f99acf30$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <001201c856b9$f99acf30$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <478B7B4E.6090602@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > > > "Acceptable" is not a logical value but "action is acceptable" is. > > Nope. Statements and predicates aren't logical values. > So the logical statement presented by Herman is actually: > > "Because I believe 'true' then 'true'". > And "I believe 'true' " isn't in any way near a predicate-logical statement. "I believe this is true" would be, but Herman didn't say "I believe it's true", rather "I believe it's acceptable", which can't be handled by classical logic. It vould need what Dubucq and others call "epistemic logic". Once again, since I'm taking "acceptable" as meaning, not "true", but "worth serious consideration", it creates its own "considerability". But I'd need a Sociologist to cross those t's. I'm only a mathematician. From mustikka at charter.net Mon Jan 14 16:30:29 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 07:30:29 -0800 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be> <005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A478D.4040402@skynet.be> <005d01c8564f$8950fb10$50cb403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801131823k3c9f2c16vb710973b01b464b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001001c856c2$658442f0$62025e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 6:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook > On Jan 13, 2008 2:33 PM, wrote: >> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> >> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:48 AM >> >> Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies >> in lawbook >> >> >> The choice is not between an illegal and a legal >> > action, but between two illegal ones. >> > >> +=+ The player has no choice. He is told the law and its >> effect. A fair case has been made to show that there has >> been no recent refreshment of the instructions to players. >> I accept that the absence of a recently issued statement >> should be remedied. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Will the remedy include instructions for when you are only about 55% > sure that you are right as to which case is the actual partnership > agreement? (Though seldom mentioned, the dWS looks better and better > as that percentage falls.) > > Also, will it include any hints as to why the instruction is the best > choice to improve the game? > > Jerry Fusselman > I think "to improve the game" is not the point at all. My understanding is that the whole issue in this thread and in the zillion earlier occurrences of similar threads in the past has been "what the Law says". "To improve the game" is a many-faceted and large goal and subject to personal, regional, cultural etc. differences while "what the Law says" is - or at least it should should be - very clear and unambiguous. Raija From tsvecfob at iol.ie Mon Jan 14 16:32:01 2008 From: tsvecfob at iol.ie (Fearghal O'Boyle) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:32:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> <00bf01c852ef$cadd20d0$3bcf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <004501c856c2$9bf63ff0$a80a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> Hi Grattan, I do not like the 7S success either but do you really think 7S is a logical alternative simply because the player himself chose it? Are you happy that 7S falls within the definition of LA? Regards, Fearghal. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] LA > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************** > "In nature there are neither > rewards nor punishments - > there are consequences. > [R.G.Ingersoll] > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:16 PM > Subject: [blml] LA > > >> >> Has he chosen from among logical alternatives one that >> could have been suggested by the UI? > < > +=+ Hold on. This is the wrong question. The law say "the > partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one > that could demonstrably have been suggested over another > by the extraneous information." > So the questions are > Is 7S a logical alternative? > If 'yes', is there another logical alternative that is less > suggested than the call chosen? > If 'yes', has the infraction of law resulted in an advantage > for the offender? > Now, like ton, I think the only material consideration here lies > in the first question. The answers to the others are undoubtedly > affirmative - 'lucky' is immaterial in the last case, the question is > about the result obtained. However, I cannot dismiss the first > question lightly. We have to look at the definition of 'logical > alternative' in Law 16B1(b). Does the choice of the bid not > indicate that the player himself deemed it a logical alternative? > If so, it would seem that 'class of player in question' is defined > as a player who would consider it a logical alternative; it is in > no way relevant that in the abstract one does not see a > relationship between the information and the bid, the matter to > be judged is whether the class of player might consider it a > logical alternative and whether, for whatever reason, it is more > suggested than another. Could we argue, for example, that if > 4S is the optimum contract, on balance over an infinite number > of occasions 7S would offer better odds than Pass - or this > might at least be the player's perception? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 14 16:42:31 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:42:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rubber Laws? (was ACTION...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c8568f$552cca90$fad4403e@Mildred> References: <000401c8568f$552cca90$fad4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <31E9787A-19A9-46B7-B28F-653BD8CB5536@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 14, 2008, at 4:12 AM, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Richard Hills: >> Ed Reppert: >> >>> the WBF are also responsible to consider changes to >>> the Rubber Laws as well. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> In the past, yes. But the one issue that the WBF >> Executive over-ruled the Drafting Subcommittee on >> was on the name of the game. >> >> Once the new Lawbook takes effect, the game will no >> longer be "Duplicate Contract Bridge" but rather >> "Duplicate Bridge". This cuts a link with rubber >> bridge, whose formal name is "Contract Bridge". >> >> If duplicate and rubber are now two separate games, >> like Rugby Union and Rugby League, perhaps it is >> now appropriate for the WBF Laws Committee to >> assign all its rubber bridge powers to The Portland >> Club? >> > +=+ It has been agreed that the Portland Club will lead > in discussing the rubber bridge laws with US counterparts. > I expect that the WBF will simply accept whatever they > agree. ~ G ~ +=+ I see. For some reason I had it in my head that the change in name was due to the assumption that auction bridge is rarely played any more, which led me to believe that the fact there has been no change in the name of the Rubber version of the game was simply due to the fact the WBF hadn't got 'round to it yet. Apparently I was mistaken. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 14 16:44:28 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:44:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <001001c856c2$658442f0$62025e47@DFYXB361> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be> <005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A478D.4040402@skynet.be> <005d01c8564f$8950fb10$50cb403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801131823k3c9f2c16vb710973b01b464b@mail.gmail.com> <001001c856c2$658442f0$62025e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <478B835C.30108@ulb.ac.be> raija a ?crit : > > I think "to improve the game" is not the point at all. My understanding is > that the whole issue in this thread and in the zillion earlier occurrences > of similar threads in the past has been "what the Law says". > > "To improve the game" is a many-faceted and large goal and subject to > personal, regional, cultural etc. differences while "what the Law says" is - > or at least it should should be - very clear and unambiguous. > > AG : granted, but improving the laws is part of improving the game, and pointing at deficient laws until the problems they cause are solved, insisting when needed, is the best way to help improve them. and being subject for several interpretations is a deficiency in itself. Surely nobody would disagree that we disagree ? Best regards Alain From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 14 16:55:32 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:55:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <478B6E42.8040604@ntlworld.com> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> <2b1e598b0801122024j62e37607oab299e03908c4aa2@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0801122122n1ed3cbd8k1c96f1319445f180@mail.gmail.com> <53F7B0F6-0657-4D24-903D-872F01FAAF31@rochester.rr.com> <478B6E42.8040604@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <8BCE7371-92DB-432B-96C2-F45575FD2ADB@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 14, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Guthrie wrote: > You > should be able to *switch off* opponents' announcements. Thus, the > auction proceeds smoothly, without alerts and explanations from > opponents. At the end of the auction, you can still ask the meaning of > opponents calls. Off the top of my head, I wonder how you know in advance that you want to do that. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 14 16:57:54 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:57:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] I will end quartered In-Reply-To: <478B2A7B.4020201@ulb.ac.be> References: <478B2A7B.4020201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <478B8682.8070808@skynet.be> My answer to Alain would be: If this is forbidden, then so are a number of other carding methods, probably all - because you are always trying to help partner and confuse declarer. There is not a clear definition of encrypted signals but I don't think you've crossed it with this example. Rather, it's a consequence from your encrypted bidding. Your partner has never told you which major he has, due to the intervention, and he's hoping you can work it out from your hand. If you need a distinction: an encrypted signal begins "if I/he has this, then the signal is ...", whereas your story begins "in my suit, he gives ..., and in his suit, he gives .... I'm sorry if I can't tell you which suit he has. Your guess is as good as mine (or not as good, but that's your problem)". Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > When you, and you alone, start thinking you've made something wrong, > it's time to call for help. > Furthermore, the present situation very much looks like "if you lie, > you'll be quartered ; if you tell the truth, you will be implaed". > Ready for a headache ? > > > 1. Our carding agreements against NT, as mentioned on our convention > card of course, are that, when partner leads a long suit, partner's > first signal will be Smith-like (stating or denying the presence of a > yet-unshown useful card in the suit of the lead), if it make at all > sense. When he led our suit, however, or when he made a neutral lead > (usually easy to see from our "attitude"-type leads), the first priority > thereafter is count. > > Is there anything to disallow this ? Please think of an answer and > arguments NOW. > > > 2. This was the bidding friday night : > > > 2D D RD 3C > p 3NT > > 2D was classical Multi. > RD meant : "I own my personal long suit ; please bid 2H and I'll place > the contract (or possibly bid 3H or 3S freely to suggest game)" > (we call this "selfish redouble") > > Partner led the Jack of Hearts. I played the Queen. Declarer took the > Ace. His holding was A7xx. > On sight of dummy (1-1-5-6 pattern), it was obvious that our suits were > Hearts and Spades. > Declarer needed to find a crucial Diamond Queen. > The first trick in Hearts was both consistent with a lead from Jx or > from KJ10xxx(x). > We both knew which it was ; declarer couldn't. > > By now, blml addicts will have realized, as I did, that we would be > using encryped sugnalling ! > > . > 3. So I asked myself whether we should switch off the distinction made > in 1) above in cases where it would give us said advantage. > But it has been said before that you aren't allowed to change your > agreements based on your holding (only on circumstances known of > everyone and on general bridge logic). > > So we appear to be in a situation of the kind Herman likes commenting > on, one where the only thing that would save us is to say "I'll end > quartered". > > Please heeelp ! > > Alain > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 14 17:08:33 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:08:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> <000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jan 13, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Hirsch Davis wrote: >> >> I'll reiterate the proposition I've been asking Herman about. If >> N-S write >> out their explanations and show them only to opponents, instead of >> giving >> them orally, there is no UI at all, and neither player is >> constrained by E-W >> questions. Simple procedure, actually, and any pair can do it >> right now. >> IMO anyone who would consider violating the disclosure Laws should be >> considering alternatives to dWs that would address UI issues without >> violating any Laws at all. Full and complete disclosure does not >> have to be >> spoken. >> > Hirsh, asked and answered twice already - if you want to change the > conditions, there is no need to invent a third form, just use screens. > Meanwhile, lots of bridge will be left being played without screens > (or without your notepads) and it is for those tables that the > question remains. As Herman says, one way to end the dispute over the DWS would be to play all duplicate bridge with screens. That would eliminate the justification for the DWS practice, as one could answer questions as prescribed by L75 with no risk of passing UI to partner. Indeed, DWS users do not, Herman assures us, "do their thing" when playing with screens. But that means that in otherwise identical situations (hand, auction, table action, etc.) the DWS adherent may offer two entirely different explanations of his partner's call depending solely on whether or not there is a screen across the table. In contrast, there are numerous other contexts in which we determine the correctness of a player's actions at an unscreened table by asking what would happen were screens in use. I suspect this is one of the reasons the DWS "just doesn't feel right" to so many of us. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Jan 14 17:07:33 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:07:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478B6DCD.2050709@skynet.be> References: <014601c85694$8aa6e0c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <001c01c8569e$8f9de3d0$a5c8403e@Mildred> <478B6DCD.2050709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <478B88C5.9070600@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > > Please real L20F5 again: it compels people to "avoid drawing attention > to partner's wrong explanation" and it states one should not indicate > in any manner that a mistake has been made. That last bit sounds very > much (to me) like "act positively to conceal that infraction". > > Please tell me Grattan, how else I am going to follow L20F5. > He has already told you. Several times. Let me paraphrase it (again): accept that you follow L20F5 by explaining your system and by letting opps draw their own conclusion, thereby giving UI, but not doing so by design, but rather by necessity to comply with the rules. > Yes, you've told me already that you are not breaking L20F5. I have > not agreed with that conclusion. That leaves your argument lacking in > foundation. Now this is a good one. An argument lacks a foundation because you do not agree with it? Not that Grattan has (IMO) made any argument, he stated how certain laws are to be read (being, as I mentioned a couple of times, member of the body that actually made those laws). But leaving that aside: how can agreement (or non-agreement, for that matter) with an argument have anything to do with its foundation? > We are still on square one. > > From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 14 17:12:03 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:12:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478B5B33.7010003@ulb.ac.be> References: <001101c856a9$213ce5c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478B5B33.7010003@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <13F3347A-5CBF-41B8-84C8-650D6E4F13BB@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 14, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > What people consider worth considering should be considered. Should it? And even if it does, it does not follow that anyone should agree with it. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 14 17:20:30 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:20:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] I will end quartered In-Reply-To: <478B8682.8070808@skynet.be> References: <478B2A7B.4020201@ulb.ac.be> <478B8682.8070808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <478B8BCE.4080905@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > If you need a distinction: an encrypted signal begins "if I/he has > this, then the signal is ...", whereas your story begins "in my suit, > he gives ..., and in his suit, he gives .... I'm sorry if I can't tell > you which suit he has. Your guess is as good as mine (or not as good, > but that's your problem)". > > It that case, there would exist one more problem, because there are ways to describe signalling methods that produce the same results as encrypted signals, without resorting to conditional forms. Example : spades being the anchor suit for encrypted signalling : "we show the number of black cards according to classical count principles" is the same as an encrypted signal about clubs. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 14 17:25:59 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:25:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> <000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <478B8D17.4030703@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > But that means that in otherwise identical situations (hand, auction, > table action, etc.) the DWS adherent may offer two entirely different > explanations of his partner's call depending solely on whether or not > there is a screen across the table. WTP ? Alert rules aren't 100% the same with and without screens, and precisely for UI reasons. (In Belgium, we don't alert doubles and redoubles without screens, but revert to "alert when unexpected" with screens) > In contrast, there are numerous > other contexts in which we determine the correctness of a player's > actions at an unscreened table by asking what would happen were > screens in use. I suspect this is one of the reasons the DWS "just > doesn't feel right" to so many of us. > > But there you're right. Not alerting any doubles doesn't feel right either. It allows players to devise strange doubles in basic situations, for the sake of duping opponents rather than because they think it's an efficient convention. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 14 17:44:52 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:44:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? In-Reply-To: <478A4B59.9090401@skynet.be> References: <000101c855fa$e0579400$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478A4B59.9090401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <9AE806D2-784D-4B56-85B6-1F585A01FB1B@starpower.net> On Jan 13, 2008, at 12:33 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Godverdomme Jongen Astemblieft! > > Nowhere does it say that - but what is the penalty for MI? Correction > if damage. How can there be damage when the description fits the hand > perfectly? But which hand? In Herman's favorite example, where he bids 4NT asking for a minor-suit preference and pard describes his call as Blackwood, his DWS explanation will indeed fit his partner's hand perfectly. But it will simultaneouly completely misdescribe his *own* hand to the opponents, as one suitable for bidding Blackwood when in fact it is no such thing. In this case, the non-DWS explanation would, indeed, let the opponents know that there is a bidding misunderstanding in progress, but will give them correct information about both hands. They will know that Herman holds a hand suitable for eliciting a minor-suit preference, and that his partner has one ace. Only then can we properly ask, "How can there be damage when the description*s* reveal the hand*s* perfectly?" Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 14 17:46:13 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:46:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478B7B4E.6090602@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000701c856cc$f995f290$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ................. > I'm only a mathematician. OK, so here goes with a brief resume of logic in the mathematical sense: A statement can be either true or false. "Since the traffic light is green I may drive past it" is a true statement. "I may drive a car" is on its own neither a true nor a false statement (it is of course an assertion that can be either true or false), but if we add the premise "I have a valid driver's license" so that the complete statement reads "Since I have a valid driver's license I may drive a car" then we have a true statement. However if I say "Since I believe I have a driver's license I must be allowed to drive a car" is false because the conclusion is not a true consequence of the premise. Do you now see why Herman's statement "Since I believe my actions are acceptable, they must be acceptable regardless of whether they are better for my side or not" logically is ridiculous and that the last part of that statement (following the comma and beginning with the word "regardless") makes absolutely no difference here? For a mathematician with a minimum knowledge of logic this ought to be obvious. I shall waste no more time on this. Regards Sven From mustikka at charter.net Mon Jan 14 18:17:58 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:17:58 -0800 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net><000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c856d1$6947dcd0$62025e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > On Jan 13, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Hirsch Davis wrote: >>> >>> I'll reiterate the proposition I've been asking Herman about. If >>> N-S write >>> out their explanations and show them only to opponents, instead of >>> giving >>> them orally, there is no UI at all, and neither player is >>> constrained by E-W >>> questions. Simple procedure, actually, and any pair can do it >>> right now. >>> IMO anyone who would consider violating the disclosure Laws should be >>> considering alternatives to dWs that would address UI issues without >>> violating any Laws at all. Full and complete disclosure does not >>> have to be >>> spoken. >>> >> Hirsh, asked and answered twice already - if you want to change the >> conditions, there is no need to invent a third form, just use screens. >> Meanwhile, lots of bridge will be left being played without screens >> (or without your notepads) and it is for those tables that the >> question remains. > > As Herman says, one way to end the dispute over the DWS would be to > play all duplicate bridge with screens. That would eliminate the > justification for the DWS practice, as one could answer questions as > prescribed by L75 with no risk of passing UI to partner. Indeed, DWS > users do not, Herman assures us, "do their thing" when playing with > screens. > > But that means that in otherwise identical situations (hand, auction, > table action, etc.) the DWS adherent may offer two entirely different > explanations of his partner's call depending solely on whether or not > there is a screen across the table. In contrast, there are numerous > other contexts in which we determine the correctness of a player's > actions at an unscreened table by asking what would happen were > screens in use. I suspect this is one of the reasons the DWS "just > doesn't feel right" to so many of us. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net The reason for me why DWS "cannot" be right is that it forces me to lie when opponents ask what our agreement is. Raija From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 14 18:20:02 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:20:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> <000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <478B99C2.2040808@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 13, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Hirsch Davis wrote: >>> I'll reiterate the proposition I've been asking Herman about. If >>> N-S write >>> out their explanations and show them only to opponents, instead of >>> giving >>> them orally, there is no UI at all, and neither player is >>> constrained by E-W >>> questions. Simple procedure, actually, and any pair can do it >>> right now. >>> IMO anyone who would consider violating the disclosure Laws should be >>> considering alternatives to dWs that would address UI issues without >>> violating any Laws at all. Full and complete disclosure does not >>> have to be >>> spoken. >>> >> Hirsh, asked and answered twice already - if you want to change the >> conditions, there is no need to invent a third form, just use screens. >> Meanwhile, lots of bridge will be left being played without screens >> (or without your notepads) and it is for those tables that the >> question remains. > > As Herman says, one way to end the dispute over the DWS would be to > play all duplicate bridge with screens. That would eliminate the > justification for the DWS practice, as one could answer questions as > prescribed by L75 with no risk of passing UI to partner. Indeed, DWS > users do not, Herman assures us, "do their thing" when playing with > screens. > > But that means that in otherwise identical situations (hand, auction, > table action, etc.) the DWS adherent may offer two entirely different > explanations of his partner's call depending solely on whether or not > there is a screen across the table. In contrast, there are numerous > other contexts in which we determine the correctness of a player's > actions at an unscreened table by asking what would happen were > screens in use. I suspect this is one of the reasons the DWS "just > doesn't feel right" to so many of us. > On the other hand, the situation with regards to the opponents is very much alike: Behind screens, East will get the explanation about North's bid from North, and he will receive it under North's system. Without screens, North's bid will be explained by South, but it will be exactly the same explanation that North would give. Behind screens, each opponent receives an explanation of the bidding which is completely consistent, although different. Without screens, both opponents receive the same explanations, also consistent (in DWS mode). It is precisely because of the similarities with screens that I like the DWS solution so much! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 14 18:57:27 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:57:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <478B6E42.8040604@ntlworld.com> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> <2b1e598b0801122024j62e37607oab299e03908c4aa2@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0801122122n1ed3cbd8k1c96f1319445f180@mail.gmail.com> <53F7B0F6-0657-4D24-903D-872F01FAAF31@rochester.rr.com> <478B6E42.8040604@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <31A3216A-9F10-4502-A428-EC70D4E2B2C4@starpower.net> On Jan 14, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Guthrie wrote: > [Hatald Skj??ran] > It's by far better to always ask or put in "random" questions, whether > you intend to make a bid or not during the auction. > > [nige1] > NB. Please assume, for the rest of this post, that you can't easily > find the meaning of opponent's alerted call on his system-card. > > EBU regulations insist that you ask only when you are currently > contemplating a call. This seems to force you to break the law. > Unnecessary unauthorised information seems inevitable: both when you > ask and when you don't. > > Harald's "Random" questions also seem a flawed solution -- unless, you > are a masochist who refrains from asking on randomly selected > occasions when you *do* need to know the answer. > > The sensible solutions are: > [A] Always ask immediately *or* > [B] Always delay your questions to the end of the auction. I guess I'm just not a sensible guy. Personally, I ask the meaning of an opponent's call whenever I don't know what it means. And I don't ask the question when I already know the answer. Would someone care to explain why that isn't sensible? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jan 14 19:21:34 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:21:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Global warming? In-Reply-To: <8BCE7371-92DB-432B-96C2-F45575FD2ADB@rochester.rr.com> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> <2b1e598b0801122024j62e37607oab299e03908c4aa2@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0801122122n1ed3cbd8k1c96f1319445f180@mail.gmail.com> <53F7B0F6-0657-4D24-903D-872F01FAAF31@rochester.rr.com> <478B6E42.8040604@ntlworld.com> <8BCE7371-92DB-432B-96C2-F45575FD2ADB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <478BA82E.9080504@ntlworld.com> [Fran?ois Villon c.1461] Ballade (des dames de temps jadis) Dictes moy ou, n'en quel pays, Est Flora la belle Rommaine, Archipiades ne Tha?s, Qui fut sa cousine germaine, Echo parlant quant bruyt on maine Dessus riviere ou sus estan, Qui beault? ot trop plus q'humaine. Mais ou sont les neiges d'antan? Ou est la tres sage Hello?s, Pour qui chastr? fut et puis moyne Pierre Esbaillart a Saint Denis? Pour son amour ot ceste essoyne. Semblablement, ou est la royne Qui commanda que Buridan Fust get? en ung sac en Saine? Mais ou sont les neiges d'antan? La royne Blanche comme lis Qui chantoit a voix de seraine, Berte au grand pi?, Beatris, Alis, Haremburgis qui tint le Maine, Et Jehanne la bonne Lorraine Qu'Englois brulerent a Rouan; Ou sont ilz, ou, Vierge souvraine? Mais ou sont les neiges d'antan? Prince, n'enquerez de sepmaine Ou elles sont, ne de cest an, Qu'a ce reffrain ne vous remaine: Mais ou sont les neiges d'antan? THE BALLAD OF DEAD LADIES (Translation by Dante Gabriel Rossetti) Tell me now in what hidden way is Lady Flora the lovely Roman? Where's Hipparchia, and where is Thais, Neither of them the fairer woman? Where is Echo, beheld of no man, Only heard on river and mere,- She whose beauty was more than human?. But where are the snows of yester-year? Where's Heloise, the learned nun, For whose sake Abeillard, I ween, Lost manhood and put priesthood on? (From Love he won such a dule and teen!) And where, I pray you, is the Queen Who willed that Buridan should steer Sewed in a sack's mouth down the Seine?. But where are the snows of yester-year? White Queen Blanche, like a queen of lilies, With a voice like any mermaiden,- Bertha Broadfoot, Beatrice, Alice, And Ermengarde the lady of Maine,- And that good Joan whom Englishmen At Rouen doomed and burned her there,- Mother of God, where are they then?. But where are the snows of yester-year? Nay, never ask this week, fair lord, Where they are gone, nor yet this year, Save with thus much for an overword,- But where are the snows of yester-year? [Arlen Riley Wilson c 1956] Poem Beginning With a Line from Horace Eheu, fugaces, labuntur anni... In these gaunt times A princess, chained to rock, Is eaten up by dragons every day. Her Perseus stopped for coffee On the way Or just decided to forget the whole thing, Who can say? Even Andromeda, eviscerated, Must condone: Poor Perseus has problems of his own. [nige1] You should be able to *switch off* opponents' [alerts and] announcements. Then, the auction would proceed smoothly, without alerts and explanations from opponents. At the end of the auction, you can still ask the meaning of opponents calls. [Ed Reppert] Off the top of my head, I wonder how you know in advance that you want to do that. [nige2] In happier times, you could ask opponents to *switch off alerts*. We always did. As well as a system-card, we carried and prominently displayed two other big cards, inscribed ... * Please don't alert * and * Compulsory pause over pre-empts* The latter was before the introduction of "stop" cards. Many other pairs did the same. Gradually, more local players came to see the advantage of *always* asking their opponents not to alert. Deprived of the unauthorised information from alerts, opponents would suffer more misunderstandings; and such misunderstandings would often spiral, out of control, to high levels, generating lucrative penalties. No doubt, we were sometimes damaged by the lack of an alert; but I remember no such occasion. Unfortunately, as alerting became more widespread and automatic, players came to rely more and more on the resulting unauthorised information. They found it harder to stop alerting when requested to do so. Directors became reluctant to do anything about "half-alerts". Eventually, the rules were changed to prevent the option of "switching of alerts". From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 14 19:32:16 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:32:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <004501c856c2$9bf63ff0$a80a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> <00bf01c852ef$cadd20d0$3bcf403e@Mildred> <004501c856c2$9bf63ff0$a80a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> Message-ID: On Jan 14, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > I do not like the 7S success either but do you really think 7S is a > logical > alternative simply because the player himself chose it? Are you > happy that > 7S falls within the definition of LA? 7S cannot be an LA in this situation. What if the player had UI that his partner's limit raise was likely to be weaker than usual, suggesting that pass would be superior to 4S (the opposite of the original)? That would perforce also suggest that 4S would be superior to 7S. So if we do not allow him to bid 7S (if it succeeds) in the original case, would we not then have to require him to bid 7S (if it fails) in the hypothetical above? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Jan 14 19:34:14 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:34:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] I will end quartered In-Reply-To: <478B6FB5.8060808@t-online.de> References: <478B2A7B.4020201@ulb.ac.be> <478B6FB5.8060808@t-online.de> Message-ID: <478BAB26.7040108@meteo.fr> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > Hello Alain, > > This is a somewhat quick reply, so I could be persuaded to change my > opinion if someone convinces me that I am wrong. > > I see one quite fundamental difference between encrypted signals > and your methods. With encrypted signals as I know them (is there a > clear definition somewhere?), the trigger is something of which the > defenders can be 100% sure, and which declarer can never read (except > when one declarer shows out, too). In your methods declarer may > occasionally know more than you do (even if it is unlikely, especially > in the example you gave). Still, there is always the risk of declarer > reading your card better than your partner does. Let us say you that you > give a Smith signal with the 5, declarer holding 432 in the closed hand. > So declarer can read your signal perfectly, while your partner may well > have some difficulties. He is not going to tell you,is he? Or your > partner may hold 432. He is not going to tell declarer, either. > Your method is not designed to conceal something from declarer, so I see > nothing illegal here. and what do you think of this other one? you are on lead against 2NT (1NT - 2NT - - -) with: 9763,853,1042,765 your opening lead style: attitude, 4th best, that is to say you have to lead the 2 from Q832 and 7 from 9763. you choose the S3 lead as you know partner won't expect a better suit and declarer will be mistaken. fair, unfair? legal? illegal? (regulations read: encrypted signals forbidden). it's the first time you encounter the situation with your partner. authorized? you have once encoutered the situation and, on the discussion following, agreed with partner it was a fine strategy. authorized? idem and you wrote on your SC: attitude, 4th, except in obvious circumstances. authorized? i don't know a clear definition of what's improperly called encrypted signal and i don't think it might be clearly defined without inducing undesirable effects. a fact is that 2 different players see 2 different set of cards and are inequal for signal reading. jpr > > Best regards > Matthias > > Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: >> Dear blmlists, >> >> When you, and you alone, start thinking you've made something wrong, >> it's time to call for help. >> Furthermore, the present situation very much looks like "if you lie, >> you'll be quartered ; if you tell the truth, you will be implaed". >> Ready for a headache ? >> >> >> 1. Our carding agreements against NT, as mentioned on our convention >> card of course, are that, when partner leads a long suit, partner's >> first signal will be Smith-like (stating or denying the presence of a >> yet-unshown useful card in the suit of the lead), if it make at all >> sense. When he led our suit, however, or when he made a neutral lead >> (usually easy to see from our "attitude"-type leads), the first priority >> thereafter is count. >> >> Is there anything to disallow this ? Please think of an answer and >> arguments NOW. >> >> >> 2. This was the bidding friday night : >> >> >> 2D D RD 3C >> p 3NT >> >> 2D was classical Multi. >> RD meant : "I own my personal long suit ; please bid 2H and I'll place >> the contract (or possibly bid 3H or 3S freely to suggest game)" >> (we call this "selfish redouble") >> >> Partner led the Jack of Hearts. I played the Queen. Declarer took the >> Ace. His holding was A7xx. >> On sight of dummy (1-1-5-6 pattern), it was obvious that our suits were >> Hearts and Spades. >> Declarer needed to find a crucial Diamond Queen. >> The first trick in Hearts was both consistent with a lead from Jx or >> from KJ10xxx(x). >> We both knew which it was ; declarer couldn't. >> >> By now, blml addicts will have realized, as I did, that we would be >> using encryped sugnalling ! >> >> . >> 3. So I asked myself whether we should switch off the distinction made >> in 1) above in cases where it would give us said advantage. >> But it has been said before that you aren't allowed to change your >> agreements based on your holding (only on circumstances known of >> everyone and on general bridge logic). >> >> So we appear to be in a situation of the kind Herman likes commenting >> on, one where the only thing that would save us is to say "I'll end >> quartered". >> >> Please heeelp ! >> >> Alain >> -- _______________________________________________ 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 ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 14 19:40:36 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:40:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <8BCE7371-92DB-432B-96C2-F45575FD2ADB@rochester.rr.com> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> <2b1e598b0801122024j62e37607oab299e03908c4aa2@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0801122122n1ed3cbd8k1c96f1319445f180@mail.gmail.com> <53F7B0F6-0657-4D24-903D-872F01FAAF31@rochester.rr.com> <478B6E42.8040604@ntlworld.com> <8BCE7371-92DB-432B-96C2-F45575FD2ADB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Jan 14, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Jan 14, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Guthrie wrote: > >> You >> should be able to *switch off* opponents' announcements. Thus, the >> auction proceeds smoothly, without alerts and explanations from >> opponents. At the end of the auction, you can still ask the >> meaning of >> opponents calls. > > Off the top of my head, I wonder how you know in advance that you > want to do that. At one time the ACBL allowed you to "switch off" opponents' alerts (there were not yet announcements at the time). The majority declined to exercise the option, while a substantial minority chose to invoke it against all their opponents all the time. I don't think I ever encountered a pair that used it selectively against some opponents but not others, so Ed's question never arose. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 14 20:00:42 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:00:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c856cc$f995f290$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000701c856cc$f995f290$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Jan 14, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > ................. >> I'm only a mathematician. > > OK, so here goes with a brief resume of logic in the mathematical > sense: > > A statement can be either true or false. > > "Since the traffic light is green I may drive past it" is a true > statement. > > "I may drive a car" is on its own neither a true nor a false > statement (it > is of course an assertion that can be either true or false), but if > we add > the premise "I have a valid driver's license" so that the complete > statement > reads "Since I have a valid driver's license I may drive a car" > then we have > a true statement. > > However if I say "Since I believe I have a driver's license I must be > allowed to drive a car" is false because the conclusion is not a true > consequence of the premise. > > Do you now see why Herman's statement "Since I believe my actions are > acceptable, they must be acceptable regardless of whether they are > better > for my side or not" logically is ridiculous and that the last part > of that > statement (following the comma and beginning with the word > "regardless") > makes absolutely no difference here? > > For a mathematician with a minimum knowledge of logic this ought to be > obvious. > > I shall waste no more time on this. Well, I may be wasting time, but... What you're saying is that the truth value of an assertion is independent of anyone's *belief* about that truth value - a statement with which I agree. Your driver's license example is flawed though, containing as it does implicit assumptions that may or may not be true - such as that anyone needs *permission* to drive a car, or perhaps that "to drive a car" implies doing so on public highways. I suspect what Hermann meant was more along the lines of "I have shown why my actions are acceptable under the (current?) laws; that chain of logic is independent of whether my actions are better or worse for my partnership". I suspect that the truth value of *that* statement is "true". From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 14 20:22:01 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:22:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> <2b1e598b0801122024j62e37607oab299e03908c4aa2@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0801122122n1ed3cbd8k1c96f1319445f180@mail.gmail.com> <53F7B0F6-0657-4D24-903D-872F01FAAF31@rochester.rr.com> <478B6E42.8040604@ntlworld.com> <8BCE7371-92DB-432B-96C2-F45575FD2ADB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <06472689-009A-453F-93F8-F57098F48FF8@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 14, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > At one time the ACBL allowed you to "switch off" opponents' alerts > (there were not yet announcements at the time). The majority > declined to exercise the option, while a substantial minority chose > to invoke it against all their opponents all the time. I don't think > I ever encountered a pair that used it selectively against some > opponents but not others, so Ed's question never arose. I get a sense that perhaps the regulation should read "a pair may elect to ask opponents not to alert (or announce?), but if they do so, they must *always* do so". Here's the problem, as I see it: years ago, there were a lot fewer conventions - perhaps a lot fewer partnership understandings in general. Everybody read Goren; everybody knew "the system". I would think similar situations would have applied in other countries. So there was much less need to ask questions. I suspect that the wording of Law 20, through 1997 at least, reflects that situation. Also, it would easily give rise to the situation here vis a vis convention cards - to wit, that players (in North America, anyway) rarely look at them. Nowadays, though, systems are much more complicated, there are a lot more conventions floating around, and the simple procedure in law 20, which it seems to me boils down to "ask when you need to know", no longer works quite so well. Sometimes you don't *know* you need to know. The laws leave it up to the SOs how to deal with this, and they have come up with the alert procedure. Is that the only answer? Probably not. Is it the best answer? I don't know. I doubt it. :-) The argument for the "always announce, unless opponents switch it off" idea rests on the assumption that players, all unknowingly, will be/are making use of UI from partner's alerts or lack thereof, even though they *know* they aren't supposed to do that. I suspect that the assumption behind the existing regulations is just the opposite. I don't have enough data to know which is true, although, knowing human nature, I would not be surprised if the former is. It's a thorny problem. Perhaps there isn't a good answer. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Jan 14 22:29:05 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:29:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion Message-ID: <478BD421.5020404@nhcc.net> > From: Ed Reppert > If EW will always pass, why are they asking questions? Perhaps because they want to follow the auction or perhaps for other resaons. Why do we care? Players are allowed to ask any time it's their turn. Removing that right creates problems of a different kind, as we see from comments on the EBU rules. > From: "Hirsch Davis" > If N-S write > out their explanations and show them only to opponents, Written explanations are fine in theory. In practice, they are cumbersome, and at least in the ACBL, I doubt most players would tolerate them. (How often to you see players consulting their opponents' SC instead of asking questions?) And remember, dWS is only an issue _after_ partner gives MI. Why do you want to complicate perhaps hundreds of deals for a theoretical improvement on one? > However, the MS is far better for the game than dWs simply because the > game is played under a set of Laws. You don't think L20F5 exists? Or you don't care if players violate that one? Whether to recommend the dWS or MS is a matter of interpretation; both are equally (in)valid under the present written Laws. The question is which interpretation will provide a better game. > From: Eric Landau > [dWS] means that in otherwise identical situations (hand, auction, > table action, etc.) the DWS adherent may offer two entirely different > explanations of his partner's call depending solely on whether or not > there is a screen across the table. In contrast, there are numerous > other contexts in which we determine the correctness of a player's > actions at an unscreened table by asking what would happen were > screens in use. Eric is probably right that this is one reason dWS "feels" so wrong to so many people. It will probably help clarify matters if we remember that the "screens test" is an informal rule of thumb, not actually part of the Laws. Screens have their own issues, of course, but the relevant question is whether _without screens_ the dWS or MS gives a better game. > From: > A fair case has been made to show that there has > been no recent refreshment of the instructions to players. I have never seen _any_ official statement officially addressing dWS. (I have seen various official statements on different matters misinterpreted as having done so.) > I accept that the absence of a recently issued statement > should be remedied. I truly hope the authorities will consider the advantages of dWS before issuing any statement. Actually, I think the whole area of misbidding/psyching/misinformation needs serious reconsideration. Present interpretations seem to me not entirely consistent and hard to enforce. There are some thorny problems, no matter what is done, but a unified, consistent approach seems a reasonable goal. (Needless to say, I have some ideas about how to approach the problem, but I don't have an overall approach that I'm entirely happy with. Perhaps some day soon I'll post some of my ideas.) > From: "raija" > I think "to improve the game" is not the point at all. My understanding is > that the whole issue in this thread and in the zillion earlier occurrences > of similar threads in the past has been "what the Law says". The problem is that the Law, as written, is inconsistent. The way out is an interpretation of Law, which Grattan says will come in due course. If the people charged with that interpretation are not consisering what will improve the game, they are shirking their duties. In that context, I have yet to see any MS proponent admit that dWS is better for the game at least when opponents will never enter the auction. (Perhaps I've missed someone doing so.) That tells me the rabid dWS opponents either haven't given the matter enough thought or are unwilling to admit the obvious. > From: "Sven Pran" > Do you now see why Herman's statement "Since I believe my actions are > acceptable, they must be acceptable regardless of whether they are better > for my side or not" logically is ridiculous and that the last part of that > statement (following the comma and beginning with the word "regardless") > makes absolutely no difference here? Herman's statement was awkwardly written, but it's in no way illogical if you understand what he meant. Only by twisting it out of its obvious meaning do you get a contradiction. Perhaps the problem is that neither Sven nor Herman has English as a native language, though both are quite fluent. (Better, alas, than quite a few American college graduates.) Try Ed's formulation, or perhaps shorter "If my actions are acceptable according to the FLB, it is immaterial whether they are better for my side or not." From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 14 23:14:48 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:14:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <06472689-009A-453F-93F8-F57098F48FF8@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c856fa$e0d7a220$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert ............. > > At one time the ACBL allowed you to "switch off" opponents' alerts > > (there were not yet announcements at the time). The majority > > declined to exercise the option, while a substantial minority chose > > to invoke it against all their opponents all the time. I don't think > > I ever encountered a pair that used it selectively against some > > opponents but not others, so Ed's question never arose. > > I get a sense that perhaps the regulation should read "a pair may > elect to ask opponents not to alert (or announce?), but if they do > so, they must *always* do so". I don't know about ACBL, but we had the same (or a similar) regulation in Norway, and it included a rule that when a pair prohibited (!) opponents from using alerts then that prohibition lasted from the moment it was made until the end of the round at that table. (And such prohibition could not be withdrawn during the round.) Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 14 23:43:33 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:43:33 +1100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478B1A06.8010004@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>So it is as futile to attempt to use logic alone to >>harmonise the differences between the De Wael School >>and the Majority School as it would be to use logic >>alone to harmonise the differences between plane >>geometry and spherical geometry. In both cases a >>more fundamental change is needed for harmonisation. Herman De Wael: >Indeed Richard. Which is why I have always said that >both schools produce "acceptable" actions. Richard Hills: In my opinion it is an absurdity for both the Majority School and also the De Wael School to be "acceptable". A house divided against itself cannot stand. The game of bridge cannot be played in accordance with both spherical geometry and also plane geometry. So since Herman De Wael lacks the ex cathedra power to promulgate his School to the world, it is up to the WBF Laws Committee and/or Regulating Authorities to promulgate written advice on whether bridge is plane or spherical. 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 mustikka at charter.net Mon Jan 14 23:51:40 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:51:40 -0800 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion References: <478BD421.5020404@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000601c85700$085da330$62025e47@DFYXB361> Snipped lots. Grattan wrote: >> I accept that the absence of a recently issued statement >> should be remedied. Steve W wrote: > I truly hope the authorities will consider the advantages of dWS before > issuing any statement. > > Actually, I think the whole area of misbidding/psyching/misinformation > needs serious reconsideration. Present interpretations seem to me not > entirely consistent and hard to enforce. There are some thorny > problems, no matter what is done, but a unified, consistent approach > seems a reasonable goal. (Needless to say, I have some ideas about how > to approach the problem, but I don't have an overall approach that I'm > entirely happy with. Perhaps some day soon I'll post some of my ideas.) > >> From: "raija" >> I think "to improve the game" is not the point at all. My understanding >> is >> that the whole issue in this thread and in the zillion earlier >> occurrences >> of similar threads in the past has been "what the Law says". > > The problem is that the Law, as written, is inconsistent. The way out > is an interpretation of Law, which Grattan says will come in due course. > If the people charged with that interpretation are not consisering what > will improve the game, they are shirking their duties. I wholeheartedly agree. Somehow the various laws should be reconciled with each other into something where I don't have to give a deliberate falsehood in response to an opponent's question "What is your agreement?" I have not yet seen a solution to that problem by DWS proponents. I still think that any solution that involves telling a lie to the opponents must, by default, be wrong. Raija From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 15 00:26:56 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:26:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <014601c85694$8aa6e0c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <001c01c8569e$8f9de3d0$a5c8403e@Mildred><478B6DCD.2050709@skynet.be> <478B88C5.9070600@t-online.de> Message-ID: <001201c85704$f8f635b0$83cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> Yes, you've told me already that you are not breaking >> L20F5. I have not agreed with that conclusion. That >> leaves your argument lacking in foundation. > > Now this is a good one. An argument lacks a foundation > because you do not agree with it? Not that Grattan has > (IMO) made any argument, he stated how certain laws > are to be read (being, as I mentioned a couple of times, > member of the body that actually made those laws). But > leaving that aside: how can agreement (or non-agreement, > for that matter) with an argument have anything to do > with its foundation? > >> We are still on square one. >> +=+ I confirm that I have confined my statements to the meaning of the law. I have steadfastly refused to debate what is 'better' for, or an 'improvement' of, the game. I do not consider these are any longer useful questions. The laws are settled and they are in the public domain. They have been translated into a variety of languages. They are what they are and the matter to be considered now is how they operate. It calls for clarification where there is doubt and, in forming the opinions I have expressed, I have relied upon such past interpretations as I believe relevant and such intra-DSC discussions as I have on record. Each of us has to form his own view on the probable weight of the opinions in the balance until such time as formal comment is forthcoming. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 15 00:34:20 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:34:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <06472689-009A-453F-93F8-F57098F48FF8@rochester.rr.com> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> <2b1e598b0801122024j62e37607oab299e03908c4aa2@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0801122122n1ed3cbd8k1c96f1319445f180@mail.gmail.com> <53F7B0F6-0657-4D24-903D-872F01FAAF31@rochester.rr.com> <478B6E42.8040604@ntlworld.com> <8BCE7371-92DB-432B-96C2-F45575FD2ADB@rochester.rr.com> <06472689-009A-453F-93F8-F57098F48FF8@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <478BF17C.4060704@ntlworld.com> [Ed Reppert] The argument for the "always announce, unless opponents switch it off" idea rests on the assumption that players, all unknowingly, will be/are making use of UI from partner's alerts or lack thereof, even though they *know* they aren't supposed to do that. I suspect that the assumption behind the existing regulations is just the opposite. I don't have enough data to know which is true, although, knowing human nature, I would not be surprised if the former is. [nige1] The EBU recently provided us with an empirical test of how much opponents use UI from alerts: most calls above 3N are no longer alertable. As Ed surmises, this produces more hesitant puzzled auctions that stagger on an on, out of control, into ludicrous contracts. The EBU seems not to gathered relevant statistics, so this is just the impression of a small group, already biased against alerts. Also, opponents, who depend on the UI from alerts, seem to adjust to the new regime by substituting half-alerts and even "involuntary" twitches. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 15 02:26:07 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:26:07 +1100 Subject: [blml] Zonal Laws Committees [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c84958$e0fb62a0$20d3403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: +=+ 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. +=+ Richard Hills: Perhaps stimulated by the imminent advent of the 2007 Laws in the South Pacific, Zone 7 is refreshing its Laws Committee (although it has been active in the past). The Aussie representatives on the Z7LC are now: Eric Ramshaw, John Brockwell, Eilis Magner and Sean Mullamphy. And Laurie Kelso is secretariat to the Aussie contingent. This item appeared in the most recent minutes of the New Zealand Contract Bridge Association: "New Laws - Arie has been in discussions with ABF regarding adoption of the new laws. Following discussion it was agreed to go with the ABF's suggested date of 1 June 2008. Interpretations between the two countries have been largely agreed but are not yet ready to table. A draft will need to go to Zone 7 Laws Commission Organisation for ratification first. Martin Oyston is to publish the Laws in New Zealand and Australia. Director training will be provided by NZ Bridge the exact format of which has yet to be worked out. The most significant changes involve the revoke and insufficient bid 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 daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Jan 15 03:09:43 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:09:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <014601c85694$8aa6e0c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <478B3B2B.5080900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <037801c8571b$b1c52540$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> This fact, if nothing else, should serve as an indictment of the dWS, >> because its purpose is clearly against the spirit of the laws. >> > > What is so clear about that? > > You say we "protect the offenders". What's so wrong with that? If I > bid out of turn, and now I have to make a final call, and I gamble > 3NT, that too is an action with which I believe I protect my intrests. > Is it barred because of that? No, but remember that you are still subject to whether you "could have known" that bidding out of turn would benefit your side. In the case of the dWS, you not only "could have known" but know and are taking direct action in order to benefit your side. > > OK, we are offenders - my partner has (possibly) given MI. But why > should I now be barred from taking my best action? And if your answer > to that one is that I break a law in turn, my response will still be > that I must break one law or another. I know that you don't believe > this, and I grant you that doubt, but your current argument is only > valid if the other, basic one (the fact that the MS would not be > breaking any laws), is true. > I will have to say with Matthias that if the lawmakers have said that the MS is not breaking any laws, then we must believe them. In the case that has lately been bandied about, where 4NT asking for preference in the minors is explained as Blackwood, there is no chance of helping the opponents, because clearly you are going to be playing the hand, and the opponents will know all before the opening lead is made. So the dWS is only trying to protect its side from having to deal with UI. The game of bridge is played with the premise that players know their agreements, and can explain them accurately. It would be a very wrong thing if laws were formulated in order to provide an escape hatch for those who have forgotten their agreements. I think, Herman, that you are just playing too complicated a system. Many of us who are rubber bridge players can advise you as to a simple system that is impossible to forget, and that will provoke no misunderstandings whatsoever. Will that suit? From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jan 15 03:27:17 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:27:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options In-Reply-To: <200801111634.m0BGYJxf005802@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801111634.m0BGYJxf005802@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <478C1A05.8080407@nhcc.net> > From: > +=+ Did the ACBL regulations also add [weighted scores] > into the 1997 Law 12C2? - or is it a change of policy? The ACBL has never adopted weighted scores and will not do so now, at least as I read the ACBL LC decisions recently posted. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jan 15 03:43:07 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:43:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. In-Reply-To: <200801111849.m0BIngRq001779@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801111849.m0BIngRq001779@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <478C1DBB.9010007@nhcc.net> >>> 12C1(e)(ii) is to be interpreted such that the >>> words "had the irregularity not occurred" are >>> inserted between "probable" and the period >>> ending the sentence. > From: Adam Wildavsky > Years ago I asked here for an example case where the differing > interpretations would result in different rulings. I'm sure there was a reply at the time. Here's a simple example: NS use hesitation Blackwood to bid slam, which should go down. However, EW through an "irrational, wild, or gambling" defense let the slam make. In most jurisdictions, EW get -980 because they weren't damaged by the UI use but by their own play. (I think a few jurisdictions give them -480, but I'm not sure of that.) In most of the world, NS get -50, the worst "at all probable" score _with or without_ the infraction. With the above ACBL election, they will get +450, the worst "at all probable" result _without_ the infraction. Reasonable people can, of course, disagree on what the appropriate results ought to be. The point of interest is the difference between the ACBL and practice elsewhere. The ability to give weighted scores isn't relevant to this issue, though it's another difference between ACBL and international practice. From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue Jan 15 04:46:34 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:46:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu><4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> <000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> <478B99C2.2040808@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000f01c85729$395497e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > On the other hand, the situation with regards to the opponents is very > much alike: Behind screens, East will get the explanation about > North's bid from North, and he will receive it under North's system. > Without screens, North's bid will be explained by South, but it will > be exactly the same explanation that North would give. > Behind screens, each opponent receives an explanation of the bidding > which is completely consistent, although different. Without screens, > both opponents receive the same explanations, also consistent (in DWS > mode). > > It is precisely because of the similarities with screens that I like > the DWS solution so much! > Then you should prefer written explanations even more, because they get you that much closer to screens. The big differences are that you will still see alerts from partner, and that both opponents will see your written explanations of partner's bidding. However, more UI is eliminated than is possible with dWs. Not only is the UI that would awaken partner to his misbid eliminated, but the UI that tells you that partner has misbid is also eliminated. As I said, if screens are your ideal, this gets you closer. dWs becomes obsolete, because you won't ever even know that a dWs situation is happening until the time to explain MI occurs and you can check partner's explanations. The exception would be if an "impossible" bid occurs, and you realize that the auction has derailed. Even then, neither partner will have UI, so you don't have any L16 limitations on how you try and get the auction back on track, if it can be done. Written explanations have the added advantage of breaking no Laws whatsoever. Hirsch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 15 05:04:49 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:04:49 +1100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <477B5564.3080808@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>The 2007 Law 40A3 (and 40A1(b) also) make the De Wael >>School illegal. Herman De Wael: >Let's read 2007 L40A3 then: > >A player may make any call or play without prior >announcement provided that such call or play is not >based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see >Law 40C1). > >I see nothing therein about explaining. Richard Hills: Myopia? I see the key word "undisclosed". 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 hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue Jan 15 05:07:25 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:07:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion References: <478BD421.5020404@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001601c8572c$230a6340$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > > Written explanations are fine in theory. In practice, they are > cumbersome, and at least in the ACBL, I doubt most players would > tolerate them. (How often to you see players consulting their > opponents' SC instead of asking questions?) And remember, dWS is only > an issue _after_ partner gives MI. Why do you want to complicate > perhaps hundreds of deals for a theoretical improvement on one? > I don't, actually, but I think the Laws are clear on what to do if an opponent asks a question, even if partner has given MI. However, if a player such as Herman feels that UI compels him to break several Laws, then I'm giving him a solution that will resolve his problem without breaking any Laws at all. Herman keeps phrasing his argument that dWs is a choice between two "illegal" options. I'm providing a third choice that is completely legal. So, Herman now has an option to prevent the UI that leads to dWs solutions (deliberate MI) that falls within the Laws. With a legal option available, he no longer has to choose between two "illegalities", but can simply write down his explanations and never have to lie. Since he won't accept the assurances of the lawmakers that the "MS" is legal and "dWs" is not, I'm taking a different approach, and providing a legal alternative to dWs. I'm still waiting to see responses from Herman's acolytes. It's not necessary that everyone write down their explanations. I have no intention of doing so, since I think the reasoning behind dWs is specious at best. But I have no intention of lying to my opponents either, in any situation. Hirsch From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue Jan 15 05:17:25 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:17:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion References: <000001c856fa$e0d7a220$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <005101c8572d$888c2590$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 5:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > > I don't know about ACBL, but we had the same (or a similar) regulation in > Norway, and it included a rule that when a pair prohibited (!) opponents > from using alerts then that prohibition lasted from the moment it was made > until the end of the round at that table. (And such prohibition could not > be > withdrawn during the round.) > I used to direct in one club game where a pair asked all opponents not to alert. Almost every pair that came to their table had an accident of some kind. The alerts become ingrained, and almost impossible not to give. The method did cut down on UI, but also disconcerted many opponents, who were not comfortable varying their procedures at one table only. At the club level, asking opponents not to alert just didn't work. Hirsch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 15 06:01:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:01:09 +1100 Subject: [blml] The high priority of disclosure. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004f01c853fa$97c07100$12d6403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: +=+ I read: "I feel that the WBFLC should not farm out responsibility for *fundamental guidance about disclosure*". I am not sure what I am to understand by 'fundamental guidance'. It does seem to me that in parallel ton kooijman and I have been asserting the primacy of the requirement to disclose one's partnership understandings to opponents. In doing so we have been following a well beaten track, the official guidance of many years - such as: "There are two key requirements upon which the game is founded: that partners will only communicate with each other by those means which the laws allow; and that partnerships will fully and fairly disclose their understandings to opponents by the means which the regulations specify." Using other words, this message accompanied the 1987 Laws when they were sent to NBOs. Since the regulators have differing views on how the requirement should be met the WBF does not specify the detail except for its own tournaments. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Australian Bridge Federation Alert Regulation, initial two sentences: It is an essential principle of the game of bridge that you may not have secret agreements with partner, either in bidding or card play. Your agreements must be fully available and fully disclosed to your opponents. 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 Jan 15 06:40:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:40:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01c854cd$b1f6f5c0$15e4e140$@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Burn: [snip] >Edgar Kaplan always knew what he meant, even though >he didn't always trouble to say it. His successors >may need to take more care. Richard Hills: Yes, obscurities in the Kaplanic 1997 Laws were often usefully clarified in the post-Kaplanic WBF Code of Practice. 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 Jan 15 06:50:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:50:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005e01c8564f$8a48efa0$50cb403e@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: > What Law is violated by giving your explanations to your > opponents in writing, rather than orally? > > Hirsch > +=+ If there is a breach it will be a breach of regulation. +=+ Richard Hills: If regulations are silent, it is possible that the written explanations might infract Law 90B2 ("unduly slow play"), or Law 74A2 ("action that might cause annoyance"). 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 Jan 15 07:22:23 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:22:23 +1100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478B1E4E.20102@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Absolutely correct, Richard! >I like the fact that you rule MI even if you say the two options. Richard Hills: Absolutely correct, Herman! Given that one of the two options is _not_ the partnership agreement, forcing the opponents to toss a coin _must_ be MI. Herman De Wael: >My option, at the table, is to guess. That way, I have a 45% >chance of getting away without UI and MI. I take the 55% chance >of MI (I always guess incorrectly, so the 45% chance is probably >the right one). But I accept that you prefer to leave the table, Richard Hills: Quibble. I do not leave the table. Rather, I simply summon a well-trained Aussie Director. It is the Director who gives me a Lawful order (2007 Laws 81C2 and 20F1) to leave the table. Herman De Wael: >thereby reducing the MI chance to 0%, and augmenting the UI >chance to 100%. It's not a big UI anyway, since partner only >knows you're uncertain, not that you have misinterpreted. Richard Hills: 0% MI and not-big UI is why this long-standing practice of Aussie Directors was made more explicit in the 2007 Lawbook (the 1997 Law did not refer to an instruction of the Director, instead using the vague word "normally"). 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 emu at fwi.net.au Tue Jan 15 08:35:20 2008 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:35:20 +1100 Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 In-Reply-To: <478B54D4.2090505@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002b01c85749$37fc9b70$0201a8c0@DESKTOP> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:26 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 Sven Pran a ?crit : > > > I raised the question of the "missing" redouble in Law 27C1 with my > NBO when we prepared for translations. > > But unlike a "double" we were completely unable to find any > insufficient bid situations where a "redouble" as a replacement call > could satisfy the requirement that it must incorporate the information > contained in the insufficient bid. > > AG : I can offer one, at least, and a genuine one, albeit a bit old : 1NT X 1D 1NT = 12-14. Responder saw 1C X and acted accordingly, showing a weak to limited hand and 4+ diamonds. In our system, a redouble of 1NT is an escape showing 4+ diamonds and a 4-card major. Best regards Alain __________________________________________- There are many others in Strong Club type systems. A XX often gets back steps. I'll consider a few sequences when I have more time. regards, Noel _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Jan 15 09:54:52 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:54:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <2b1e598b0801122024j62e37607oab299e03908c4aa2@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0801122122n1ed3cbd8k1c96f1319445f180@mail.gmail.com> <53F7B0F6-0657-4D24-903D-872F01FAAF31@rochester.rr.com> <478B6E42.8040604@ntlworld.com> <8BCE7371-92DB-432B-96C2-F45575FD2ADB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On 14/01/2008, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 14, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > > On Jan 14, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Guthrie wrote: > > > >> You > >> should be able to *switch off* opponents' announcements. Thus, the > >> auction proceeds smoothly, without alerts and explanations from > >> opponents. At the end of the auction, you can still ask the > >> meaning of > >> opponents calls. > > > > Off the top of my head, I wonder how you know in advance that you > > want to do that. > > At one time the ACBL allowed you to "switch off" opponents' alerts > (there were not yet announcements at the time). The majority > declined to exercise the option, while a substantial minority chose > to invoke it against all their opponents all the time. I don't think > I ever encountered a pair that used it selectively against some > opponents but not others, so Ed's question never arose. In Norway you could also prohibit opponents from alerting originally. Some always did, some never did and some (me included) prohibited some pairs from alerting (those we knew or suspected would be troubled in the bidding when not alerting) but not all (we allowed alerts from opponents we knew/suspected wouldn't benefit form their own alerts). -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > 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 hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 15 10:07:40 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:07:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <000f01c85729$395497e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu><4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net> <000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> <478B99C2.2040808@skynet.be> <000f01c85729$395497e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <478C77DC.5060304@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: >> >> It is precisely because of the similarities with screens that I like >> the DWS solution so much! >> > > Then you should prefer written explanations even more, because they get you > that much closer to screens. I don't think they do - they have certain similarities but also certain differences. But that's not important. > The big differences are that you will still > see alerts from partner, and that both opponents will see your written > explanations of partner's bidding. However, more UI is eliminated than is > possible with dWs. That is true. > Not only is the UI that would awaken partner to his > misbid eliminated, but the UI that tells you that partner has misbid is also > eliminated. As I said, if screens are your ideal, this gets you closer. > Yes, but at what cost? The game so closely resembles screens (in some sense) that it is better to put the screens there in the first place. Why invent a third (fourth if you count on-line) form of bridge? > dWs becomes obsolete, because you won't ever even know that a dWs situation > is happening until the time to explain MI occurs and you can check partner's > explanations. The exception would be if an "impossible" bid occurs, and you > realize that the auction has derailed. Even then, neither partner will have > UI, so you don't have any L16 limitations on how you try and get the auction > back on track, if it can be done. > > Written explanations have the added advantage of breaking no Laws > whatsoever. > Only because the lawmakers have not limited anything. It is not the system that can break laws, only the players. BTW, how do you organize the written explanations? Do you write once or twice? How do you cope with an opponent showing more or less interest in what you wrote? How do you prevent your written note from being passed to partner for his explanations? I see how difficult it sometimes becomes for 2 players behind screens to find a notepad - how about 4 players around a table, and notes that are not supposed to be shown to partner? I don't think this would be practical! > Hirsch > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 15 10:09:42 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:09:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <000901c856d1$6947dcd0$62025e47@DFYXB361> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net><000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> <000901c856d1$6947dcd0$62025e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <478C7856.5090800@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:08 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > > >> On Jan 13, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Hirsch Davis wrote: >>>> I'll reiterate the proposition I've been asking Herman about. If >>>> N-S write >>>> out their explanations and show them only to opponents, instead of >>>> giving >>>> them orally, there is no UI at all, and neither player is >>>> constrained by E-W >>>> questions. Simple procedure, actually, and any pair can do it >>>> right now. >>>> IMO anyone who would consider violating the disclosure Laws should be >>>> considering alternatives to dWs that would address UI issues without >>>> violating any Laws at all. Full and complete disclosure does not >>>> have to be >>>> spoken. >>>> >>> Hirsh, asked and answered twice already - if you want to change the >>> conditions, there is no need to invent a third form, just use screens. >>> Meanwhile, lots of bridge will be left being played without screens >>> (or without your notepads) and it is for those tables that the >>> question remains. >> As Herman says, one way to end the dispute over the DWS would be to >> play all duplicate bridge with screens. That would eliminate the >> justification for the DWS practice, as one could answer questions as >> prescribed by L75 with no risk of passing UI to partner. Indeed, DWS >> users do not, Herman assures us, "do their thing" when playing with >> screens. >> >> But that means that in otherwise identical situations (hand, auction, >> table action, etc.) the DWS adherent may offer two entirely different >> explanations of his partner's call depending solely on whether or not >> there is a screen across the table. In contrast, there are numerous >> other contexts in which we determine the correctness of a player's >> actions at an unscreened table by asking what would happen were >> screens in use. I suspect this is one of the reasons the DWS "just >> doesn't feel right" to so many of us. >> >> >> Eric Landau >> 1107 Dale Drive >> Silver Spring MD 20910 >> ehaa at starpower.net > > The reason for me why DWS "cannot" be right is that it forces me to lie when > opponents ask what our agreement is. > Only because you believe it is lying when you say "3 aces" when partner actually has 3 aces, and has said nothing about diamonds. The reason for me why MS "cannot" be right is that it forces me to tell partner that he has misinterpreted my previous bid. I have just as strong feelings about this as you. Who says which one of us has the right "feelings"? > Raija > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 15 10:15:32 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:15:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <000601c85700$085da330$62025e47@DFYXB361> References: <478BD421.5020404@nhcc.net> <000601c85700$085da330$62025e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <478C79B4.8050005@skynet.be> raija wrote: > Snipped lots. > > > Grattan wrote: >>> I accept that the absence of a recently issued statement >>> should be remedied. > > Steve W wrote: >> I truly hope the authorities will consider the advantages of dWS before >> issuing any statement. >> >> Actually, I think the whole area of misbidding/psyching/misinformation >> needs serious reconsideration. Present interpretations seem to me not >> entirely consistent and hard to enforce. There are some thorny >> problems, no matter what is done, but a unified, consistent approach >> seems a reasonable goal. (Needless to say, I have some ideas about how >> to approach the problem, but I don't have an overall approach that I'm >> entirely happy with. Perhaps some day soon I'll post some of my ideas.) >> >>> From: "raija" >>> I think "to improve the game" is not the point at all. My understanding >>> is >>> that the whole issue in this thread and in the zillion earlier >>> occurrences >>> of similar threads in the past has been "what the Law says". >> The problem is that the Law, as written, is inconsistent. The way out >> is an interpretation of Law, which Grattan says will come in due course. >> If the people charged with that interpretation are not consisering what >> will improve the game, they are shirking their duties. > > I wholeheartedly agree. Somehow the various laws should be reconciled with > each other into something where I don't have to give a deliberate falsehood > in response to an opponent's question "What is your agreement?" I have not > yet seen a solution to that problem by DWS proponents. I still think that > any solution that involves telling a lie to the opponents must, by default, > be wrong. I don't think so - and I don't see why this must be so. Consider this: there are many cases of MI out there, mostly because of forgotten agreements. Yet the laws do not punish those MI, merely arrange for redress. So the laws themselves don't treat MI very harshly. Why then should you feel about giving MI, even if you have to do it deliberately? There is no way out of the dilemma - either you give MI, or you give UI. Now why are you so allergic to giving a small piece of harmless MI, but so tolerant of giving a huge piece of UI? That is what I don't fathom in your replies, Raija - that you attach such great importance to a "feeling", especially when the feeling is (IMO) irrational. Think about that for a moment! > Raija > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 15 10:17:25 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:17:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478C7A25.5080301@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Richard Hills: > > >>> The 2007 Law 40A3 (and 40A1(b) also) make the De Wael >>> School illegal. >>> > > Herman De Wael: > > >> Let's read 2007 L40A3 then: >> >> A player may make any call or play without prior >> announcement provided that such call or play is not >> based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see >> Law 40C1). >> >> I see nothing therein about explaining. >> > > Richard Hills: > > Myopia? I see the key word "undisclosed". > > I'm a bit at a loss with this. As I see it, L40A3 handles the way calls and plays are made, not exlpanations. But I'm dreadfully long-sighted ;-) And the way one explains isn't subject to onderstandings (undisclosed or other), the way the Laws use this word. Apart from that, please notice that nobody ever said acting along dWS lines wasn't illegal ; we only stated that acting along MS presciptions was illegal too. (In some way, I'm more drastic than HdW himself : he wants to be allowed to be illegal the way that will cause the less damage to both sides and the fluidity of the game ; my personal feeling is that when both courses of action are illegal, you can't be criticized for choosing any one of them) Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 15 10:18:57 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:18:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? In-Reply-To: <9AE806D2-784D-4B56-85B6-1F585A01FB1B@starpower.net> References: <000101c855fa$e0579400$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478A4B59.9090401@skynet.be> <9AE806D2-784D-4B56-85B6-1F585A01FB1B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <478C7A81.4090301@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 13, 2008, at 12:33 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Godverdomme Jongen Astemblieft! >> >> Nowhere does it say that - but what is the penalty for MI? Correction >> if damage. How can there be damage when the description fits the hand >> perfectly? > > But which hand? In Herman's favorite example, where he bids 4NT > asking for a minor-suit preference and pard describes his call as > Blackwood, his DWS explanation will indeed fit his partner's hand > perfectly. But it will simultaneouly completely misdescribe his > *own* hand to the opponents, as one suitable for bidding Blackwood > when in fact it is no such thing. But that is not my MI, that is partner's! it has been given, and L20F5 explicitely forbids me from correcting that MI! We are talking about the second MI. You guys want to say "diamond preference", because that is "true" in the systemic sense of the word. But it is a complete misdescription of partner's hand! > In this case, the non-DWS > explanation would, indeed, let the opponents know that there is a > bidding misunderstanding in progress, but will give them correct > information about both hands. But L20F5 explicitely forbids this! > They will know that Herman holds a > hand suitable for eliciting a minor-suit preference, and that his > partner has one ace. Only then can we properly ask, "How can there > be damage when the description*s* reveal the hand*s* perfectly?" > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 15 10:26:44 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:26:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <037801c8571b$b1c52540$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <014601c85694$8aa6e0c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <478B3B2B.5080900@skynet.be> <037801c8571b$b1c52540$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <478C7C54.6080007@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > >>> This fact, if nothing else, should serve as an indictment of the dWS, >>> because its purpose is clearly against the spirit of the laws. >>> >> What is so clear about that? >> >> You say we "protect the offenders". What's so wrong with that? If I >> bid out of turn, and now I have to make a final call, and I gamble >> 3NT, that too is an action with which I believe I protect my intrests. >> Is it barred because of that? > > No, but remember that you are still subject to whether you "could have > known" that bidding out of turn would benefit your side. In the case of the > dWS, you not only "could have known" but know and are taking direct action > in order to benefit your side. Yes - but the "could have known" laws only apply to irregularities! If my actions are acceptable (as I believe they are) then they are acceptable regardless of whether they are in my favour or not! I deliberately say acceptable and not legal. I know they are not legal. But neither are the MS actions. My point is that you cannot bar me from doing something acceptable by the mere fact that it is better than something else which is equally acceptable. That argument would mean a ban on double squeezes and, come to think of it, finesses. >> > I will have to say with Matthias that if the lawmakers have said that the MS > is not breaking any laws, then we must believe them. > So far, only Grattan has spoken in this manner. I urge him to think long and hard before going on with that route. > In the case that has lately been bandied about, where 4NT asking for > preference in the minors is explained as Blackwood, there is no chance of > helping the opponents, because clearly you are going to be playing the hand, > and the opponents will know all before the opening lead is made. So the dWS > is only trying to protect its side from having to deal with UI. > Yes, but what is wrong with protecting ones interests? Are we playing this game to win or not? You cannot blame me for doing something which is in my own interests! > The game of bridge is played with the premise that players know their > agreements, and can explain them accurately. It would be a very wrong thing > if laws were formulated in order to provide an escape hatch for those who > have forgotten their agreements. > But what escape hatch? I am not using the UI from partner (let's say I don't), and partner is not using any UI from me, because I don't give him any. If he manages to fall on his feet, what law have we broken? > I think, Herman, that you are just playing too complicated a system. Many of > us who are rubber bridge players can advise you as to a simple system that > is impossible to forget, and that will provoke no misunderstandings > whatsoever. Will that suit? > Oh yes. Of course. We should all be playing Culbertson, without any additions. Impossible to forget. Ehm, did I not remember Josephine once making an error? If you think eliminating misunderstandings is possible, dream on. These things will happen, and we have to make certain that the opponents are not damaged. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 15 10:30:45 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:30:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478B88C5.9070600@t-online.de> References: <014601c85694$8aa6e0c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <001c01c8569e$8f9de3d0$a5c8403e@Mildred> <478B6DCD.2050709@skynet.be> <478B88C5.9070600@t-online.de> Message-ID: <478C7D45.4030209@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Please real L20F5 again: it compels people to "avoid drawing attention >> to partner's wrong explanation" and it states one should not indicate >> in any manner that a mistake has been made. That last bit sounds very >> much (to me) like "act positively to conceal that infraction". >> >> Please tell me Grattan, how else I am going to follow L20F5. >> > > He has already told you. Several times. Let me paraphrase it (again): > accept that you follow L20F5 by explaining your system and by letting > opps draw their own conclusion, thereby giving UI, but not doing so by > design, but rather by necessity to comply with the rules. > >> Yes, you've told me already that you are not breaking L20F5. I have >> not agreed with that conclusion. That leaves your argument lacking in >> foundation. > > Now this is a good one. An argument lacks a foundation because you do > not agree with it? Not that Grattan has (IMO) made any argument, he > stated how certain laws are to be read (being, as I mentioned a couple > of times, member of the body that actually made those laws). But leaving > that aside: how can agreement (or non-agreement, for that matter) with > an argument have anything to do with its foundation? > No Mathias, you misunderstand. Your argument, I don't even remember which one it was, was based on the premise that the MS breaks no laws. Since we are still discussing that one, I don't accept that as basis for further argumentation. And if that argumentation leads you to conclude that the MS is better, then I don't accept the validity of that argument, since I don't accept the basis. I am quite willing to continue to discuss the basis, but I am not willing to accept your argument here. it is circular reasoning: "since the MS is right, it follows that the DWS is wrong". Sorry, but I cannot accept that as a valid argumentation. >> We are still on square one. >> >> -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 15 10:33:01 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:33:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478C7DCD.9010409@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > In my opinion it is an absurdity for both the Majority > School and also the De Wael School to be "acceptable". > And with that, the discussion ends. Richard has said that it's absurd. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From mustikka at charter.net Tue Jan 15 10:45:03 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:45:03 -0800 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net><000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> <000901c856d1$6947dcd0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478C7856.5090800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c8575b$4e04ff90$62025e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 1:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > raija wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eric Landau" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:08 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion >> >> >>> On Jan 13, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>> Hirsch Davis wrote: >>>>> I'll reiterate the proposition I've been asking Herman about. If >>>>> N-S write >>>>> out their explanations and show them only to opponents, instead of >>>>> giving >>>>> them orally, there is no UI at all, and neither player is >>>>> constrained by E-W >>>>> questions. Simple procedure, actually, and any pair can do it >>>>> right now. >>>>> IMO anyone who would consider violating the disclosure Laws should be >>>>> considering alternatives to dWs that would address UI issues without >>>>> violating any Laws at all. Full and complete disclosure does not >>>>> have to be >>>>> spoken. >>>>> >>>> Hirsh, asked and answered twice already - if you want to change the >>>> conditions, there is no need to invent a third form, just use screens. >>>> Meanwhile, lots of bridge will be left being played without screens >>>> (or without your notepads) and it is for those tables that the >>>> question remains. >>> As Herman says, one way to end the dispute over the DWS would be to >>> play all duplicate bridge with screens. That would eliminate the >>> justification for the DWS practice, as one could answer questions as >>> prescribed by L75 with no risk of passing UI to partner. Indeed, DWS >>> users do not, Herman assures us, "do their thing" when playing with >>> screens. >>> >>> But that means that in otherwise identical situations (hand, auction, >>> table action, etc.) the DWS adherent may offer two entirely different >>> explanations of his partner's call depending solely on whether or not >>> there is a screen across the table. In contrast, there are numerous >>> other contexts in which we determine the correctness of a player's >>> actions at an unscreened table by asking what would happen were >>> screens in use. I suspect this is one of the reasons the DWS "just >>> doesn't feel right" to so many of us. >>> >>> >>> Eric Landau >>> 1107 Dale Drive >>> Silver Spring MD 20910 >>> ehaa at starpower.net >> >> The reason for me why DWS "cannot" be right is that it forces me to lie >> when >> opponents ask what our agreement is. >> Herman wrote: > Only because you believe it is lying when you say "3 aces" when > partner actually has 3 aces, and has said nothing about diamonds. This is not a matter of (my) belief, it is a matter of facts. If "3 aces" is not the agreement, then it is a lie to answer "3 aces" when opponent asks "What is your agreement". From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 15 13:22:23 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:22:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <000901c8575b$4e04ff90$62025e47@DFYXB361> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net><000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> <000901c856d1$6947dcd0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478C7856.5090800@skynet.be> <000901c8575b$4e04ff90$62025e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <478CA57F.9070801@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 1:09 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > > >> raija wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Eric Landau" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:08 AM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 13, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hirsch Davis wrote: >>>>>> I'll reiterate the proposition I've been asking Herman about. If >>>>>> N-S write >>>>>> out their explanations and show them only to opponents, instead of >>>>>> giving >>>>>> them orally, there is no UI at all, and neither player is >>>>>> constrained by E-W >>>>>> questions. Simple procedure, actually, and any pair can do it >>>>>> right now. >>>>>> IMO anyone who would consider violating the disclosure Laws should be >>>>>> considering alternatives to dWs that would address UI issues without >>>>>> violating any Laws at all. Full and complete disclosure does not >>>>>> have to be >>>>>> spoken. >>>>>> >>>>> Hirsh, asked and answered twice already - if you want to change the >>>>> conditions, there is no need to invent a third form, just use screens. >>>>> Meanwhile, lots of bridge will be left being played without screens >>>>> (or without your notepads) and it is for those tables that the >>>>> question remains. >>>> As Herman says, one way to end the dispute over the DWS would be to >>>> play all duplicate bridge with screens. That would eliminate the >>>> justification for the DWS practice, as one could answer questions as >>>> prescribed by L75 with no risk of passing UI to partner. Indeed, DWS >>>> users do not, Herman assures us, "do their thing" when playing with >>>> screens. >>>> >>>> But that means that in otherwise identical situations (hand, auction, >>>> table action, etc.) the DWS adherent may offer two entirely different >>>> explanations of his partner's call depending solely on whether or not >>>> there is a screen across the table. In contrast, there are numerous >>>> other contexts in which we determine the correctness of a player's >>>> actions at an unscreened table by asking what would happen were >>>> screens in use. I suspect this is one of the reasons the DWS "just >>>> doesn't feel right" to so many of us. >>>> >>>> >>>> Eric Landau >>>> 1107 Dale Drive >>>> Silver Spring MD 20910 >>>> ehaa at starpower.net >>> The reason for me why DWS "cannot" be right is that it forces me to lie >>> when >>> opponents ask what our agreement is. >>> > Herman wrote: >> Only because you believe it is lying when you say "3 aces" when >> partner actually has 3 aces, and has said nothing about diamonds. > > > This is not a matter of (my) belief, it is a matter of facts. > If "3 aces" is not the agreement, then it is a lie to answer "3 aces" when > opponent asks "What is your agreement". > True, but on the other hand, it is not lying when that opponents asks "what does he have?" (as they often do). And the problem with your sentence is that you consider that "lie" to be a problem. I don't consider it a problem. I do consider the breaking of L20F5 a problem. So what it again all boils down to is which problem is the worst. You have your opinion, I have mine, but neither are valid arguments to prove the non-acceptability of the others' solution. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 15 13:25:17 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:25:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <478C7A25.5080301@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001501c85771$bff90c70$50cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > I'm a bit at a loss with this. As I see it, L40A3 handles the way calls and plays are made, not exlpanations. But I'm dreadfully long-sighted ;-)And the way one explains isn't subject to understandings (undisclosed or other), the way the Laws use this word. Apart from that, please notice that nobody ever said acting along dWS lines wasn't illegal ; we only stated that acting along MS presciptions was illegal too. < +=+ It is more precisely Law 40A - and 40C3(b) - that establishes the requirement to disclose. However, the rulings and pronouncements of many years run counter to the suggestion that it is an infraction to convey UI to partner when complying with the requirement to disclose the partnership understanding. It has been repeatedly stated that the illegality arises when the partner uses the UI. The dWS argument is a wish in the mind of a player who puts his personal rendition of the law on a superior plane, but I have yet to meet support for his view from anyone in a position of authority. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 15 13:44:39 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:44:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501c85771$bff90c70$50cb403e@Mildred> References: <478C7A25.5080301@ulb.ac.be> <001501c85771$bff90c70$50cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <478CAAB7.6090903@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > +=+ It is more precisely Law 40A - and 40C3(b) - > that establishes the requirement to disclose. However, > the rulings and pronouncements of many years run > counter to the suggestion that it is an infraction to convey > UI to partner when complying with the requirement to > disclose the partnership understanding. Then why not write in in the Laws ? Those pronouncements go against several items of Law. > It has been > repeatedly stated that the illegality arises when the > partner uses the UI. IBTD. One irregularity that happens at the table is a player's use of UI. Another irregularity that happens at the table is a player's creation of UI when he is conscious that he creates it (L73 B1 and others). That's the part dWSites are wary of. > The dWS argument is a wish in > the mind of a player who puts his personal rendition > of the law on a superior plane At least it is firmly in my mind. But if the authorities want to amend L73 B1 (and also perhaps L 73 A1, L73 F - old numbers) in such a way that my remark above be no mere relevant, I'd be delighted. By the same token, unless it's already been made in 2007, I'd like a rephrasing of L73B2, whose 1997 formulation seems to admit occult communication. In French : "des m?thodes de communicaztion occultes autres que celles autoris?es par les Lois", obviously implying that some occult methods, at least, are allowed. Best regards Alain From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Jan 15 13:59:39 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:59:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501c85771$bff90c70$50cb403e@Mildred> References: <478C7A25.5080301@ulb.ac.be> <001501c85771$bff90c70$50cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c85776$800dbac0$80293040$@com> [GE] However, the rulings and pronouncements of many years run counter to the suggestion that it is an infraction to convey UI to partner when complying with the requirement to disclose the partnership understanding. [DALB] Another thought has struck me. When partner has given MI, there is a requirement to disclose this fact at the end of the auction if one becomes declarer. Now, Herman may say that this is an "inconsistency" in the laws, because it involves an indication in some manner that a mistake has been made, so that L20F5 (in the 2007 code) is at variance with L75B. What it indicates to me, though, is that there is obviously a time limit on the L20F5 injunction not to indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. That time limit is usually: the end of the auction for the declaring side; the end of the hand for the defending side. But when an opponent asks for an explanation, and giving that explanation may provide unauthorised information to partner (in effect, "correcting" partner's earlier misexplanation) one can take the view that the time limit implied (but not stated) in L20F5 has expired. The same view might be taken when a player makes a call that indicates in some manner that partner's explanation was erroneous (e.g. 1C explained as Vienna, 1NT game-forcing in Vienna, pass because we are not playing Vienna). Otherwise, of course, the partner of someone who has misexplained a bid would be in an impossible position. If there is going to be an appendix to the Laws before the next revision, it should obviously include some reference to the matter. But really, the question is a simple one and ought not to have occupied everyone here for as long as it has. Since partner can't legally use your explanations, they aren't legally indications. End of story, and end of dWS. David Burn London, England From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jan 15 14:06:45 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:06:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478C7D45.4030209@skynet.be> References: <014601c85694$8aa6e0c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <001c01c8569e$8f9de3d0$a5c8403e@Mildred> <478B6DCD.2050709@skynet.be> <478B88C5.9070600@t-online.de> <478C7D45.4030209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <478CAFE5.3020500@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> >> Now this is a good one. An argument lacks a foundation because you do >> not agree with it? Not that Grattan has (IMO) made any argument, he >> stated how certain laws are to be read (being, as I mentioned a couple >> of times, member of the body that actually made those laws). But leaving >> that aside: how can agreement (or non-agreement, for that matter) with >> an argument have anything to do with its foundation? >> >> > > No Mathias, you misunderstand. Your argument, I don't even remember > which one it was, was based on the premise that the MS breaks no laws. > Since we are still discussing that one, I don't accept that as basis > for further argumentation. Hmmm. How to make you understand my position? I give it another try. Let us say that I invented a game and you want to try it out. There is a rule how playing pieces are moved. A die is used, and the piece is moved for as many squares as that die shows, but one player uses a die with the numbers 1-6, the other one with the numbers 7-12. I asume that you woud look for some redeeming feature of the game to even out chances, but find none. Now I would grant you every right to find this rule stupid and harmful to the game and discuss this with me, maybe convincing me to change that rule, but I would not grant you the right to proclaim the rule illegal, as it is me who has made the rule, and it is my game. Nobody would want to play the game in its present state, but it still is the rule. Now we can go on for hours on end about the relative merits of ways to play such a game, but as long as I do not change that rule the way to play my game remains unaltered. Now it so happens that the WBF (through its LC and DSC) make the rules, and it is their privilege to define the rules, and how they are to be read if any interpretation is necessary. They have done so. We can go on discussing whether this is the best way, but as long as they do not change their pronouncements about certain rules nothing changes. That is the basis you have (IMO) to accept. > And if that argumentation leads you to > conclude that the MS is better, It does not. I happen to be of that opinion, yes, but not because the WBF says so. The WBF makes me play the game according to certain rules, whether I agree with their notion how it should be played or not. There are certain minor points I happen not to agree with, at least not wholeheartedly, but in a text of a given complexity that is to be expected. sooner or later. There are even some points where I am not completely sure how they want me to play it, but I will find out. > then I don't accept the validity of > that argument, since I don't accept the basis. See above. Whether I accept a law my government lays down or not is completely irrelevant, it still is the law. I may agree with it or not, but that does not change that law. I am free to point out any problems I see, but as long as they do not change it.... There are certain persons or groups who disagree with the concept of personal property, for example highwaymen, bank robbers, confidence tricksters of all sorts, and probably a lot more. The fact that they disagree with that concept does not change the basic premises of our culture, does it? > I am quite willing to > continue to discuss the basis, but I am not willing to accept your > argument here. it is circular reasoning: > "since the MS is right, it follows that the DWS is wrong". Sorry, but > I cannot accept that as a valid argumentation. > But that is not my reasoning at all, and never was. The MS is not "right" or "wrong". It is in accordance with the laws. That does not make it "right". Certain laws under the Nazi regime in Germany were certainly not something I would call "right", but it still was the law. No, I do not advocate to accept any law in real life without question, but since Bridge is not a matter of life and death ( I know some players would disagree....) there is no justification for willingly disregarding the laws of the game. Discuss them, by all means, try to get them changed if you think something is wrong, but until then we have to abide by those rules. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Jan 15 14:13:59 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:13:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001201c856b9$f99acf30$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478B7B4E.6090602@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <042501c85778$7de17a00$0100a8c0@stefanie> AG: "I believe this is true" would be, but Herman didn't say "I believe it's true", rather "I believe it's acceptable", which can't be handled by classical logic. It vould need what Dubucq and others call "epistemic logic". SR: I do not know why you are comparing the adjectives "true" and "acceptable". Unless I have missed something, "true" was introduced only as an example. A similar statement would be "Since I believe grass is red, it must be red." AG: Once again, since I'm taking "acceptable" as meaning, not "true", but "worth serious consideration", it creates its own "considerability". But I'd need a Sociologist to cross those t's. I'm only a mathematician. SR: Again, I think you have missed Sven's point. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 15 15:05:10 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:05:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478CAAB7.6090903@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000c01c8577f$a4efa110$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner .................... > By the same token, unless it's already been made in 2007, I'd like a > rephrasing of L73B2, whose 1997 formulation seems to admit occult > communication. > In French : "des m?thodes de communicaztion occultes autres que celles > autoris?es par les Lois", obviously implying that some occult methods, > at least, are allowed. If that is so then the French translation seems incorrect. The 1997 law 73B2 reads: "The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion." The word "occultes" should not have been there in the French text if it means what I believe it means. Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 15 15:10:49 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:10:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. In-Reply-To: <478C1DBB.9010007@nhcc.net> References: <200801111849.m0BIngRq001779@cfa.harvard.edu> <478C1DBB.9010007@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <478CBEE9.1060402@ntlworld.com> [ACBL] 12C1(e)(ii) is to be interpreted such that the words "had the irregularity not occurred" are inserted between "probable" and the period ending the sentence. [Adam Wildavsky] Years ago I asked here for an example case where the differing interpretations would result in different rulings. [Steve Willner] I'm sure there was a reply at the time. Here's a simple example: NS use hesitation Blackwood to bid slam, which should go down. However, EW through an "irrational, wild, or gambling" defense let the slam make. In most jurisdictions, EW get -980 because they weren't damaged by the UI use but by their own play. (I think a few jurisdictions give them -480, but I'm not sure of that.) In most of the world, NS get -50, the worst "at all probable" score _with or without_ the infraction. With the above ACBL election, they will get +450, the worst "at all probable" result _without_ the infraction. Reasonable people can, of course, disagree on what the appropriate results ought to be. The point of interest is the difference between the ACBL and practice elsewhere. The ability to give weighted scores isn't relevant to this issue, though it's another difference between ACBL and international practice. [nige1] Thank you Steve, for illustrating the effect of this change. In the light of Steve's explanation, it seems retrograde to insert "had the irregularity not occurred". I doubt that the ACBL realised the implication of their decision. I hope they will extirpate the offending phrase. The ACBL are to be applauded, however, for their decision to opt out of the "weighted scores". I wish we could all be spared that unnecessary sophistication. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 15 15:13:40 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:13:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <042501c85778$7de17a00$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000d01c85780$d48426c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > Sent: 15. januar 2008 14:14 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in > lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > AG: > > "I believe this is true" would be, but Herman didn't say "I believe it's > true", rather "I believe it's acceptable", which can't be handled by > classical logic. It vould need what Dubucq and others call "epistemic > logic". > > SR: > > I do not know why you are comparing the adjectives "true" and > "acceptable". > Unless I have missed something, "true" was introduced only as an example. > A > similar statement would be "Since I believe grass is red, it must be red." > > AG: > > Once again, since I'm taking "acceptable" as meaning, not "true", but > "worth serious consideration", it creates its own "considerability". But > I'd need a Sociologist to cross those t's. > I'm only a mathematician. > > SR: > > Again, I think you have missed Sven's point. Absolutey (not only) he has. And I am astonished over the difficulty some people seem to have that it is not the word "acceptable" that is either "true" or "false", but the clause "action is acceptable" that logically is either "true" or "false". Any statement: "Since I believe that the action is acceptable, it must be acceptable" is logically ridiculous. As Stefanie remarked this is logically exactly the same as the statement: "Since I believe grass is red, it must be red." Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 15 15:18:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:18:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c85776$800dbac0$80293040$@com> References: <478C7A25.5080301@ulb.ac.be> <001501c85771$bff90c70$50cb403e@Mildred> <000001c85776$800dbac0$80293040$@com> Message-ID: <478CC0C8.6060205@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [when an opponent asks for an explanation, and giving that explanation > may provide unauthorised information to partner (in effect, "correcting" > partner's earlier misexplanation) one can take the view that the time limit > implied (but not stated) in L20F5 has expired. The same view might be taken > when a player makes a call that indicates in some manner that partner's > explanation was erroneous (e.g. 1C explained as Vienna, 1NT game-forcing in > Vienna, pass because we are not playing Vienna). Otherwise, of course, the > partner of someone who has misexplained a bid would be in an impossible > position. > > If there is going to be an appendix to the Laws before the next revision, it > should obviously include some reference to the matter. This would indeed solve the problem. > But really, the > question is a simple one and ought not to have occupied everyone here for as > long as it has. Since partner can't legally use your explanations, they > aren't legally indications. End of story, and end of dWS. > Sorry, I can't agree with that. No UI item whatsoever may be used (that's what the U in UI means). Are you ready to state that, because partner can't legally use them, they're no indications ? In this case, why bother with UI ? Regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 15 15:30:15 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:30:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01c8577f$a4efa110$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000c01c8577f$a4efa110$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <478CC377.6020504@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > > The word "occultes" should not have been there in the French text if it > means what I believe it means. > My dictionary gives "clandestine / secret / covert" as a translation. I suppose it passes the feeling on. I'll check the 2007 French version as soon as I see it. But of course nobody ever took this strange wording as an argument to pretend cheating is allowed. You can, however, see my point : it is essential that the wording of the laws be carefully designed, and the fault, in case of interpretation discrepancies, is largely the writers' (yes, I know, only those who don't act don't err ; but my feeling is that the risk of wrong interpretation or translation has been given too littre consideration) Best regards Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jan 15 15:39:00 2008 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:39 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. In-Reply-To: <478C1DBB.9010007@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve wrote: > I'm sure there was a reply at the time. Here's a simple example: > NS use hesitation Blackwood to bid slam, which should go down. > However, EW through an "irrational, wild, or gambling" defense let > the slam make. > > In most jurisdictions, EW get -980 because they weren't damaged by > the UI use but by their own play. In most cases where a side gets to a non-making slam like this those who have interpreted the hesitation as showing extras have turned out to be wrong. The hesitation being solely due to the player trying to work out what the response means. Result stands in such cases. >(I think a few jurisdictions give them -480, but I'm not sure of > that.) Were I to judge that a hesitation *did* show extras I would rule +480 if I also also judged the the misdefence was unrelated to the infraction. > In most of the world, NS get -50, the worst "at all probable" score > _with or without_ the infraction. Not in my little corner thereof. I have always believed that the 1997 laws "at all probable" logically referenced the same "had the infraction not occurred" as did the "likely". AFAIK the WBFLC never contradicted that interpretation. > With the above ACBL election, they will get +450, the > worst "at all probable" result _without_ the infraction. Only if one considers it "at all probable" that the misdefence would not have occurred. On average people defend slams *more* carefully than they do 5-level contracts so I'd need some convincing. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 15 15:52:18 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:52:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? In-Reply-To: <478C7A81.4090301@skynet.be> References: <000101c855fa$e0579400$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478A4B59.9090401@skynet.be> <9AE806D2-784D-4B56-85B6-1F585A01FB1B@starpower.net> <478C7A81.4090301@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4035E054-C7E5-42C4-B4EB-11B2D91C10EB@starpower.net> On Jan 15, 2008, at 4:18 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> But which hand? In Herman's favorite example, where he bids 4NT >> asking for a minor-suit preference and pard describes his call as >> Blackwood, his DWS explanation will indeed fit his partner's hand >> perfectly. But it will simultaneouly completely misdescribe his >> *own* hand to the opponents, as one suitable for bidding Blackwood >> when in fact it is no such thing. > > But that is not my MI, that is partner's! it has been given, and L20F5 > explicitely forbids me from correcting that MI! > We are talking about the second MI. You guys want to say "diamond > preference", because that is "true" in the systemic sense of the word. > But it is a complete misdescription of partner's hand! Say what? Herman's partner inadvertantly provides an incorrect explanation, and Herman, knowing it is incorrect, confirms it. His partner has made a mistake, but he has deliberately lied to prevent that mistake from being revealed. And that's OK because the MI was his partner's fault in the first place? >> In this case, the non-DWS >> explanation would, indeed, let the opponents know that there is a >> bidding misunderstanding in progress, but will give them correct >> information about both hands. > > But L20F5 explicitely forbids this! That assertion depends on Herman's argument that "nor may he indicate in any manner" means any manner whatsoever, absolutely. Yet Herman is fully aware of his obligation to continue the auction in accordance with his actual methods. But this may well require him, having just lied to avoid revealing the MI, to make an "impossible" call which will make the situation manifest to everyone at the table. But if "in any manner" is truly absolute, then "L20F5 explicitly forbids" him from making his systemically dictated call. One can hardly argue that "in any manner" applies to legally mandated explanations perforce, but somehow doesn't apply to discretionary bids. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 15 16:09:56 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:09:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] Write or speak In-Reply-To: <001601c8572c$230a6340$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <478BD421.5020404@nhcc.net> <001601c8572c$230a6340$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <478CCCC4.90806@ntlworld.com> [Hirsch Davis from another thread] It's not necessary that everyone write down their explanations. I have no intention of doing so, since I think the reasoning behind dWs is specious at best. But I have no intention of lying to my opponents either, in any situation. [Nige1] I like one aspect of Hirsch's idea. A common problem with *spoken* announcements and explanations is that the neighbouring tables can overhear them. This is even worse if a player at your table is a bit deaf. It would be better if the system card were laid out to facilitate *announcements*. Initially then, you would just *point* to the relevant announcement on your card. Only if your opponent had poor eye-sight, would you revert to the spoken word. Another advantage of such "written" explanations is that it would encourage players to complete their system cards, legibly; especially if directors became keener on policing conformance with relevant regulations. The obvious downside of this suggestion is that it would allow you to look at your own card. Is this really so bad? On reflection, I suppose it could be :( As to Hirschs' claim that DWS would force him to lie: Hirsch and his partner may be certain of their agreements. Many, like me, however, are certain of almost nothing. Our alternatives are not "lying" and "telling the truth". Our alternatives are "guessing" and saying "no agreement". Herman and I both suggest that if you aren't sure you should guess. We differ in two respects. Herman thinks you should guess "what partner thinks your agreement is" whereas I think you should guess "your actual agreement". Herman's protocol simply implies that he trusts his partner's memory as much as his own. Is that so unreasonable? Also, Herman believes that his protocol is legal whereas I confess that mine is unlikely to be. (I'm primarily interested in law-reform not current law but I conform to current law until it changes). From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Tue Jan 15 16:15:54 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:15:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D0939CB@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> >[snip] > Certain laws under the Nazi regime in Germany were > certainly not something I would call "right", but it still was the law. >[snip] At last: Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) - can we stop now? Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 15 16:39:22 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:39:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Write or speak In-Reply-To: <478CCCC4.90806@ntlworld.com> References: <478BD421.5020404@nhcc.net> <001601c8572c$230a6340$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <478CCCC4.90806@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <478CD3AA.3050500@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > > Hirsch and his partner may be certain of their agreements. Many, like > me, however, are certain of almost nothing. Our alternatives are not > "lying" and "telling the truth". Our alternatives are "guessing" and > saying "no agreement". > > Herman and I both suggest that if you aren't sure you should guess. We > differ in two respects. > > Herman thinks you should guess "what partner thinks your agreement is" > whereas I think you should guess "your actual agreement". Herman's > protocol simply implies that he trusts his partner's memory as much as > his own. Is that so unreasonable? > Now I know why I'm a dWS partisan. My partner is some unlikely crossbreed between an elephant and a porpoise ;-) > Also, Herman believes that his protocol is legal whereas I confess > that mine is unlikely to be. (I'm primarily interested in law-reform > not current law but I conform to current law until it changes). > > > So am I and so do I. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 15 16:43:13 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:43:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D0939CB@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D0939CB@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <478CD491.2000604@ulb.ac.be> Robin Barker a ?crit : >> [snip] >> Certain laws under the Nazi regime in Germany were >> certainly not something I would call "right", but it still was the law. >> [snip] >> > > At last: Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) - can we stop now? > > Indeed. And please notice that many persons were -justly- prosecuted for obeying those laws, so the argument is weak. From francis.wolff at estvideo.fr Tue Jan 15 17:05:36 2008 From: francis.wolff at estvideo.fr (Francis WOLFF) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:05:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01c8577f$a4efa110$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <478CAAB7.6090903@ulb.ac.be> <000c01c8577f$a4efa110$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <001601c85790$770f7cf0$0201a8c0@pcg33wxp> I hardly ever post on BLML but today I feel I have to underline that the French (wrong) translation of law 73B2 ("des m?thodes de communication occultes autres que celles autoris?es par les Lois"), published in 1997 - or 98, was corrected - and republished - in 2003 and now reads: "La plus grave faute possible est, pour une paire, d'?changer des informations ? l'aide de moyens de communication convenus pr?alablement et non autoris?s par ce Code. Une paire coupable de cette infraction risque l'expulsion." Regards Francis WOLFF -----Message d'origine----- De?: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] De la part de Sven Pran Envoy??: mardi 15 janvier 2008 15:05 ??: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Objet?: Re: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner .................... > By the same token, unless it's already been made in 2007, I'd like a > rephrasing of L73B2, whose 1997 formulation seems to admit occult > communication. > In French : "des m?thodes de communicaztion occultes autres que celles > autoris?es par les Lois", obviously implying that some occult methods, > at least, are allowed. If that is so then the French translation seems incorrect. The 1997 law 73B2 reads: "The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion." The word "occultes" should not have been there in the French text if it means what I believe it means. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Jan 15 17:07:56 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:07:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <000001c854ae$ad4c98a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4788A02D.2010205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <056d01c85790$cb083900$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Suppose the following situation arises: > > After your partner's misexplanation, you have 2 calls available for > you. Neither of them is particularly suggested by the UI (directly), > but one of them clearly reveals the misunderstanding, while the other > keeps it hidden. It is my belief that L16 (and maybe L20F5) forbid you > now to make the "clear" bid, since this bid is "suggested" in some way > by the UI. Hmmm...actively hiding the fact that there has been a misunderstanding. I think this goes far beyond a mistaken interpretation of the laws. > > Of course, when after all L16 obligations only one bid remains, and > that bid is an indication that a mistake has happened, something has > to give. I believe that your L16 obligations are stronger than the > obligation you have of not giving UI to partner. There is no obligation at all to avoid giving UI to partner. It is not against the laws of bridge. It is the use of UI that is illegal. As in the example given above. > From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Jan 15 17:10:29 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:10:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be> <005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A478D.4040402@skynet.be> <005d01c8564f$8950fb10$50cb403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801131823k3c9f2c16vb710973b01b464b@mail.gmail.com><001001c856c2$658442f0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478B835C.30108@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <057301c85791$261d7bc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> AG : granted, but improving the laws is part of improving the game, and pointing at deficient laws until the problems they cause are solved, insisting when needed, is the best way to help improve them. and being subject for several interpretations is a deficiency in itself. Surely nobody would disagree that we disagree ? SR: Unfortunately, Herman argues that the dWS is, in fact, lawful under the current laws. This is really what the problem is. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 15 17:40:59 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:40:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? In-Reply-To: <4035E054-C7E5-42C4-B4EB-11B2D91C10EB@starpower.net> References: <000101c855fa$e0579400$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478A4B59.9090401@skynet.be> <9AE806D2-784D-4B56-85B6-1F585A01FB1B@starpower.net> <478C7A81.4090301@skynet.be> <4035E054-C7E5-42C4-B4EB-11B2D91C10EB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <478CE21B.9060904@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 15, 2008, at 4:18 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> But which hand? In Herman's favorite example, where he bids 4NT >>> asking for a minor-suit preference and pard describes his call as >>> Blackwood, his DWS explanation will indeed fit his partner's hand >>> perfectly. But it will simultaneouly completely misdescribe his >>> *own* hand to the opponents, as one suitable for bidding Blackwood >>> when in fact it is no such thing. >> But that is not my MI, that is partner's! it has been given, and L20F5 >> explicitely forbids me from correcting that MI! >> We are talking about the second MI. You guys want to say "diamond >> preference", because that is "true" in the systemic sense of the word. >> But it is a complete misdescription of partner's hand! > > Say what? Herman's partner inadvertantly provides an incorrect > explanation, and Herman, knowing it is incorrect, confirms it. His > partner has made a mistake, but he has deliberately lied to prevent > that mistake from being revealed. And that's OK because the MI was > his partner's fault in the first place? > Say What? Eric's partner inadvertantly provides an incorrect explanation, and Eric, knowing it is incorrect, corrects it. His partner has made a mistake, and Eric has deliberately broken L20F5 to reveal that. And that's OK because the opponent has asked an innocent question? Sorry Eric, but as long as you keep hammering on my supposed illegalities, I shall keep hammering on yours. The laws really do say that you are not allowed to correct partner's mistake. In any manner. And yet you do, and you think that this is OK. I really wonder what you do, as TD, when called at a table where the following has just happened. "4NT" - "what's that?" - "Blackwood" - "no partner, minors!" -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 15 17:42:33 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:42:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01c85780$d48426c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000d01c85780$d48426c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <478CE279.80102@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > > Any statement: "Since I believe that the action is acceptable, it must be > acceptable" is logically ridiculous. > Which is not what I wrote - at least not until you cut off the last part of my sentence. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 15 17:50:23 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:50:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c85776$800dbac0$80293040$@com> References: <478C7A25.5080301@ulb.ac.be> <001501c85771$bff90c70$50cb403e@Mildred> <000001c85776$800dbac0$80293040$@com> Message-ID: <478CE44F.5040500@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [GE] > > However, the rulings and pronouncements of many years run counter to the > suggestion that it is an infraction to convey UI to partner when complying > with the requirement to disclose the partnership understanding. > > [DALB] > > Another thought has struck me. When partner has given MI, there is a > requirement to disclose this fact at the end of the auction if one becomes > declarer. Now, Herman may say that this is an "inconsistency" in the laws, > because it involves an indication in some manner that a mistake has been > made, so that L20F5 (in the 2007 code) is at variance with L75B. What it > indicates to me, though, is that there is obviously a time limit on the > L20F5 injunction not to indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. > That time limit is usually: the end of the auction for the declaring side; > the end of the hand for the defending side. > I believe the 2007L20F5 has a time limit, something the 1997L75D3 did not have. > But when an opponent asks for an explanation, and giving that explanation > may provide unauthorised information to partner (in effect, "correcting" > partner's earlier misexplanation) one can take the view that the time limit > implied (but not stated) in L20F5 has expired. The same view might be taken > when a player makes a call that indicates in some manner that partner's > explanation was erroneous (e.g. 1C explained as Vienna, 1NT game-forcing in > Vienna, pass because we are not playing Vienna). Otherwise, of course, the > partner of someone who has misexplained a bid would be in an impossible > position. > David, in a corner, now invents a totally new argument. The words "during the auction" are to be interpreted as "during the auction or until an opponent asks a question about partner's bidding". Very clever argument, David. Do I really need to refute it? Really, everyone, and Grattan, what is so terribly difficult in reading L20F5? "In any manner" means "not at all", "not under any circumstances". I have no problem with that reading - why do you have it? I have no problem with the inconsistency that this causes. I have no problem with David acting in a different manner than what I do. Why are you guys so hell-bent in believing the laws are consistent? Why do you insist that they must be? Just accept that there is more than one way that is acceptable. That's all that I am doing. I would really like to stop the circular part of the discussion here. There is nothing anyone is going to say that will convince the other camp. Rather, I would like you guys to focus on something different. Regardless of what you think about it, I shall continue to act under the DWS school. I will be perfectly honest, explain everything to the table and the TD when the bidding (or play) is over. Please tell me what your rulings are going to be. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Jan 15 18:07:44 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:07:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478CE44F.5040500@skynet.be> References: <478C7A25.5080301@ulb.ac.be> <001501c85771$bff90c70$50cb403e@Mildred> <000001c85776$800dbac0$80293040$@com> <478CE44F.5040500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c85799$271576b0$75406410$@com> [HdW] David, in a corner, now invents a totally new argument. The words "during the auction" are to be interpreted as "during the auction or until an opponent asks a question about partner's bidding". Very clever argument, David. Do I really need to refute it? [HdW] Yes, Herman, you do. Or at least, you need to refute the argument that making a call revealing partner's misunderstanding is not also illegal under L20F5. But what you actually need to do is stop all this nonsense. Even if the Laws *are* inconsistent, so what? You have been told by the people who make the Laws which one you are to break, if that is how you see the matter. That is what you (and everybody else) should do. David Burn London, England From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Jan 15 18:26:25 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:26:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01c8577f$a4efa110$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000c01c8577f$a4efa110$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <478CECC1.6020208@meteo.fr> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > .................... >> By the same token, unless it's already been made in 2007, I'd like a >> rephrasing of L73B2, whose 1997 formulation seems to admit occult >> communication. >> In French : "des m?thodes de communicaztion occultes autres que celles >> autoris?es par les Lois", obviously implying that some occult methods, >> at least, are allowed. > > If that is so then the French translation seems incorrect. The 1997 law 73B2 > reads: > > "The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information > through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by > these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion." > > The word "occultes" should not have been there in the French text if it > means what I believe it means. occulte is the equivalent of concealed in CPU. i agree the construction of the sentence is unfortunate and i hope nobody read it so litteraly as to think some cpu could be acceptable. jpr > > Regards Sven > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 15 20:22:19 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:22:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478CAFE5.3020500@t-online.de> References: <014601c85694$8aa6e0c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <001c01c8569e$8f9de3d0$a5c8403e@Mildred> <478B6DCD.2050709@skynet.be> <478B88C5.9070600@t-online.de> <478C7D45.4030209@skynet.be> <478CAFE5.3020500@t-online.de> Message-ID: <1DB1A2F8-C3A5-4F68-BB30-F15F30954D51@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 15, 2008, at 8:06 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Now I would grant you every right to find this rule > stupid and harmful to the game and discuss this with me, maybe > convincing me to change that rule, but I would not grant you the right > to proclaim the rule illegal, as it is me who has made the rule, > and it > is my game. "It's that way because I say so. Now shut up." - E. Gary Gygax, in response to many questions about why the magic system in "Dungeons and Dragons" worked the way it did. :-) From mustikka at charter.net Tue Jan 15 21:25:16 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:25:16 -0800 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net><000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> <000901c856d1$6947dcd0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478C7856.5090800@skynet.be><000901c8575b$4e04ff90$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478CA57F.9070801@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003201c857b4$bdc40890$62025e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > raija wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 1:09 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion >> >> >>> raija wrote: >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Eric Landau" >>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:08 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 13, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hirsch Davis wrote: >>>>>>> I'll reiterate the proposition I've been asking Herman about. If >>>>>>> N-S write >>>>>>> out their explanations and show them only to opponents, instead of >>>>>>> giving >>>>>>> them orally, there is no UI at all, and neither player is >>>>>>> constrained by E-W >>>>>>> questions. Simple procedure, actually, and any pair can do it >>>>>>> right now. >>>>>>> IMO anyone who would consider violating the disclosure Laws should >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> considering alternatives to dWs that would address UI issues without >>>>>>> violating any Laws at all. Full and complete disclosure does not >>>>>>> have to be >>>>>>> spoken. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Hirsh, asked and answered twice already - if you want to change the >>>>>> conditions, there is no need to invent a third form, just use >>>>>> screens. >>>>>> Meanwhile, lots of bridge will be left being played without screens >>>>>> (or without your notepads) and it is for those tables that the >>>>>> question remains. >>>>> As Herman says, one way to end the dispute over the DWS would be to >>>>> play all duplicate bridge with screens. That would eliminate the >>>>> justification for the DWS practice, as one could answer questions as >>>>> prescribed by L75 with no risk of passing UI to partner. Indeed, DWS >>>>> users do not, Herman assures us, "do their thing" when playing with >>>>> screens. >>>>> >>>>> But that means that in otherwise identical situations (hand, auction, >>>>> table action, etc.) the DWS adherent may offer two entirely different >>>>> explanations of his partner's call depending solely on whether or not >>>>> there is a screen across the table. In contrast, there are numerous >>>>> other contexts in which we determine the correctness of a player's >>>>> actions at an unscreened table by asking what would happen were >>>>> screens in use. I suspect this is one of the reasons the DWS "just >>>>> doesn't feel right" to so many of us. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Eric Landau >>>>> 1107 Dale Drive >>>>> Silver Spring MD 20910 >>>>> ehaa at starpower.net >>>> The reason for me why DWS "cannot" be right is that it forces me to lie >>>> when >>>> opponents ask what our agreement is. >>>> >> Herman wrote: >>> Only because you believe it is lying when you say "3 aces" when >>> partner actually has 3 aces, and has said nothing about diamonds. >> >> >> This is not a matter of (my) belief, it is a matter of facts. >> If "3 aces" is not the agreement, then it is a lie to answer "3 aces" >> when >> opponent asks "What is your agreement". >> > > True, but on the other hand, it is not lying when that opponents asks > "what does he have?" (as they often do). AFAIK, it does not matter how the question is phrased, although it would be nice if it were phrased better but an answer to "What does he have" could also be "I don't know, I haven't seen his hand" [flippant, I agree, and I wouldn't recommend this - not that I am in position to recommend anything...] or "Our agreement is this". Any indication that opponent wants to know about our bid is a request that we inform them what our agreement is. In my book, not telling what the agreement is, is concealment of partnership agreement. In your book the following is also not lying when mom asks "did you take the two pieces of candy from the sweets box, it is empty now" and I say "no I didn't", knowing full well that I took one piece and also knowing my brother took the other... Question truthfully answered...eh Raija From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 15 22:22:22 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:22:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478CC377.6020504@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c857bc$b7d2c1d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > > The word "occultes" should not have been there in the French text if it > > means what I believe it means. > > > > My dictionary gives "clandestine / secret / covert" as a translation. I > suppose it passes the feeling on. So I assumed, and will you please observe that Law 73B2 (English text) contains absolutely no word limiting the type of "communication", but only states that all prearranged methods of communication must be sanctioned by the laws. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 15 22:27:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:27:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <478CE44F.5040500@skynet.be> References: <478C7A25.5080301@ulb.ac.be> <001501c85771$bff90c70$50cb403e@Mildred> <000001c85776$800dbac0$80293040$@com> <478CE44F.5040500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <26A27D8E-C978-42AA-A1A5-CED31EE47EF4@starpower.net> On Jan 15, 2008, at 11:50 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Really, everyone, and Grattan, what is so terribly difficult in > reading L20F5? "In any manner" means "not at all", "not under any > circumstances". I have no problem with that reading - why do you have > it? I have a problem with an interpretation that would make illegal not only revealing disclosure, but also revealing bids, doubles, redoubles and passes. If "in any manner" is so totally absolute as to encompass one's explicitly mandated explanations, how can it not also encompass one's calls? If I am justified in refusing to give UI by my explanations of my methods, must I not, for consistency, refuse to give the identical UI through my choice of calls? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 15 22:33:07 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:33:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478CE279.80102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c857be$382cc500$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > Any statement: "Since I believe that the action is acceptable, > > it must be acceptable" is logically ridiculous. > > > > Which is not what I wrote - at least not until you cut off the last > part of my sentence. No, you wrote: "Since I believe my actions are acceptable, they must be acceptable regardless of whether they are better for my side or not." And will you please explain how the continuing clause "regardless of whether they are better for my side or not" makes the primary statement less ridiculous? (And if you care to look back you will see that I did not cut off that clause, but simply inserted my comment at the place where it would best focus on that part of your statement to which it referred.) Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 15 22:35:06 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:35:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001601c85790$770f7cf0$0201a8c0@pcg33wxp> Message-ID: <000201c857be$7fa60a90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Francis WOLFF > I hardly ever post on BLML but today I feel I have to underline that the > French (wrong) translation of law 73B2 ("des m?thodes de communication > occultes autres que celles autoris?es par les Lois"), published in 1997 - > or > 98, was corrected - and republished - in 2003 and now reads: > > "La plus grave faute possible est, pour une paire, d'?changer des > informations ? l'aide de moyens de communication convenus pr?alablement et > non autoris?s par ce Code. Une paire coupable de cette infraction risque > l'expulsion." > > Regards > Francis WOLFF Indeed looks much better! Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 15 23:09:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:09:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478CE44F.5040500@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >Regardless of what you think about it, I shall continue >to act under the DWS school. I will be perfectly honest, >explain everything to the table and the TD when the >bidding (or play) is over. > >Please tell me what your rulings are going to be. 2007 Law 81C2: The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder. Richard Hills: If I was the hypothetical Director of a hypothetical session in which Herman De Wael was a hypothetical player no hypothetical ruling would be necessary. Instead I would make an announcement at the start of the session, pursuant to my directorial powers under the 2007 Law 81C2, that all players must obey the Majority School and abhor the De Wael School. Since Herman De Wael has repeatedly stated in the past that he would obey an official pronouncement contrary to the De Wael School, therefore for this hypothetical session Herman's allegiance to the De Wael School would have to be temporarily suspended. 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 hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue Jan 15 23:36:30 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:36:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? References: <000101c855fa$e0579400$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><478A4B59.9090401@skynet.be><9AE806D2-784D-4B56-85B6-1F585A01FB1B@starpower.net><478C7A81.4090301@skynet.be><4035E054-C7E5-42C4-B4EB-11B2D91C10EB@starpower.net> <478CE21B.9060904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004a01c857c7$13128b70$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Jan 15, 2008, at 4:18 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>> But which hand? In Herman's favorite example, where he bids 4NT >>>> asking for a minor-suit preference and pard describes his call as >>>> Blackwood, his DWS explanation will indeed fit his partner's hand >>>> perfectly. But it will simultaneouly completely misdescribe his >>>> *own* hand to the opponents, as one suitable for bidding Blackwood >>>> when in fact it is no such thing. >>> But that is not my MI, that is partner's! it has been given, and L20F5 >>> explicitely forbids me from correcting that MI! >>> We are talking about the second MI. You guys want to say "diamond >>> preference", because that is "true" in the systemic sense of the word. >>> But it is a complete misdescription of partner's hand! >> >> Say what? Herman's partner inadvertantly provides an incorrect >> explanation, and Herman, knowing it is incorrect, confirms it. His >> partner has made a mistake, but he has deliberately lied to prevent >> that mistake from being revealed. And that's OK because the MI was >> his partner's fault in the first place? >> > > Say What? > > Eric's partner inadvertantly provides an incorrect explanation, and > Eric, knowing it is incorrect, corrects it. His partner has made a > mistake, and Eric has deliberately broken L20F5 to reveal that. And > that's OK because the opponent has asked an innocent question? > > Sorry Eric, but as long as you keep hammering on my supposed > illegalities, I shall keep hammering on yours. The laws really do say > that you are not allowed to correct partner's mistake. In any manner. > And yet you do, and you think that this is OK. I really wonder what > you do, as TD, when called at a table where the following has just > happened. > "4NT" - "what's that?" - "Blackwood" - "no partner, minors!" > No Herman. Eric is not breaking any Law by correctly answering with the system agreement. He is not correcting his partner. He is simply correctly answering the opponents. In fact, his partner is now barred by the UI from recovering and remembering the correct system. Eric is simply doing what the Laws say he must do. And, as I've indicated in another post, The Introduction to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge indicate that a "must" imperative under the Laws is the strongest imperative used, even stronger than the "may not" that you like to hide behind. When you give your MI, L20F4 says that you must immediately call the TD when you realize that you have done so. Do you disregard this Law also? Hirsch From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue Jan 15 23:42:57 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:42:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion References: <017901c851e4$1465fa40$451a1d53@k247d1879834a4><33CFA7BF-1704-4421-B1C7-FDF90E440F4D@starpower.net><47849718.8080507@skynet.be><4784C921.7040005@t-online.de><4784E3EF.3050709@skynet.be><47854433.4080406@t-online.de> <4785EF1A.3070705@skynet.be><004601c853e5$68994330$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <47872805.5070603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005f01c857c7$f9d5dcb0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 3:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > >> Since you've just been shown how to actually stay within all of the Laws >> without giving UI, why persist with dWs? >> > > Because I have not been shown! > >> Hirsch >> "There are none so blind as those who will not see." --Anonymous, believed to be of biblical origin Hirsch From jeffford at gmail.com Tue Jan 15 23:53:29 2008 From: jeffford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:53:29 -0800 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c857be$382cc500$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <478CE279.80102@skynet.be> <000101c857be$382cc500$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <9dcd40e70801151453v3daa7acci44c64b9b96be6099@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 15, 2008 1:33 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > > > > Any statement: "Since I believe that the action is acceptable, > > > it must be acceptable" is logically ridiculous. > > > > > > > Which is not what I wrote - at least not until you cut off the last > > part of my sentence. > > No, you wrote: > > "Since I believe my actions are acceptable, they must be acceptable > regardless of whether they are better for my side or not." > > And will you please explain how the continuing clause "regardless of whether > they are better for my side or not" makes the primary statement less > ridiculous? I think you're reading a "primary statement" that isn't there. The statement that is there is that if you believe an action is acceptable, then you believe it is acceptable regardless of whether it is better or worse for you. Jeff -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 16 00:02:36 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:02:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478B1E4E.20102@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [big snip] >Imagine you make a call, thinking you are playing system A. your >partner explains it as system B. You are in the situation first >described above where you are 55% certain A is the true system, >and 45% certain that it's B. Now what do you do? [snip] >Now you might say that the law (or some future regulation) >instructs him to follow the MS, and to explain system A. So he >does. [big snip] Richard Hills: This is a "straw man" argument. The Majority School (MS) and the Laws require the correct explanation to be given, not necessarily the explanation which has a 55% chance of being correct. So any hypothetical regulation which mandated a probably correct explanation would be illegal. 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 Wed Jan 16 00:08:21 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:08:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478CE44F.5040500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301c857cb$8689e220$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................ > Regardless of what you think about it, I shall continue to act under > the DWS school. I will be perfectly honest, explain everything to the > table and the TD when the bidding (or play) is over. > Please tell me what your rulings are going to be. Having noticed this warning from you I shall issue an instruction under Law 81C2 before the first session begins that as I consider DWS illegal I specifically forbid its use and inform all contestants that if this instruction is disobeyed there will in addition to any rectification be imposed a procedural penalty under Law 90B8. The size of this penalty will be 1 VP or 50% of a single board top score (as applicable) for the first offence, to be doubled for each repeated offence by the same contestant. And I am not kidding. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 16 00:37:20 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:37:20 +1100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478B8D17.4030703@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >(In Belgium, we don't alert doubles and redoubles without screens, but >revert to "alert when unexpected" with screens) Richard Hills: Likewise in Australia. Alain Gottcheiner: >Not alerting any doubles doesn't feel right either. It allows players >to devise strange doubles in basic situations, for the sake of duping >opponents rather than because they think it's an efficient convention. Richard Hills: This problem has been solved Down Under by use of Pre-Alerts. For example, my partner and I use strange penalty doubles in basic situations where everyone else uses normal negative doubles. Therefore we Pre-Alert our penalty doubles (which did not stop one overconfident junior international going for -1400 against our partscore). 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 Jan 16 01:07:42 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:07:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c85700$085da330$62025e47@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Raija: >Somehow the various laws should be reconciled with >each other into something where I don't have to give >a deliberate falsehood in response to an opponent's >question "What is your agreement?" I have not yet >seen a solution to that problem by DWS proponents. >I still think that any solution that involves >telling a lie to the opponents must, by default, be >wrong. Richard Hills: Yes, Steve Willner has given scintillating arguments in favour of the De Wael School, more cleverly argued than those of Herman De Wael himself. But, in my opinion, Steve is in an Ivory Tower. He has ignored the psychological effect that adoption of the De Wael School would have on the thousands of ordinary bridge players across the world. The beneficial effects of the Active Ethics campaign of the 1990s would be reversed, as little old ladies would be told, "It's okay to lie about your partnership agreements". And, of course, some principled players would object to being required to lie in the first place. If DWS was adopted, perhaps Raija and I would abandon "Duplicate De Wael Bridge" for other games. 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 Wed Jan 16 01:14:52 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:14:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9dcd40e70801151453v3daa7acci44c64b9b96be6099@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000401c857d4$d0f4da50$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jeff Ford > > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > Any statement: "Since I believe that the action is acceptable, > > > > it must be acceptable" is logically ridiculous. > > > > > > Which is not what I wrote - at least not until you cut off the last > > > part of my sentence. > > > > No, you wrote: > > > > "Since I believe my actions are acceptable, they must be acceptable > > regardless of whether they are better for my side or not." > > > > And will you please explain how the continuing clause "regardless of > > whether they are better for my side or not" makes the primary > > statement less ridiculous? > > I think you're reading a "primary statement" that isn't there. The > statement that is there is that if you believe an action is > acceptable, then you believe it is acceptable regardless of whether it > is better or worse for you. > > Jeff With my very best forthcoming attempt I still cannot understand Herman's statement other than to say that since he believes his actions are acceptable, they must be acceptable. The rest of his statement simply says that this must be the case regardless of whether that allegation is for better or for worse for his side? Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 16 01:50:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:50:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004a01c857c7$13128b70$2801a8c0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Hirsch Davis: [snip] >When you give your MI, L20F4 says that you must immediately call the TD >when you realize that you have done so. Do you disregard this Law also? 2007 Law 20F4: If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4. 1997 Law 75D1: If a player subsequently realises that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must immediately call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or Law 40C). Richard Hills: When the 1997 Law 75D1 was discussed on blml as perhaps a refutation of the De Wael School, Herman pointed to the word "subsequently". Herman noted that since a De Wael School misexplanation was knowingly given at the time it was made, there was not any (future tense) subsequent realisation. Of course, by the primary principle of the De Wael School - the Lawbook is inconsistent - this DWS quibble about "subsequently" is unnecessary, since it is a non-Euclidean axiom of the De Wael School that the 2007 Law 20F5(a) has primacy over all other 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 16 01:54:37 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:54:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c857d4$d0f4da50$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <9dcd40e70801151453v3daa7acci44c64b9b96be6099@mail.gmail.com> <000401c857d4$d0f4da50$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <000001c857da$5e9a80d0$1bcf8270$@com> [SP] With my very best forthcoming attempt I still cannot understand Herman's statement other than to say that since he believes his actions are acceptable, they must be acceptable. [DALB] No, not quite. What Herman is doing is leaving out words (just as the words "on hearing the explanation" have been left out of Law 20F5 between "nor may he" and "indicate in any manner", but it is obvious that they ought to be there). What he says is: "Since I believe my actions are acceptable, [I believe] they must be acceptable regardless of whether they are better for my side or not." Either that, or he is perpetrating an argument of this kind: "Santa Claus exists, if I am not mistaken." "Well, of course Santa Claus exists *if you are not mistaken*." "So I am not mistaken, since what I say is true, therefore Santa Claus exists." Incidentally, what does [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] mean, and why does it appear in so many of these messages? David Burn London, England From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 16 02:09:13 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:09:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c857da$5e9a80d0$1bcf8270$@com> References: <9dcd40e70801151453v3daa7acci44c64b9b96be6099@mail.gmail.com> <000401c857d4$d0f4da50$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <000001c857da$5e9a80d0$1bcf8270$@com> Message-ID: <4CBAC9DA-7B83-47C3-9B2C-8845CBC2D3A4@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 15, 2008, at 7:54 PM, David Burn wrote: > Incidentally, what does [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] mean, and why does it > appear in so > many of these messages? I think it's a deliberate attempt by Richard Hills to break threading in my mail program. It's working, too. (Sorry Richard, just kidding :)). Seriously, it seems to be put in there by whatever software Richard is using at work to respond or post to the list. Since it goes in the subject line, anything that uses the subject line for threading will start a new thread as soon as the subject changes - and everyone else's replies will pick it up. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jan 16 03:33:16 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:33:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. In-Reply-To: <200801152005.m0FK5cgA026777@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801152005.m0FK5cgA026777@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <478D6CEC.1010502@nhcc.net> > From: "Tim West-Meads" > I have always believed that the 1997 > laws "at all probable" logically referenced the same "had the infraction > not occurred" as did the "likely". AFAIK the WBFLC never contradicted > that interpretation. I was almost sure there was a contrary interpretation, but it may have been an EK writing rather than an official opinion. The actual language used in the Law suggests to me that "had the infraction not occurred" is _not_ intended to apply to the OS. Of course that opinion is now (or anyway soon to be) irrelevant in the ACBL. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jan 16 03:39:37 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:39:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Zonal Laws Committees In-Reply-To: <200801151546.m0FFkofw004251@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801151546.m0FFkofw004251@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <478D6E69.80600@nhcc.net> > This item appeared in the most recent minutes of the > New Zealand Contract Bridge Association: > > "New Laws - Arie has been in discussions with ABF > regarding adoption of the new laws. Following discussion > it was agreed to go with the ABF's suggested date of 1 > June 2008. Unless the calendar is different down under (or perhaps on the other side of the International Date Line), that date is a Sunday. Changing then means a weekend tournament might start out under one set of Laws but finish under another. But perhaps there are no tournaments scheduled then, or perhaps the organizers won't care. Someone (Jan Martel??) posted on rec.games.bridge that the tentative date in the ACBL is Sep 8. This is a Monday and a week after the Labor Day holiday, so it seems unlikely many tournaments will be in progress on that date. From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Wed Jan 16 03:45:00 2008 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:45:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Write or speak References: <478BD421.5020404@nhcc.net> <001601c8572c$230a6340$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <478CCCC4.90806@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <007401c857e9$cab3da00$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:09 AM Subject: [blml] Write or speak > > [Nige1] > I like one aspect of Hirsch's idea. A common problem with *spoken* > announcements and explanations is that the neighbouring tables can > overhear them. This is even worse if a player at your table is a bit > deaf. It would be better if the system card were laid out to > facilitate *announcements*. Initially then, you would just *point* to > the relevant announcement on your card. Only if your opponent had poor > eye-sight, would you revert to the spoken word. > > > The obvious downside of this suggestion is that it would allow you to > look at your own card. Is this really so bad? On reflection, I > suppose it could be :( Why would it allow you to look at your own card? Do you look at your card before giving oral explanations? [Guthrie] > > As to Hirschs' claim that DWS would force him to lie: > > Hirsch and his partner may be certain of their agreements. Many, like > me, however, are certain of almost nothing. Our alternatives are not > "lying" and "telling the truth". Our alternatives are "guessing" and > saying "no agreement". > > I either know my agreements or I don't. If I forget an agreement and it's on the system card, I will direct an opponent who asks to look at the system card. Opponent will know what I'm playing, even if I don't. If it's not on the system card, and I truly have forgotten an agreement (and realize it), I'll call the TD and ask to speak to him away from the table. If he's a good TD, he'll keep me away from the table while my partner gives the system explanation (at the TD's direction). If I do this frequently, the TD should also give me a PP under L74B1. I'll have deserved it. It hasn't happened yet, though. "No agreement" should be reserved for when it's true. In a casual partnership that has not worked through system, this can be frequent. I may well make an error, if I believe that our system is one thing while it turns out to be another. The TD can sort it out. But I will not intentionally lie about system. Hirsch From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jan 16 04:07:43 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:07:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <200801152014.m0FKE3OU028959@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801152014.m0FKE3OU028959@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <478D74FF.4080306@nhcc.net> > From: > ... the rulings and pronouncements of many years run > counter to the suggestion that it is an infraction to convey > UI to partner when complying with the requirement to > disclose the partnership understanding. Yes; that's why this view is the Majority School. Herman has only recently pointed out an alternative. He has given serious reasons why the alternative is superior. I'm surprised so many people have reacted so strongly against his suggestion without considering its merits. > I have yet to meet > support for his view from anyone in a position of > authority. I would like to think that's because the alternatives have been carefully weighed for what is better for the game. So far, the reasons the MS are superior have not been articulated on BLML, but perhaps they exist. > I have steadfastly refused to debate > what is 'better' for, or an 'improvement' of, the game. I can certainly understand a desire not to do so publically, but I do hope those responsible for an eventual decision are making a very careful study of the subject among themselves. > The laws are settled and they are in the public domain. No one has suggested a change in the Laws text, but on this subject, there seem to be two valid interpretations of that text. Actually, dWS seems to me in closer accord with the text than the MS (as can be seen by the tortured readings of the MS proponents). Either way, _someone_ has to give an interpretation, whether the WBFLC or zonal LC's or each TD on the spot. > ... in forming the opinions I have > expressed, I have relied upon such past interpretations > as I believe relevant... Past practice is of course of considerable importance, but it needn't be the only consideration. > From: Matthias Berghaus > The MS is not > "right" or "wrong". It is in accordance with the laws. Including L20F5? Of course the Laws can be "interpreted" to make the MS consistent with them. They can also be interpreted to make dWS consistent with them. Other than past practice, why should we prefer one interpretation over the other? If you say "Because the authorities have said so," I challenge you to produce an official decision that is on point. (Plenty of decisions can be interpreted one way or another, but so far as I know there is nothing official that specifically addresses the dWS.) > From: "raija" > Somehow the various laws should be reconciled with > each other into something where I don't have to give a deliberate falsehood > in response to an opponent's question "What is your agreement?" Perhaps you would prefer that all MI should immediately be corrected? If not, you are at least colluding in partner's "lie." Why is that OK? > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > SR: Unfortunately, Herman argues that the dWS is, in fact, lawful > under the current laws. This is really what the problem is. He argues no such thing; I'm surprised anyone who posts on the subject doesn't realize that. And why "unfortunately?" In what way do you think dWS is worse for the game than MS? I really think the MS proponents are relying too much on past practice and too little on considering the merits of one school versus the other. Gross misunderstandings of the dWS don't help matters. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jan 16 04:12:46 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:12:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] ACTION NEEDED! L27C1 In-Reply-To: <200801152205.m0FM5RO8024645@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801152205.m0FM5RO8024645@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <478D762E.30903@nhcc.net> > From: "Sven Pran" > I raised the question of the "missing" redouble in Law 27C1 with my NBO when > we prepared for translations. > > But unlike a "double" we were completely unable to find any insufficient bid > situations where a "redouble" as a replacement call could satisfy the > requirement that it must incorporate the information contained in the > insufficient bid. Redouble showing first round control is an obvious case. (The IB'er always wanted to cue bid the suit but was one or more levels too low.) The redouble shows specifically first-round control, whereas the IB showed either first or second. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 16 04:19:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:19:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c85776$800dbac0$80293040$@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Burn: [big snip] >the time limit implied (but not stated) in L20F5 [big snip] Richard Hills: Quibble. There is no time limit in the 2007 Law 20F5(a), but the relevant time limit appears in the 2007 Law 20F5(b). This is another indication in every manner that the drafters of the 2007 Laws intended them to be read as a consistent whole, rather than each paragraph parsed separately and inconsistently. And, of course, the drafters of the 2007 Laws had suffered a decade of ear-bashing about the De Wael School interpretation of the 1997 Laws. If the drafters truly thought that DWS was a good idea, they would have _specifically_ said so in every relevant 2007 Law, and a sentence in the 2007 Preface would have said: "The Drafting Committee also acknowledges with gratitude the substantial contributions of Herman De Wael, Anna Gudge, Richard Hills and Rick Assad." ;-) 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 Wed Jan 16 04:23:34 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:23:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? Message-ID: <478D78B6.1030207@nhcc.net> > From: "David Burn" > I seem to recall a case involving (I think) Garozzo, who was told that his > LHO had five hearts when the partnership agreement was that LHO's bidding > only showed four hearts. The explanation was not corrected by LHO because > she (I think it was Karen McCallum) actually had five hearts. Garozzo did > not lead a heart against the final contract because of the explanation - but > a heart lead would have worked better than his actual choice. The score was > adjusted, and rightly so. I remember the case a bit differently, but I'm sure it's in one of the ACBL casebooks. McCallum was declarer. The original explanation was faulty, but McCallum corrected it before Garozzo's opening lead. With the wrong explanation, Garozzo might have led a heart, but the true explanation made a heart lead unattractive. Garozzo led something else, but a heart lead would have worked. (I think McCallum had Kxxxx, but defenders had all the high spots.) The result of the appeal was that the table score stood. McCallum had (before the opening lead) given a correct explanation of the agreements, so there was no infraction. (Or to be pedantic, the infraction during the auction caused no damage because it was corrected at the proper time.) Of course this has nothing to do with the dWS or MS; both will have the declaring side explain the true agreement before the opening lead. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 16 05:06:49 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:06:49 +1100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478D74FF.4080306@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >No one has suggested a change in the Laws text, Richard Hills: Incorrect. Nigel Guthrie has a reasonable belief that the Laws should be frequently updated. While Robert Geller has suggested that the Laws should be simplified to improve the drafting process in 2017. Steve Willner: >but on this subject, there seem to be two valid >interpretations of that text. Richard Hills: The operative word is "seem". Is it valid to interpret the just-released rules of a game contrary to the intent of the drafters of those just-released rules? Is it valid to ignore "reductio ad absurdum" by asserting that the just-released rules must be interpreted in an inconsistent way? Is it valid to promulgate an interpretation if the just-released rules of the game give the interpretative power to different persons and/or committees? 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 hirsch9000 at gmail.com Wed Jan 16 06:12:25 2008 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:12:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000401c857d4$d0f4da50$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <002601c857fe$6257a580$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 7:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> I think you're reading a "primary statement" that isn't there. The >> statement that is there is that if you believe an action is >> acceptable, then you believe it is acceptable regardless of whether it >> is better or worse for you. >> >> Jeff > > With my very best forthcoming attempt I still cannot understand Herman's > statement other than to say that since he believes his actions are > acceptable, they must be acceptable. > > The rest of his statement simply says that this must be the case > regardless > of whether that allegation is for better or for worse for his side? > > Sven > Oddly, I think I understand Herman's logic thanks to Jeff. Try it this way: IF I believe that my actions are acceptable THEN *I believe that* my actions are acceptable regardless of whether they are better for my side or not. I think it was the omission of the part between the asterisks that is causing confusion. The original wording cannot be what Herman meant, I hope. Hirsch From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue Jan 15 23:23:05 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:23:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? References: <000101c855fa$e0579400$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><478A4B59.9090401@skynet.be><9AE806D2-784D-4B56-85B6-1F585A01FB1B@starpower.net><478C7A81.4090301@skynet.be><4035E054-C7E5-42C4-B4EB-11B2D91C10EB@starpower.net> <478CE21B.9060904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001101c857c5$331fe040$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? > > Eric's partner inadvertantly provides an incorrect explanation, and > Eric, knowing it is incorrect, corrects it. His partner has made a > mistake, and Eric has deliberately broken L20F5 to reveal that. And > that's OK because the opponent has asked an innocent question? > [broken record] The Lawmakers have made it clear what the priorities are. L20F5: "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made." Note that L20F is a "may not" imperative. Note also that L20F4 reads: "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4." L72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." And L73C: "When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information." and a few others, but I'm short on time. Note the use of the word "must". Then go read the "Introduction to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge". The "must" imperatives of L20F4, L72, and L73 are "must" imperatives, as defined by the Lawmakers. The Lawmakers then state that the "must imperative is the strongest word of all. Even stronger than the L20 "may not" imperative that you like to hide behind. There is no ambiguity here. You must follow the "must" imperatives as directed by Law. Always. Even if you see a "may not" imperative that you perceive to be in conflict, that's no excuse, since "may not" is a weaker imperative than "must". The "must" imperatives override it. Not all Laws are created equal, and the Lawmakers have seen fit to tell us which are the stronger imperatives. Hirsch [/broken record] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080115/827afc96/attachment.htm From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jan 16 08:57:52 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:57:52 +1300 Subject: [blml] Zonal Laws Committees In-Reply-To: <478D6E69.80600@nhcc.net> References: <200801151546.m0FFkofw004251@cfa.harvard.edu> <478D6E69.80600@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560801152357y4b4440d8u6f37e40a0b0838c2@mail.gmail.com> On 16/01/2008, Steve Willner wrote: > > This item appeared in the most recent minutes of the > > New Zealand Contract Bridge Association: > > > > "New Laws - Arie has been in discussions with ABF > > regarding adoption of the new laws. Following discussion > > it was agreed to go with the ABF's suggested date of 1 > > June 2008. > > Unless the calendar is different down under (or perhaps on the other > side of the International Date Line), that date is a Sunday. Changing > then means a weekend tournament might start out under one set of Laws > but finish under another. But perhaps there are no tournaments > scheduled then, or perhaps the organizers won't care. > Actually that is in the middle of a long weekend in New Zealand. The Monday is a national holiday (Queen's birthday - I can never remember if it is the real queen or Elton John). There are three Provincial level congresses held that weekend. One of them is the biggest event in New Zealand outside of the National Congress. The two of the three that i have played have Pairs on Saturday and Teams qualifying on Sunday with Teams final and some consolation event on the Monday. I am not sure what the format is the third event. There have been some events in NZ where they play Pairs in the mornings and Teams in the afternoons etc. If this is one of those then there will be a problem. Looks like the pairs will be played under one set of rules and the teams under a different set which should add to the confusion. Wayne From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 16 12:00:12 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:00:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <003201c857b4$bdc40890$62025e47@DFYXB361> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net><000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> <000901c856d1$6947dcd0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478C7856.5090800@skynet.be><000901c8575b$4e04ff90$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478CA57F.9070801@skynet.be> <003201c857b4$bdc40890$62025e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <478DE3BC.9070809@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:22 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > > >> raija wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 1:09 AM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion >>> >>> >>>> raija wrote: >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Eric Landau" >>>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>>> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:08 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 13, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hirsch Davis wrote: >>>>>>>> I'll reiterate the proposition I've been asking Herman about. If >>>>>>>> N-S write >>>>>>>> out their explanations and show them only to opponents, instead of >>>>>>>> giving >>>>>>>> them orally, there is no UI at all, and neither player is >>>>>>>> constrained by E-W >>>>>>>> questions. Simple procedure, actually, and any pair can do it >>>>>>>> right now. >>>>>>>> IMO anyone who would consider violating the disclosure Laws should >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> considering alternatives to dWs that would address UI issues without >>>>>>>> violating any Laws at all. Full and complete disclosure does not >>>>>>>> have to be >>>>>>>> spoken. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hirsh, asked and answered twice already - if you want to change the >>>>>>> conditions, there is no need to invent a third form, just use >>>>>>> screens. >>>>>>> Meanwhile, lots of bridge will be left being played without screens >>>>>>> (or without your notepads) and it is for those tables that the >>>>>>> question remains. >>>>>> As Herman says, one way to end the dispute over the DWS would be to >>>>>> play all duplicate bridge with screens. That would eliminate the >>>>>> justification for the DWS practice, as one could answer questions as >>>>>> prescribed by L75 with no risk of passing UI to partner. Indeed, DWS >>>>>> users do not, Herman assures us, "do their thing" when playing with >>>>>> screens. >>>>>> >>>>>> But that means that in otherwise identical situations (hand, auction, >>>>>> table action, etc.) the DWS adherent may offer two entirely different >>>>>> explanations of his partner's call depending solely on whether or not >>>>>> there is a screen across the table. In contrast, there are numerous >>>>>> other contexts in which we determine the correctness of a player's >>>>>> actions at an unscreened table by asking what would happen were >>>>>> screens in use. I suspect this is one of the reasons the DWS "just >>>>>> doesn't feel right" to so many of us. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Eric Landau >>>>>> 1107 Dale Drive >>>>>> Silver Spring MD 20910 >>>>>> ehaa at starpower.net >>>>> The reason for me why DWS "cannot" be right is that it forces me to lie >>>>> when >>>>> opponents ask what our agreement is. >>>>> >>> Herman wrote: >>>> Only because you believe it is lying when you say "3 aces" when >>>> partner actually has 3 aces, and has said nothing about diamonds. >>> >>> This is not a matter of (my) belief, it is a matter of facts. >>> If "3 aces" is not the agreement, then it is a lie to answer "3 aces" >>> when >>> opponent asks "What is your agreement". >>> >> True, but on the other hand, it is not lying when that opponents asks >> "what does he have?" (as they often do). > > AFAIK, it does not matter how the question is phrased, although it would be > nice if it were phrased better but an answer to "What does he have" could > also be "I don't know, I haven't seen his hand" [flippant, I agree, and I > wouldn't recommend this - not that I am in position to recommend > anything...] or "Our agreement is this". Any indication that opponent wants > to know about our bid is a request that we inform them what our agreement > is. In my book, not telling what the agreement is, is concealment of > partnership agreement. > > In your book the following is also not lying when mom asks "did you take the > two pieces of candy from the sweets box, it is empty now" and I say "no I > didn't", knowing full well that I took one piece and also knowing my brother > took the other... Question truthfully answered...eh > Raija, you are telling us that "lying" is bad. Any lying. And then you give an example in which someone speaks the literal truth. And that truth no good either. Sometimes, speaking the truth is worse than lying. Because you will say something you shouldn't. "I believe all niggers are dirty b***" may well be the truth (trust me, it's not), but I'd be better off lying about this. You insist on criticising the DWS because it amounts to "lying". Well, I find that "lying" is not the worst possible crime. You cannot condemn something on the basis of your own, subjective, feeling of what constitutes the worst crime possible. > Raija > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jan 16 12:00:06 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:00:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] And now for something completely different In-Reply-To: <478B1962.5020004@skynet.be> References: <000101c855fa$e0579400$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478A4B59.9090401@skynet.be> <000001c85641$06547380$12fd5a80$@com> <478B1962.5020004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <478DE3B6.7080704@t-online.de> Hi all, a couple of weeks ago something happened at the club which got me wondering about L16 and L27. I do not remember the hands, but they are not relevant to my musings. Since I do not remember the hands I do not give vulnerability either. The seats may be wrong, too, but I think it to be easier for a discussion to call a player "East" instead of "the jumper" or something.... The 1D bidder was the dealer, so I call him North. The bidding went as follows: N E S W 1D - P - 1S - 3H(a) 3S - P - 3S - P 4S all pass 3H was alerted and explained as a weak jump. After the insufficient bid West called me to the table. I explained the laws and West chose to accept the insufficient bid. North asked about his obligations in this situation, and after mulling this over for some time I told him that he was free to use the information arising from a sufficient bid of 3S. North`s hand was strong enough to bid 4S anyway, so there was no decision to take later. LAW 27 - INSUFFICIENT BID A. Acceptance of Insufficient Bid 1. Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender?s LHO. It is accepted if that player calls. LAW 16 AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION A. Players? Use of Information 1. A player may use information in the auction or play if: (a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) So the insufficient 3S is treated as legal, and the partner may use the information deriving from that call. Hm. What _is_ the information that player may use? It seems to me that the way how this situation came about is UI to North, only the fact that partner bid 3S is AI. If this is so, then there are at least 4 scenarios: A) S wanted to bid 4S, misbid, and kept mum about it (as I later found out that was actually the case here). B) S wanted to raise 2S to 3S. Maybe not likely here as W had used the stop card, but no impossible. C) S imagined N to have passed over 3H, and has now bid 3S over 3H D) S has "seen" some bid other than 3S from partner. Not very likely either. It may not be the best of examples, but as the insufficient 3S is now treated as legal there must be some content therein that is AI to North. Either the way how 3S was reached is AI ( I do not think so, as L16 talks about information deriving from the call, not from the way it came about, but I am not sure of that interpretation either), or it is UI, in which case there must still be some AI information contained in that bid, else North's position would be quite difficult, maybe even impossible. If it were AI (and South manages to perpetrate his error without giving away why he did so, as the player in this case managed to do), North would be free to guess what has happened. A case can be made for this viewpoint by way of the parallel to L27C1, where L16D does not apply (and the law says so, which it doesn`t do here). Any ideas? From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 16 12:04:46 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:04:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000001c85776$800dbac0$80293040$@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <001001c8582f$9b7a7460$d26f5d20$@com> [RH] Quibble. There is no time limit in the 2007 Law 20F5(a), but the relevant time limit appears in the 2007 Law 20F5(b). [DALB] Law 20F5(a) says that: "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made." The words "during the auction" appear to me to constitute a time limit; whether the player becomes declarer, dummy or a defender, he may not correct a misexplanation during the auction. Whether or not the same time limit applies to "nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made" is debatable; my own view is that if it had been intended to apply, the law would have read: "During the auction, a player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made." But it seems to me that what is intended is that when North says "Blackwood" in answer to a question about 4NT, South is not supposed *at that point* to react in any manner, as by saying "No it's not", or by grimacing, shaking his head, or the like. You certainly don't want to give UI to partner before he makes his call, and you may not have to give it anyway - the opponents might not ask any more questions until the end of the auction, when you can call the Director and have things put right (or at least, less wrong). South is, however allowed to - nay, mandated to - proceed in every respect (including answering questions) as if North's reply had been "minors", even though this may involve indicating at some later stage in the auction that a mistake has been made. If I can't base my calls or plays on North's explanation, why should I base my answers to questions on it? Another difficulty I have with the dWS is this: if the opponents do not ask about 4NT but ask about 5D, South will say "minor suit preference", whereas if the opponents do ask about 4NT South will say "one ace". But legally, South may not act on the assumption that North believes 4NT to be Blackwood. One might even say that to answer "one ace" is to "choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". While I'm here, I may as well answer Herman's question. If you proceed according to the dWS, I will fine you three tops or 90 IMPs for a first violation of all the Laws you have broken, and disqualify you for a second. David Burn London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 16 12:06:54 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:06:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] A story with a conclusion [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478DE54E.4090707@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Raija: > >> Somehow the various laws should be reconciled with >> each other into something where I don't have to give >> a deliberate falsehood in response to an opponent's >> question "What is your agreement?" I have not yet >> seen a solution to that problem by DWS proponents. >> I still think that any solution that involves >> telling a lie to the opponents must, by default, be >> wrong. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, Steve Willner has given scintillating arguments > in favour of the De Wael School, more cleverly argued > than those of Herman De Wael himself. > > But, in my opinion, Steve is in an Ivory Tower. He > has ignored the psychological effect that adoption of > the De Wael School would have on the thousands of > ordinary bridge players across the world. > > The beneficial effects of the Active Ethics campaign > of the 1990s would be reversed, as little old ladies > would be told, "It's okay to lie about your > partnership agreements". > No of course not. On the contrary, it will strengthen the realisation that one should not use (and give) UI. > And, of course, some principled players would object > to being required to lie in the first place. If DWS > was adopted, perhaps Raija and I would abandon > "Duplicate De Wael Bridge" for other games. > Well, don't you realize that the current laws already force you to "lie" in some manner - by keeping quiet about the MI that partner has just given. If you and Raija are so ethically warped as to believe that it is OK to lie by omission, then I don't consider you mainstream and worthy of serious discussion. But if you are ethically opposed to keeping quiet, but do so anyway because L20F5 says you to, then you should not be any more in turmoil when an updated L20F5 or L20F6 tells you to follow the DWS. I hope I have made myself clear. I believe you are both very ethical people. But your ethics are subject to the rules of the game you play. If those rules oblige you to "lie", you should not feel ashamed for that lie. And if you think that DWS bridge is an unethical game, then do have a thought for L20F5 in MS bridge as well. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 16 12:13:47 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:13:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <057301c85791$261d7bc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be> <005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A478D.4040402@skynet.be> <005d01c8564f$8950fb10$50cb403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801131823k3c9f2c16vb710973b01b464b@mail.gmail.com><001001c856c2$658442f0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478B835C.30108@ulb.ac.be> <057301c85791$261d7bc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <478DE6EB.3000103@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > AG : granted, but improving the laws is part of improving the game, and > pointing at deficient laws until the problems they cause are solved, > insisting when needed, is the best way to help improve them. and being > subject for several interpretations is a deficiency in itself. Surely > nobody would disagree that we disagree ? > > SR: Unfortunately, Herman argues that the dWS is, in fact, lawful under the > current laws. This is really what the problem is. > I do not believe it is lawful, I believe it is acceptable. Not the same thing. if you believe the MS is lawful, you are mistaken. The MS is acceptable, but the infraction that is there (UI) will be dealt with. So it is with the DWS. It contains an infraction (because that's inevitable) and that infraction will be dealt with. But try and think a bit further - imagine you have the power to rule the DWS unacceptable. What penalty are you then going to impose on me, over and above the normal penalty for the infraction (MI), which would force me to change my habits. And how will you make the distinction between me acting under DWS guidelines, or me simply believing my partner's explanation and claiming I have misbid? That is a problem that hasn't been touched upon yet. You abhor my actions, but what do you want to do about them? And I don't mean that as flaunting authority, but as a genuine question? How are you going to distinguish between me, the notorious DWS adept, and any normal player who realizes he has misbid? Our actions will be completely the same, our intentions totally different. But if you want to rule against me, you'll either require a mind reader, or laws that mean misbidding is forbidden too. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 16 12:16:17 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:16:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <056d01c85790$cb083900$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000001c854ae$ad4c98a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4788A02D.2010205@skynet.be> <056d01c85790$cb083900$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <478DE781.50805@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> Suppose the following situation arises: >> >> After your partner's misexplanation, you have 2 calls available for >> you. Neither of them is particularly suggested by the UI (directly), >> but one of them clearly reveals the misunderstanding, while the other >> keeps it hidden. It is my belief that L16 (and maybe L20F5) forbid you >> now to make the "clear" bid, since this bid is "suggested" in some way >> by the UI. > > Hmmm...actively hiding the fact that there has been a misunderstanding. YES, from partner, of course! > I > think this goes far beyond a mistaken interpretation of the laws. I think Stephanie has not thought this one completely through. It is a futile wish however to think that someone might actually find something good to say about anything I write. >> Of course, when after all L16 obligations only one bid remains, and >> that bid is an indication that a mistake has happened, something has >> to give. I believe that your L16 obligations are stronger than the >> obligation you have of not giving UI to partner. > > There is no obligation at all to avoid giving UI to partner. It is not > against the laws of bridge. It is the use of UI that is illegal. As in the > example given above. > Yes, but there can certainly be no obligation to give UI! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 16 12:13:56 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:13:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <000401c85831$6d0efe00$58ca403e@Mildred> Grattan EndicottFrom Steve Willner's lengthy dissertation: "Yes; that's why this view is the Majority School. Herman has only recently pointed out an alternative. He has given serious reasons why the alternative is superior. I'm surprised so many people have reacted so strongly against his suggestion without considering its merits." and: "I do hope those responsible for an eventual decision are making a very careful study of the subject among themselves." and: "Gross misunderstandings of the dWS don't help matters." ...................................................................................... (Grattan ) First, 'only recently' does not seem right. Herman has made his argument for years. The advent of discussion on the 2007 laws has provided opportunity to say it again. Second, I have asked for examination of the subject - I am somewhat hindered by reactions such as "I wouldn't spend much time on this back and forth stuff. Mostly, this group just likes to hear themselves talk." when I quote from the emails in this thread. Third, the misunderstanding that appeared in a comment from Stefanie Rohan is not present in my report to my colleagues. Fourth, 'this group' is constantly referred here to the words 'in any manner' in Law 20F5(a). The more important word for study in this law is 'indicate'. Herman chooses to argue that in giving the required explanation of his partner's call the player is infracting 20F5(a) because in doing so he indicates that a mistake has been made. I say this is not so because the explanation may reveal the mistake incidentally but the player is not pointing to it or drawing attention to it and to 'indicate' would require him to do this. Opponent is entitled to draw his own conclusions from what he hears. Fifth, somewhere I noted a remark that the rectification for causing damage by giving MI is score adjustment. So it is, but Law 40C3(b) also applies even in the absence of damage, and particularly when the offence is systemic. Sixth, a mistaken explanation is an infraction (L75B). In deliberately acting to conceal partner's infraction a player violates Law 72B3. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 16 12:13:56 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:13:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <000401c85831$6d0efe00$58ca403e@Mildred> Grattan EndicottFrom Steve Willner's lengthy dissertation: "Yes; that's why this view is the Majority School. Herman has only recently pointed out an alternative. He has given serious reasons why the alternative is superior. I'm surprised so many people have reacted so strongly against his suggestion without considering its merits." and: "I do hope those responsible for an eventual decision are making a very careful study of the subject among themselves." and: "Gross misunderstandings of the dWS don't help matters." ...................................................................................... (Grattan ) First, 'only recently' does not seem right. Herman has made his argument for years. The advent of discussion on the 2007 laws has provided opportunity to say it again. Second, I have asked for examination of the subject - I am somewhat hindered by reactions such as "I wouldn't spend much time on this back and forth stuff. Mostly, this group just likes to hear themselves talk." when I quote from the emails in this thread. Third, the misunderstanding that appeared in a comment from Stefanie Rohan is not present in my report to my colleagues. Fourth, 'this group' is constantly referred here to the words 'in any manner' in Law 20F5(a). The more important word for study in this law is 'indicate'. Herman chooses to argue that in giving the required explanation of his partner's call the player is infracting 20F5(a) because in doing so he indicates that a mistake has been made. I say this is not so because the explanation may reveal the mistake incidentally but the player is not pointing to it or drawing attention to it and to 'indicate' would require him to do this. Opponent is entitled to draw his own conclusions from what he hears. Fifth, somewhere I noted a remark that the rectification for causing damage by giving MI is score adjustment. So it is, but Law 40C3(b) also applies even in the absence of damage, and particularly when the offence is systemic. Sixth, a mistaken explanation is an infraction (L75B). In deliberately acting to conceal partner's infraction a player violates Law 72B3. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 16 12:22:49 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:22:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? In-Reply-To: <004a01c857c7$13128b70$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <000101c855fa$e0579400$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><478A4B59.9090401@skynet.be><9AE806D2-784D-4B56-85B6-1F585A01FB1B@starpower.net><478C7A81.4090301@skynet.be><4035E054-C7E5-42C4-B4EB-11B2D91C10EB@starpower.net> <478CE21B.9060904@skynet.be> <004a01c857c7$13128b70$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <478DE909.3010106@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:40 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? > > >> Eric Landau wrote: >>> On Jan 15, 2008, at 4:18 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>> Eric Landau wrote: >>>> >>>>> But which hand? In Herman's favorite example, where he bids 4NT >>>>> asking for a minor-suit preference and pard describes his call as >>>>> Blackwood, his DWS explanation will indeed fit his partner's hand >>>>> perfectly. But it will simultaneouly completely misdescribe his >>>>> *own* hand to the opponents, as one suitable for bidding Blackwood >>>>> when in fact it is no such thing. >>>> But that is not my MI, that is partner's! it has been given, and L20F5 >>>> explicitely forbids me from correcting that MI! >>>> We are talking about the second MI. You guys want to say "diamond >>>> preference", because that is "true" in the systemic sense of the word. >>>> But it is a complete misdescription of partner's hand! >>> Say what? Herman's partner inadvertantly provides an incorrect >>> explanation, and Herman, knowing it is incorrect, confirms it. His >>> partner has made a mistake, but he has deliberately lied to prevent >>> that mistake from being revealed. And that's OK because the MI was >>> his partner's fault in the first place? >>> >> Say What? >> >> Eric's partner inadvertantly provides an incorrect explanation, and >> Eric, knowing it is incorrect, corrects it. His partner has made a >> mistake, and Eric has deliberately broken L20F5 to reveal that. And >> that's OK because the opponent has asked an innocent question? >> >> Sorry Eric, but as long as you keep hammering on my supposed >> illegalities, I shall keep hammering on yours. The laws really do say >> that you are not allowed to correct partner's mistake. In any manner. >> And yet you do, and you think that this is OK. I really wonder what >> you do, as TD, when called at a table where the following has just >> happened. >> "4NT" - "what's that?" - "Blackwood" - "no partner, minors!" >> > > No Herman. Eric is not breaking any Law by correctly answering with the > system agreement. He is not correcting his partner. He is simply correctly > answering the opponents. In fact, his partner is now barred by the UI from > recovering and remembering the correct system. > Yes, he is. He's breaking L20F5. > Eric is simply doing what the Laws say he must do. And, as I've indicated > in another post, The Introduction to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge > indicate that a "must" imperative under the Laws is the strongest imperative > used, even stronger than the "may not" that you like to hide behind. > If only there were a law that said "a player must at all times correctly answer questions about his system". There is no such law. It is implied, sure, but it is not written like that. So you cannot argue that such a law is stronger than L20F5, because it simply does not exist. > When you give your MI, L20F4 says that you must immediately call the TD when > you realize that you have done so. Do you disregard this Law also? > Of course I do, how else am I going to follow L20F5? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 16 12:27:53 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:27:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c85799$271576b0$75406410$@com> References: <478C7A25.5080301@ulb.ac.be> <001501c85771$bff90c70$50cb403e@Mildred> <000001c85776$800dbac0$80293040$@com> <478CE44F.5040500@skynet.be> <000001c85799$271576b0$75406410$@com> Message-ID: <478DEA39.20104@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > David, in a corner, now invents a totally new argument. The words "during > the auction" are to be interpreted as "during the auction or until an > opponent asks a question about partner's bidding". > > Very clever argument, David. Do I really need to refute it? > > [HdW] > > Yes, Herman, you do. Or at least, you need to refute the argument that > making a call revealing partner's misunderstanding is not also illegal under > L20F5. > > But what you actually need to do is stop all this nonsense. Even if the Laws > *are* inconsistent, so what? You have been told by the people who make the > Laws which one you are to break, if that is how you see the matter. That is > what you (and everybody else) should do. > OK David, and then I don't. Now work out what my penalty is. > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 16 12:30:23 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:30:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c857cb$8689e220$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000301c857cb$8689e220$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <478DEACF.5060207@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ................ >> Regardless of what you think about it, I shall continue to act under >> the DWS school. I will be perfectly honest, explain everything to the >> table and the TD when the bidding (or play) is over. >> Please tell me what your rulings are going to be. > > Having noticed this warning from you I shall issue an instruction under Law > 81C2 before the first session begins that as I consider DWS illegal I > specifically forbid its use and inform all contestants that if this > instruction is disobeyed there will in addition to any rectification be > imposed a procedural penalty under Law 90B8. > > The size of this penalty will be 1 VP or 50% of a single board top score (as > applicable) for the first offence, to be doubled for each repeated offence > by the same contestant. > > And I am not kidding. > > Sven > No, and you would be OK in ruling like that. And then a case comes up, and I state that I explain partner's call consistent with his previous explanation because I believe partner was right and I misbid. No mention of DWS whatsoever. How are you going to prove your 1VP PP to an AC when you don't have a mind reader present to show that I did not really believe my partner was right? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 16 13:14:46 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:14:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? In-Reply-To: <478DE909.3010106@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001801c85839$62bddf90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > If only there were a law that said "a player must at all times > correctly answer questions about his system". There is no such law. It > is implied, sure, but it is not written like that. So you cannot argue > that such a law is stronger than L20F5, because it simply does not exist. If there had been such a law (which would be absolutely superfluous), wouldn't you still have argued that that law also is in conflict with L20F5? You may claim that of course you wouldn't - I am convinced that indeed you would. Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 16 13:43:23 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:43:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478DFBEB.6050606@ntlworld.com> [Richard Hills] Is it valid to interpret the just-released rules of a game contrary to the intent of the drafters of those just-released rules? Is it valid to ignore "reductio ad absurdum" by asserting that the just-released rules must be interpreted in an inconsistent way? Is it valid to promulgate an interpretation if the just-released rules of the game give the interpretative power to different persons and/or committees? [Nige1] The WBFLC have restructured the law-book but made few fundamental changes. It had the past ten years to skim the discussions on appeals and the disputes on RGB, BLML, and elsewhere. DWS is one such long-running controversy. A minority of Bright BLMLers believe DWS to be a valid interpretation of the 1997 laws. It would have been simple to settle this dispute in the 2007 edition; but no attempt seems to have been made. BLMLers are grateful to law-makers for vouchsafing their personal opinions and explaining what they really intended; but opinions and intentions *lack the force of law*. The 2007 law-book was the right place for WBFLC members to make their meaning clear. Richard may be correct that a strict reading of the new law-book endorses the majority viewpoint; but IMO, the WBFLC should still clarify the text immediately in the light of the contradictions and ambiguities *percieved* by DWS. They seem real enough to me. Anyway, the laws should be understandable by ordinary players and directors, not just professional lawyers. IMO, resolution of this controversy shouldn't be devolved to local legislatures. Anyway until local legislatures get round to considering it, Herman and his colleagues, in their director-roles are correct to rule according to their interpretation of the law. In the longer term, I feel that the WBFLC should seriously consider simplifications to disclosure law, among them, Herman's suggestions. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 16 13:56:53 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:56:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478DEACF.5060207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001901c8583f$44d23570$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > And then a case comes up, and I state that I explain partner's call > consistent with his previous explanation because I believe partner was > right and I misbid. No mention of DWS whatsoever. How are you going to > prove your 1VP PP to an AC when you don't have a mind reader present > to show that I did not really believe my partner was right? I'll rest the case until it is possible from other evidence to establish that you are lying when you claim that partner's incorrect explanation in fact was correct. Then you would be found guilty of deliberately cheating. Really Herman, is this a situation you would engage into? I hope not, and I don't believe you because if you really do you lose every bit of my respect as proving yourself a dishonest man. Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 16 14:08:24 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:08:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] And now for something completely different In-Reply-To: <478DE3B6.7080704@t-online.de> Message-ID: <001a01c85840$e0af3870$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Matthias Berghaus ........... > Any ideas? Accepting an illegal call has the effect that no information arising from that call (including the circumstances in which it was made) is unauthorized for any player. The call is treated as if it were legal all the time. (However, possible extraneous remarks etc. which would have been unauthorized if the call never was illegal are still unauthorized after an illegal call is accepted.) Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 16 14:18:40 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:18:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] Write or speak In-Reply-To: <007401c857e9$cab3da00$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <478BD421.5020404@nhcc.net> <001601c8572c$230a6340$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <478CCCC4.90806@ntlworld.com> <007401c857e9$cab3da00$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <478E0430.7080407@ntlworld.com> [Nige1] I like one aspect of Hirsch's idea. A common problem with *spoken* announcements and explanations is that the neighbouring tables can overhear them. This is even worse if a player at your table is a bit deaf. It would be better if the system card were laid out to facilitate *announcements*. Initially then, you would just *point* to the relevant announcement on your card. Only if your opponent had poor eye-sight, would you revert to the spoken word. The obvious downside of this suggestion is that it would allow you to look at your own card. Is this really so bad? On reflection, I suppose it could be :( [Hirsch Davis] Why would it allow you to look at your own card? Do you look at your card before giving oral explanations? {nige2] If you knew the exact location of each explanation on your card, then I suppose you might be able to point to to the relevant one, without looking at the card. [nige1] As to Hirschs' claim that DWS would force him to lie: Hirsch and his partner may be certain of their agreements. Many, like me, however, are certain of almost nothing. Our alternatives are not "lying" and "telling the truth". Our alternatives are "guessing" and saying "no agreement". {Hirsch] I either know my agreements or I don't. If I forget an agreement and it's on the system card, I will direct an opponent who asks to look at the system card. Opponent will know what I'm playing, even if I don't. If it's not on the system card, and I truly have forgotten an agreement (and realize it), I'll call the TD and ask to speak to him away from the table. If he's a good TD, he'll keep me away from the table while my partner gives the system explanation (at the TD's direction). If I do this frequently, the TD should also give me a PP under L74B1. I'll have deserved it. It hasn't happened yet, though. "No agreement" should be reserved for when it's true. In a casual partnership that has not worked through system, this can be frequent. I may well make an error, if I believe that our system is one thing while it turns out to be another. The TD can sort it out. But I will not intentionally lie about system. [nige1] Fair enough. My surmise was substantially correct. Hirsch knows his agreements or he does not. There is no in-between. I'm afraid, I am never certain. Even when I've felt reasonably sure, I've often been mistaken. On most deals, I would have to call the director several times, if I adopted Hirsch's suggestions. I feel it is less disruptive to guess but to accept the misexplanation penalty when I'm wrong and opponents are damaged. More and more players are adopting Hirsch's recommendation. Like me they are rarely sure of their agreements; but they explain "no agreement". I feel that Richard Hills and Hirsch are right here. When you may have forgotten an agreement, you should summon the director, who should ask you to leave the table, so that partner can explain his call. To begin with, this would result in an enormous number of director-calls; but players would soon get the message. My partner and I sometimes do offer to leave the table so that one of us can explain his own call; but I haven't heard of any another player doing so; and no director has ever suggested it, in my hearing. IMO, this sensible protocol should be explicitly recommended in the law-book, rather than left to the whim of local legislatures. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 16 14:21:54 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:21:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? References: <001801c85839$62bddf90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <001701c85842$dee64d60$58ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............ >> If only there were a law that said "a player must at all times >> correctly answer questions about his system". There is no such >>law. It is implied, sure, but it is not written like that. So you >> cannot argue that such a law is stronger than L20F5, because >> it simply does not exist. > > If there had been such a law (which would be absolutely > superfluous), wouldn't you still have argued that that law also > is in conflict with L20F5? > > You may claim that of course you wouldn't - I am convinced > that indeed you would. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- "When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to opponent's enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience .... etc " "He (enquirer) is entitled to know about .... " "A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents' failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score" "Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership understandings may be penalized." (Herman thinks there is no patent requirement to disclose his partnership understandings correctly. Ah, well...!) ----------------------------------------------------------------- From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 16 14:26:42 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:26:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? In-Reply-To: <001801c85839$62bddf90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <001801c85839$62bddf90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <478E0612.5040002@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............ >> If only there were a law that said "a player must at all times >> correctly answer questions about his system". There is no such law. It >> is implied, sure, but it is not written like that. So you cannot argue >> that such a law is stronger than L20F5, because it simply does not exist. > > If there had been such a law (which would be absolutely superfluous), > wouldn't you still have argued that that law also is in conflict with L20F5? > > You may claim that of course you wouldn't - I am convinced that indeed you > would. Of course I would - but that's not the point. The point is that Hirsh was saying that this other law is stronger than L20F5, because it contains the stronger word "must". He cannot use such an argument over a law that does not exist! If this law would exist, I would still believe there would be a conflict, but then Hirsh' argument would have validity, now it hasn't. > > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 16 14:32:42 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:32:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001001c8582f$9b7a7460$d26f5d20$@com> References: <000001c85776$800dbac0$80293040$@immi.gov.au> <001001c8582f$9b7a7460$d26f5d20$@com> Message-ID: <478E077A.8030906@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > Another difficulty I have with the dWS is this: if the opponents do not ask > about 4NT but ask about 5D, South will say "minor suit preference", whereas > if the opponents do ask about 4NT South will say "one ace". But legally, > South may not act on the assumption that North believes 4NT to be Blackwood. > One might even say that to answer "one ace" is to "choose from among logical > alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by > the extraneous information". > Once again, David believes L16 applies to answers. It doesn't. Only to bids. Whether they ask about 4NT or not, South will bid as if North has shown diamond preference. And indeed, if there is no question about 4NT, then South will answer "diamond preference". Now, it is North who has UI, and it is North who is bound by L20F5 into "not revealing that a mistake has been made". > While I'm here, I may as well answer Herman's question. If you proceed > according to the dWS, I will fine you three tops or 90 IMPs for a first > violation of all the Laws you have broken, and disqualify you for a second. > And what shall you do to the noble unknown who just says "I thought partner was right - 4NT was Blackwood". Give him 90 IMPs fine? > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Jan 16 14:44:58 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:44:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] And now for something completely different In-Reply-To: <478DE3B6.7080704@t-online.de> References: <000101c855fa$e0579400$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478A4B59.9090401@skyne t.be> <000001c85641$06547380$12fd5a80$@com><478B1962.5020004@skynet.be> <478DE3B6.7080704@t-online.de> Message-ID: <478E0A5A.3040607@meteo.fr> Matthias Berghaus a ?crit : > Hi all, > > a couple of weeks ago something happened at the club which got me > wondering about L16 and L27. I do not remember the hands, but they are > not relevant to my musings. Since I do not remember the hands I do not > give vulnerability either. The seats may be wrong, too, but I think it > to be easier for a discussion to call a player "East" instead of "the > jumper" or something.... The 1D bidder was the dealer, so I call him North. > > The bidding went as follows: > > N E S W > > 1D - P - 1S - 3H(a) > 3S - P - 3S - P > 4S all pass > > 3H was alerted and explained as a weak jump. After the insufficient bid > West called me to the table. I explained the laws and West chose to > accept the insufficient bid. North asked about his obligations in this > situation, and after mulling this over for some time I told him that he > was free to use the information arising from a sufficient bid of 3S. i have difficulties to understand what is meant by a sufficient bid of 3S in this auction. > North`s hand was strong enough to bid 4S anyway, so there was no > decision to take later. > > LAW 27 - INSUFFICIENT BID > A. Acceptance of Insufficient Bid > 1. Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option > of offender?s LHO. It is accepted if that player calls. > > LAW 16 AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION > A. Players? Use of Information > 1. A player may use information in the auction or play if: > (a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board > (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) > > So the insufficient 3S is treated as legal, and the partner may use the > information deriving from that call. Hm. What _is_ the information that > player may use? It seems to me that the way how this situation came > about is UI to North, only the fact that partner bid 3S is AI. If this > is so, then there are at least 4 scenarios: > A) S wanted to bid 4S, misbid, and kept mum about it (as I later found > out that was actually the case here). > B) S wanted to raise 2S to 3S. Maybe not likely here as W had used the > stop card, but no impossible. > C) S imagined N to have passed over 3H, and has now bid 3S over 3H > D) S has "seen" some bid other than 3S from partner. Not very likely either. > > It may not be the best of examples, but as the insufficient 3S is now > treated as legal there must be some content therein that is AI to North. > Either the way how 3S was reached is AI ( I do not think so, as L16 > talks about information deriving from the call, not from the way it came > about, but I am not sure of that interpretation either), or it is UI, in > which case there must still be some AI information contained in that > bid, else North's position would be quite difficult, maybe even impossible. > If it were AI (and South manages to perpetrate his error without giving > away why he did so, as the player in this case managed to do), North > would be free to guess what has happened. A case can be made for this > viewpoint by way of the parallel to L27C1, where L16D does not apply > (and the law says so, which it doesn`t do here). > > Any ideas? i think it's easy: the accepted insufficient bid is AI, mannerism surrounding it is UI. hopefully mannerism was absent in this case. jpr > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Wed Jan 16 14:52:27 2008 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:52:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? References: <000101c855fa$e0579400$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><478A4B59.9090401@skynet.be><9AE806D2-784D-4B56-85B6-1F585A01FB1B@starpower.net><478C7A81.4090301@skynet.be><4035E054-C7E5-42C4-B4EB-11B2D91C10EB@starpower.net> <478CE21B.9060904@skynet.be><004a01c857c7$13128b70$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <478DE909.3010106@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002301c85847$08931b80$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? >> >> No Herman. Eric is not breaking any Law by correctly answering with the >> system agreement. He is not correcting his partner. He is simply >> correctly >> answering the opponents. In fact, his partner is now barred by the UI >> from >> recovering and remembering the correct system. >> > > Yes, he is. He's breaking L20F5. > >> Eric is simply doing what the Laws say he must do. And, as I've >> indicated >> in another post, The Introduction to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge >> indicate that a "must" imperative under the Laws is the strongest >> imperative >> used, even stronger than the "may not" that you like to hide behind. >> > > If only there were a law that said "a player must at all times > correctly answer questions about his system". There is no such law. It > is implied, sure, but it is not written like that. So you cannot argue > that such a law is stronger than L20F5, because it simply does not exist. When people such as Grattan show you the Laws that are broken, you simply dismiss the argument. I'll give it one more try (I never seem to learn)... MI is an infraction (L75, L75A). Systematic agreements and special understandings are defined in L40*. L40B6A requires that you respond to an opponents inquiry with all special information derived from partnership agreement or experience. Since a dWs response is not a partnership agreement, but is rather a fiction, failure to reveal the actual understanding is a violation of L40B6A and L75/L75A.. So, you are wrong when you say that the Laws do not require correct explanation. Violating these Laws to conceal partner's MI infraction is a violation of L72B3. And, since you argue that the dWs gives you a better chance to improve your score, and dWs is a response to information from partner that is UI to you, you are also in violation of L73C. That's why I've been tossing the written explanation idea out there. I don't seriously expect it to be adopted by anyone. However, it gives you a legal way to insure that you never have to offer MI to your opponents, and yet still follow L20F5, so it should be attractive to you IF you are serious about all of this in terms of the Laws. You now have a choice between an illegal option (dWs) and an option that satisfies all Law requirements, even as you read them (written explanations). If you've been posting dWs for a dozen years just to get attention by taking a controversial stand, then written explanations by your partnership (not necessarily anyone else in the field) would be far less attractive, since it would effectively end all of the attention that you've been getting. It would allow you to stay within all of the Laws, even using your rather creative interpretations, without having to search for phantom loopholes. I had placed a bet with myself over whether you would welcome a way to avoid MI entirely while also avoiding UI, or dismiss it. So far, I'm winning the bet ;) > >> When you give your MI, L20F4 says that you must immediately call the TD >> when >> you realize that you have done so. Do you disregard this Law also? >> > > Of course I do, how else am I going to follow L20F5? > If you did, there would be no problem. You give your MI, call the TD, who would then have you correct your explanation and give you a procedural penalty. This would actually let you off the hook, since the TD would be the one forcing you to wake up your partner. Of course, the accumulation of PP's would hurt your standing in the event, and would eventually hurt your ability to play in games where the SO did not approve of intentional MI. In that respect dWs is self-limiting. Hirsch From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 16 15:03:39 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:03:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478E077A.8030906@skynet.be> References: <000001c85776$800dbac0$80293040$@immi.gov.au> <001001c8582f$9b7a7460$d26f5d20$@com> <478E077A.8030906@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c85848$99390680$cbab1380$@com> [HdW] Once again, David believes L16 applies to answers. It doesn't. Only to bids. [DALB] Actually, Herman, it doesn't apply "only to bids". At the very least, it applies to calls and plays, because this is what it says: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." Now, you choose to read this as "may not select from among logically alternative calls or plays", because this is "obviously what it means". But it isn't what it says. What it says is that someone in receipt of UI may not select *any* logical alternative that could have been suggested over another by the UI. This means that a player who has the choice between explaining 5D as "one ace" and "minor suit preference" may not explain it as "one ace", because the UI "I think 4NT was Blackwood" suggests doing so. You may consider this literal reading of L16B1 far-fetched and leading to absurdity. But your own literal reading of L20F5 is equally far-fetched and leading to absurdity. It's just that, in keeping with most fanatics, you are incapable of recognising your own absurdities even though they are isomorphic to the absurdities you decry in others. But well it was said by the bard: For many system shoppers it's a good-for-nothing system that classifies as opposites stupidity and wisdom, because by logic-choppers it's accepted with avidity: stupidity's true opposite's the opposite stupidity. Piet Hein [HdW] And what shall you do to the noble unknown who just says "I thought partner was right - 4NT was Blackwood". Give him 90 IMPs fine? [DALB] He can have a warning the first time. Then a 90-IMP fine. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 16 15:13:09 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:13:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <478DE6EB.3000103@skynet.be> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be> <005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A478D.4040402@skynet.be> <005d01c8564f$8950fb10$50cb403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801131823k3c9f2c16vb710973b01b464b@mail.gmail.com><001001c856c2$658442f0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478B835C.30108@ulb.ac.be> <057301c85791$261d7bc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <478DE6EB.3000103@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jan 16, 2008, at 6:13 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > That is a problem that hasn't been touched upon yet. You abhor my > actions, but what do you want to do about them? > And I don't mean that as flaunting authority, but as a genuine > question? > How are you going to distinguish between me, the notorious DWS adept, > and any normal player who realizes he has misbid? Our actions will be > completely the same, our intentions totally different. But if you want > to rule against me, you'll either require a mind reader, or laws that > mean misbidding is forbidden too. She will attempt to distinguish between Herman's intentions and those of normal players by asking them, trusting them to tell the truth. Or does the DWS mandate lying in response to a direct question from the TD if the truthful answer would give UI to partner? Surely if one accepts Herman's view of "in any manner", it must! Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 16 16:15:17 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:15:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478E077A.8030906@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c85852$9a86fec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > > While I'm here, I may as well answer Herman's question. If you proceed > > according to the dWS, I will fine you three tops or 90 IMPs for a first > > violation of all the Laws you have broken, and disqualify you for a > second. > > > > And what shall you do to the noble unknown who just says "I thought > partner was right - 4NT was Blackwood". Give him 90 IMPs fine? With this continued demonstration by Herman on his attitude I shall modify my ruling that I presented in a previous post: If I ever notice the name Herman de Wael on a list of competitors at an event conducted by me I shall in advance issue a notification (Law 81C2) that I consider DWS illegal and forbid its use. I shall further advice that on the first occasion I become aware DWS has demonstrably been applied I shall use my powers under Law 91A to suspend the contestant using it, such suspension will last for the rest of the current session. I consider such penalty to be justified for any contestant that deliberately violates any law where a violation comes rather close to cheating, even after being warned and told these consequences. Sven From mustikka at charter.net Wed Jan 16 16:31:52 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:31:52 -0800 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net><000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> <000901c856d1$6947dcd0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478C7856.5090800@skynet.be><000901c8575b$4e04ff90$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478CA57F.9070801@skynet.be><003201c857b4$bdc40890$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478DE3BC.9070809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c85854$eb5e1d90$62025e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" [earlier discussion snipped] > Raija, you are telling us that "lying" is bad. Any lying. [Herman's depletive deleted] > > You insist on criticising the DWS because it amounts to "lying". Well, > I find that "lying" is not the worst possible crime. > You cannot condemn something on the basis of your own, subjective, > feeling of what constitutes the worst crime possible. My personal feelings have nothing to do with the Laws discussion, nor should they, nor have I based my opinions of the Law in that way. But I trust that the Law would never require anyone to lie about their partnership agreement or to conceal an agreement. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 16 16:39:25 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:39:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be> <005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A478D.4040402@skynet.be> <005d01c8564f$8950fb10$50cb403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801131823k3c9f2c16vb710973b01b464b@mail.gmail.com><001001c856c2$658442f0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478B835C.30108@ulb.ac.be> <057301c85791$261d7bc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <478DE6EB.3000103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <478E252D.10006@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 16, 2008, at 6:13 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> That is a problem that hasn't been touched upon yet. You abhor my >> actions, but what do you want to do about them? >> And I don't mean that as flaunting authority, but as a genuine >> question? >> How are you going to distinguish between me, the notorious DWS adept, >> and any normal player who realizes he has misbid? Our actions will be >> completely the same, our intentions totally different. But if you want >> to rule against me, you'll either require a mind reader, or laws that >> mean misbidding is forbidden too. > > She will attempt to distinguish between Herman's intentions and those > of normal players by asking them, trusting them to tell the truth. > Or does the DWS mandate lying in response to a direct question from > the TD if the truthful answer would give UI to partner? Surely if > one accepts Herman's view of "in any manner", it must! > Well, I the question will be asked after the play, of course, so the problem of UI to partner does not come up. But how can yuou trust my intentions? You know me, but you don't know all the players who've read L20F5 and decided to act like me. They're genuine in their belief that they were doing the right thing. And then of course you have those who think that they should stick with partner, and not give UI. And then there's me, who -for once- forgets a part of his system and hears his partner give a correct explanation. Will you believe me when I tell you that the explanation was right? Does it matter if it is right? Does it matter if we can prove it? Does it matter whether you accept it? A whole lot of questions you really don't want to be asking at the table! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 16 16:41:02 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:41:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? In-Reply-To: <001701c85842$dee64d60$58ca403e@Mildred> References: <001801c85839$62bddf90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <001701c85842$dee64d60$58ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <478E258E.4010409@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Judge not the play before the play be done" > [Sir John Davies 1569-1626] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:14 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? > > >>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> ............ >>> If only there were a law that said "a player must at all times >>> correctly answer questions about his system". There is no such >>> law. It is implied, sure, but it is not written like that. So you >>> cannot argue that such a law is stronger than L20F5, because >>> it simply does not exist. >> If there had been such a law (which would be absolutely >> superfluous), wouldn't you still have argued that that law also >> is in conflict with L20F5? >> >> You may claim that of course you wouldn't - I am convinced >> that indeed you would. >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > "When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply > to opponent's enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all > special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement > or partnership experience .... etc " > "He (enquirer) is entitled to know about .... " > "A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents' failure > to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws > require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted > score" > "Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership > understandings may be penalized." > (Herman thinks there is no patent requirement to disclose his > partnership understandings correctly. Ah, well...!) > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry Grattan, that is not what this subthread is about. I said there was no law that uses the word "must"! You've just proven that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 16 16:44:47 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:44:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? In-Reply-To: <002301c85847$08931b80$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <000101c855fa$e0579400$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><478A4B59.9090401@skynet.be><9AE806D2-784D-4B56-85B6-1F585A01FB1B@starpower.net><478C7A81.4090301@skynet.be><4035E054-C7E5-42C4-B4EB-11B2D91C10EB@starpower.net> <478CE21B.9060904@skynet.be><004a01c857c7$13128b70$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <478DE909.3010106@skynet.be> <002301c85847$08931b80$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <478E266F.3030507@skynet.be> Hirsh is missing a big point here. This subthread was started by him. It said that L20F5 is less strong than the MI laws, because it uses "may not", while the MI laws use "must". A good argument, but sadly missing in truth. I said there was no law about MI which uses "must". And then both Grattan and Hirsh accuse me of saying that there is no MI law, or that DWS does not break any laws. I have never stated that, and you really should be keeping track of arguments before you go on with the merry-go-round. I'll let the thread below, so that you can re-read it. Hirsch Davis wrote: >> >>> Eric is simply doing what the Laws say he must do. And, as I've >>> indicated >>> in another post, The Introduction to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge >>> indicate that a "must" imperative under the Laws is the strongest >>> imperative >>> used, even stronger than the "may not" that you like to hide behind. >>> >> If only there were a law that said "a player must at all times >> correctly answer questions about his system". There is no such law. It >> is implied, sure, but it is not written like that. So you cannot argue >> that such a law is stronger than L20F5, because it simply does not exist. > > When people such as Grattan show you the Laws that are broken, you simply > dismiss the argument. I'll give it one more try (I never seem to learn)... > Understand my point? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 16 16:50:36 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:50:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901c8583f$44d23570$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <001901c8583f$44d23570$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <478E27CC.2080400@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .............. >> And then a case comes up, and I state that I explain partner's call >> consistent with his previous explanation because I believe partner was >> right and I misbid. No mention of DWS whatsoever. How are you going to >> prove your 1VP PP to an AC when you don't have a mind reader present >> to show that I did not really believe my partner was right? > > I'll rest the case until it is possible from other evidence to establish > that you are lying when you claim that partner's incorrect explanation in > fact was correct. > > Then you would be found guilty of deliberately cheating. > > Really Herman, is this a situation you would engage into? I hope not, and I > don't believe you because if you really do you lose every bit of my respect > as proving yourself a dishonest man. > > Sven > Sven, of course I would do nothing against the laws, but how are you going to prove that I did or did not? Of course, you know me, so when I act this way, it's a fine indication that I'd be lying. But anyone else could get away with it, easily. Is that what you really want? I maintain that it is better for my side to not give UI. So I don't. If it takes a bit of lying thereafter to get away with that, what's stopping me (well, someone else then)? You can never prove that someone did not believe that partner was giving the right information all along. And what do you do with people who are genuinely uncertain? Are they allowed to take their best shot at it, or not? Should they be 50% certain, or 99%, or 100%? And how do you prove any of these numbers. You have argued many times against mind-reading. Well, this one requires mind reading to the extreme! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 16 16:54:00 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:54:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c85852$9a86fec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c85852$9a86fec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <478E2898.9040308@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............. >>> While I'm here, I may as well answer Herman's question. If you proceed >>> according to the dWS, I will fine you three tops or 90 IMPs for a first >>> violation of all the Laws you have broken, and disqualify you for a >> second. >> And what shall you do to the noble unknown who just says "I thought >> partner was right - 4NT was Blackwood". Give him 90 IMPs fine? > > With this continued demonstration by Herman on his attitude I shall modify > my ruling that I presented in a previous post: > > If I ever notice the name Herman de Wael on a list of competitors at an > event conducted by me I shall in advance issue a notification (Law 81C2) > that I consider DWS illegal and forbid its use. > > I shall further advice that on the first occasion I become aware DWS has > demonstrably been applied I shall use my powers under Law 91A to suspend the > contestant using it, such suspension will last for the rest of the current > session. > > I consider such penalty to be justified for any contestant that deliberately > violates any law where a violation comes rather close to cheating, even > after being warned and told these consequences. > > Sven > So it's legal as long as I'm not in the room, but illegal if I am? And again: what are you going to do with all the other players who have simply acted in the same way because they believe their partner had the correct explanation? And what would you do if it happens to be me, and my partner happens to have given a correct information. This turns out like a rule that says "Herman De Wael is not allowed to misbid". I fear that would not get past the European Court in Strasbourg. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john at asimere.com Wed Jan 16 17:16:03 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:16:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] And now for something completely different References: <000101c855fa$e0579400$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478A4B59.9090401@skynet.be> <000001c85641$06547380$12fd5a80$@com><478B1962.5020004@skynet.be> <478DE3B6.7080704@t-online.de> Message-ID: <00a301c8585b$181fe1f0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:00 AM Subject: [blml] And now for something completely different Hi all, a couple of weeks ago something happened at the club which got me wondering about L16 and L27. I do not remember the hands, but they are not relevant to my musings. Since I do not remember the hands I do not give vulnerability either. The seats may be wrong, too, but I think it to be easier for a discussion to call a player "East" instead of "the jumper" or something.... The 1D bidder was the dealer, so I call him North. The bidding went as follows: N E S W 1D - P - 1S - 3H(a) 3S - P - 3S - P 4S all pass 3H was alerted and explained as a weak jump. After the insufficient bid West called me to the table. I explained the laws and West chose to accept the insufficient bid. North asked about his obligations in this situation, and after mulling this over for some time I told him that he was free to use the information arising from a sufficient bid of 3S. I am of the view that if the bid is accepted then the opponent has decided it is in his interest to do so; and further there are no UI considerations. I agree that the player is now looking at at "deemed to be legal 3S" call and should simply continue playing bridge John North`s hand was strong enough to bid 4S anyway, so there was no decision to take later. LAW 27 - INSUFFICIENT BID A. Acceptance of Insufficient Bid 1. Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender?s LHO. It is accepted if that player calls. LAW 16 AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION A. Players? Use of Information 1. A player may use information in the auction or play if: (a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) So the insufficient 3S is treated as legal, and the partner may use the information deriving from that call. Hm. What _is_ the information that player may use? It seems to me that the way how this situation came about is UI to North, only the fact that partner bid 3S is AI. If this is so, then there are at least 4 scenarios: A) S wanted to bid 4S, misbid, and kept mum about it (as I later found out that was actually the case here). B) S wanted to raise 2S to 3S. Maybe not likely here as W had used the stop card, but no impossible. C) S imagined N to have passed over 3H, and has now bid 3S over 3H D) S has "seen" some bid other than 3S from partner. Not very likely either. It may not be the best of examples, but as the insufficient 3S is now treated as legal there must be some content therein that is AI to North. Either the way how 3S was reached is AI ( I do not think so, as L16 talks about information deriving from the call, not from the way it came about, but I am not sure of that interpretation either), or it is UI, in which case there must still be some AI information contained in that bid, else North's position would be quite difficult, maybe even impossible. If it were AI (and South manages to perpetrate his error without giving away why he did so, as the player in this case managed to do), North would be free to guess what has happened. A case can be made for this viewpoint by way of the parallel to L27C1, where L16D does not apply (and the law says so, which it doesn`t do here). Any ideas? _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Jan 16 17:17:53 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:17:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000001c85852$9a86fec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478E2898.9040308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00b401c8585b$5a6f4910$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > This turns out like a rule that says > "Herman De Wael is not allowed to misbid". > > I fear that would not get past the European Court in Strasbourg. > I have to agree with that. But I'm still adjusting and fining Herman whenever he employs dWS methods. John > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 16 18:38:46 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:38:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478E27CC.2080400@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01c85866$a6132480$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > .............. > >> And then a case comes up, and I state that I explain partner's call > >> consistent with his previous explanation because I believe partner was > >> right and I misbid. No mention of DWS whatsoever. How are you going to > >> prove your 1VP PP to an AC when you don't have a mind reader present > >> to show that I did not really believe my partner was right? > > > > I'll rest the case until it is possible from other evidence to establish > > that you are lying when you claim that partner's incorrect explanation > in > > fact was correct. > > > > Then you would be found guilty of deliberately cheating. > > > > Really Herman, is this a situation you would engage into? I hope not, > and I > > don't believe you because if you really do you lose every bit of my > respect > > as proving yourself a dishonest man. > > > > Sven > > > > Sven, of course I would do nothing against the laws, but how are you > going to prove that I did or did not? Of course, you know me, so when > I act this way, it's a fine indication that I'd be lying. But anyone > else could get away with it, easily. > Is that what you really want? > > I maintain that it is better for my side to not give UI. So I don't. > If it takes a bit of lying thereafter to get away with that, what's > stopping me (well, someone else then)? You can never prove that > someone did not believe that partner was giving the right information > all along. > And what do you do with people who are genuinely uncertain? Are they > allowed to take their best shot at it, or not? Should they be 50% > certain, or 99%, or 100%? And how do you prove any of these numbers. > You have argued many times against mind-reading. Well, this one > requires mind reading to the extreme! "You would of course do nothing against the laws"? In my opinion that is exactly what you argue you will do with DWS. "How am I going to prove"? - There is something called Convention cards. And don't forget that if a player cannot prove he is telling the truth on agreements, we are empowered, and in fact required to assume incorrect explanation if in doubt. Then I am vigilant for patterns, and the more a player's behavior conforms to an unacceptable pattern the more trouble that player will have. I don't think I shall need mind-reading. At least I have not during my 28 years as licensed Director at all levels in Norway. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 16 18:58:44 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:58:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <478E27CC.2080400@skynet.be> References: <001901c8583f$44d23570$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478E27CC.2080400@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jan 16, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: >>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> .............. >>> And then a case comes up, and I state that I explain partner's call >>> consistent with his previous explanation because I believe >>> partner was >>> right and I misbid. No mention of DWS whatsoever. How are you >>> going to >>> prove your 1VP PP to an AC when you don't have a mind reader present >>> to show that I did not really believe my partner was right? >> >> I'll rest the case until it is possible from other evidence to >> establish >> that you are lying when you claim that partner's incorrect >> explanation in >> fact was correct. >> >> Then you would be found guilty of deliberately cheating. >> >> Really Herman, is this a situation you would engage into? I hope >> not, and I >> don't believe you because if you really do you lose every bit of >> my respect >> as proving yourself a dishonest man. > > Sven, of course I would do nothing against the laws, but how are you > going to prove that I did or did not? Of course, you know me, so when > I act this way, it's a fine indication that I'd be lying. But anyone > else could get away with it, easily. > Is that what you really want? > > I maintain that it is better for my side to not give UI. So I don't. > If it takes a bit of lying thereafter to get away with that, what's > stopping me (well, someone else then)? You can never prove that > someone did not believe that partner was giving the right information > all along. > And what do you do with people who are genuinely uncertain? Are they > allowed to take their best shot at it, or not? Should they be 50% > certain, or 99%, or 100%? And how do you prove any of these numbers. > You have argued many times against mind-reading. Well, this one > requires mind reading to the extreme! Herman would do nothng against the laws, but, as he points out, if he were to, he would surely not be caught at it. Of course, that would be cheating. The DWS depends on breaking the (OK, a) law by deliberately giving MI, then "making it right" by subsequently calling attention to one's own infraction at the appropriate time. If the latter aspect of the DWS protocol were to be somehow forgotten or omitted, we would be left with outright cheaters getting away with outright cheating. When Herman acts according to the DWS, he would, of course, never cheat, but, as he himself says, "anyone else could get away with it, easily". Indeed, in several recent messages, including the above, he tells us just how "anyone else" might lie to the TD or AC in order to "get away with it, easily". That sounds more like an argument against the DWS than for it. Or is Herman trying to justify his actions as simply "leveling the playing field against the outright cheaters"? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Jan 16 19:15:22 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:15:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: References: <001901c8583f$44d23570$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478E27CC.2080400@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0801161015r573e2446i337b75c0d3392e23@mail.gmail.com> On 1/16/08, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 16, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Herman would do nothng against the laws, but, as he points out, if he > were to, he would surely not be caught at it. Of course, that would > be cheating. The DWS depends on breaking the (OK, a) law by > deliberately giving MI, then "making it right" by subsequently > calling attention to one's own infraction at the appropriate time. > If the latter aspect of the DWS protocol were to be somehow forgotten > or omitted, we would be left with outright cheaters getting away with > outright cheating. When Herman acts according to the DWS, he would, > of course, never cheat, but, as he himself says, "anyone else could > get away with it, easily". Indeed, in several recent messages, > including the above, he tells us just how "anyone else" might lie to > the TD or AC in order to "get away with it, easily". That sounds > more like an argument against the DWS than for it. Or is Herman > trying to justify his actions as simply "leveling the playing field > against the outright cheaters"? I'd like to introduce an additional extension to Herman's favorite DWS school example: What if the opponent's buy the contract after recieving an explanation of the 5D bid. Herman's side is now defending the contract and not declaring... Herman certain can't inform the opponent's about the misunderstanding until the hand has been played out. During the play of the hand, Herman's opponents figure out the something fishy happened. They call the Director mid stream and inform him that Herman doesn't have a hand consistent with their assumed meaning of his 4NT bid... I'm sure that Herman will claim that at the end of the hand he would have informed the opponents what happened, however, how are we to know what might have happened? -- "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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 16 19:25:43 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:25:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net><000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> <000901c856d1$6947dcd0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478C7856.5090800@skynet.be><000901c8575b$4e04ff90$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478CA57F.9070801@skynet.be><003201c857b4$bdc40890$62025e47@DFYXB361><478DE3BC.9070809@skynet.be> <000c01c85854$eb5e1d90$62025e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <006001c8586f$be8572d0$1fd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > [earlier discussion snipped] > >> Raija, you are telling us that "lying" is bad. Any lying. > > [Herman's depletive deleted] >> >> You insist on criticising the DWS because it amounts to >> "lying". Well, I find that "lying" is not the worst possible >> crime. You cannot condemn something on the basis of >> your own, subjective, feeling of what constitutes the >> worst crime possible. > > > My personal feelings have nothing to do with the Laws > discussion, nor should they, nor have I based my opinions > of the Law in that way. But I trust that the Law would > never require anyone to lie about their partnership > agreement or to conceal an agreement. > +=+ I do not know what a 'depletive' is - could it be something for emptying out Herman? The Laws tell us that the worst possible offence is for partners to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by the laws. I suggest that nearly equal to this is any attempt to conceal an infraction - as for example by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke, mixing the cards prematurely, or misexplaining the partnership agreement as to the meaning of a call in order not to reveal that partner has misexplained a prior call. It all constitutes part of the category of actions that someone has said "comes rather close to cheating" (sic). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 16 20:01:18 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:01:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000001c85776$800dbac0$80293040$@immi.gov.au> <001001c8582f$9b7a7460$d26f5d20$@com> Message-ID: <08eb01c85872$2d5ec240$0100a8c0@stefanie> [DALB] > Another difficulty I have with the dWS is this: if the opponents do not > ask > about 4NT but ask about 5D, South will say "minor suit preference", > whereas > if the opponents do ask about 4NT South will say "one ace". But legally, > South may not act on the assumption that North believes 4NT to be > Blackwood. > One might even say that to answer "one ace" is to "choose from among > logical > alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another > by > the extraneous information". > Suppose the room was noisy and the dWSist didn't hear the explanation. Now what does he answer? > While I'm here, I may as well answer Herman's question. If you proceed > according to the dWS, I will fine you three tops or 90 IMPs for a first > violation of all the Laws you have broken, and disqualify you for a > second. Softy! Stefanie Rohan London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 16 21:06:23 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:06:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? References: <001801c85839$62bddf90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><001701c85842$dee64d60$58ca403e@Mildred> <478E258E.4010409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <008601c8587b$e9520f30$1fd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy? > > Sorry Grattan, that is not what this subthread is about. > I said there was no law that uses the word "must"! > You've just proven that. > +=+ It may not be what the subthread is about. I was dealing with your belief that you are called upon to choose between violations of law and your remarks that 'if only there were a law that said "a player must at all times correctly answer questions about his system". There is no such law. It is implied, sure, but it is not written like that.' I was saying that it is rather more than 'implied', as for example when the laws say that a player is "entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding". Beyond that, there is a law that reads "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept". There is also the law which says that after an irregularity if the laws provide a player with an option the Director shall explain all the options available, so if you think the laws allow you to do one thing or another you are required to hear the Director. But the truth is you know all that. That's why you get people saying things like "Mostly, this group just likes to hear themselves talk." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Jan 16 22:45:22 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:45:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <4787757D.5090408@t-online.de> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> <47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <4787757D.5090408@t-online.de> Message-ID: <478E7AF2.8070700@aol.com> ziffbridge at t-online.de schrieb: > Herman De Wael schrieb: > >>Peter Eidt wrote: >> >> >>>Peter2: >>>If I answer an opponent's question with the correct systematic meaning, >>>I'm not "_indicating_ in any manner" that a mistake has been made. >>> >> >>Peter, if you believe that, you are very very very misguided. >> > > > Speaking of misguidance: If I have people like Grattan, Ton and others, > members of the WBFLC and the DSC, who know from personal experience and > through personal involvement in the drafting process how the laws are > meant to be read (having, if not invented them, (that is too far in the > past) formed them into their present state to no small extent) and I > have Herman, someone not connected with the aforementioned bodies, who > has a different opinion on that, whose interpretation am I going to > follow? Hmm, that`s a really tough one. If I want an interpretation of > some text, whom do I ask? The guy who wrote it or some literary critic? > Another tough one. If I could talk to Shakespeare and to Chaucer about > some difficult point in Hamlet, whom would I ask? Maybe you can guess. > Now it so happens that Grattan, Ton and those other people in the WBFLC > have told me by way of the CoP that there is no design involved in > answering questions (one of your former hobby-horses), and that I do not > "indicate" (as in "actively seek to point out") anything through > answering questions, by way of posting in this list. Not that I didn`t > know that, I can read English, and I consult a good dictionary whenever > I am in doubt. Along comes Herman, who tells the people mentioned that > they have no command of English (which would be funny with regard to the > native speakers if it weren'tso tragic), do not know what "with design" > or "indicate" truly means, and generally are completely misguided. Wow. > That's a tough act to follow. > > >>You may well believe that it's ok to break this law, but not that >>you're not breaking it. > > > I may not? When the foks who actually made those rules tell me > different? I always was under the impression that the people who _make_ > the rules are the ones to ask, not Herman (or me, for that matter). > > >>This is just too silly for words. > > > I wholeheartedly agree. > > >>It is the >>reaction of someone who feels the argument slipping away and finding >>aver stranger arguments to avoid having to admit that maybe one was >>wrong to begin with. >> >> > > What strange arguments? There is official word on what the law is, and I > follow it. What is strange about that? You, on the other hand, argue > that the rule-makers actually do not know how their own words are to be > read, and you call my (or Peter`s, in this caase) arguments strange? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Hola Matthias! Ich bezweifele da? Chaucer Dir viel ?ber Hamlet erkl?ren k?nnte. (Couldn't resist the temptation.) JE From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Jan 16 23:32:41 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:32:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] irrelevant Message-ID: <478E8609.7000901@aol.com> Matthias B. wrote in his response to Herman: you disagree which is your privilege. Herman wrote (to Matthias and in other postings) always referring to the arguments of his "opponents". You delude yourself. You are very, very misguided. ...totally wrong argument. ...ridiculous argument. ...too ridiculous. ...too silly for words. Anyone other than me notice a fundamental difference in style? JE From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 17 00:00:22 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:00:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] irrelevant In-Reply-To: <478E8609.7000901@aol.com> References: <478E8609.7000901@aol.com> Message-ID: <3C463ABF-9BB4-4417-8BAA-28C7FEEEC2AF@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 16, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Anyone other than me notice a fundamental difference in style? There is a reason I plonked Herman long ago. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 17 00:20:02 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:20:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] irrelevant References: <478E8609.7000901@aol.com> Message-ID: <005c01c85896$54fe9bd0$f5d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:32 PM Subject: [blml] irrelevant > Matthias B. wrote in his response to Herman: you disagree which is your > privilege. > > Herman wrote (to Matthias and in other postings) always referring to the > arguments of his "opponents". > > You delude yourself. > > You are very, very misguided. > > ...totally wrong argument. > > ...ridiculous argument. > > ...too ridiculous. > > ...too silly for words. > > Anyone other than me notice a fundamental difference in style? > > JE > +=+ Whose elephant? Let's just say that Herman's playing off the back foot. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 17 00:30:49 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:30:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Zonal Laws Committees In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560801152357y4b4440d8u6f37e40a0b0838c2@mail.gmail.com> References: <200801151546.m0FFkofw004251@cfa.harvard.edu> <478D6E69.80600@nhcc.net> <2a1c3a560801152357y4b4440d8u6f37e40a0b0838c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2C38DC0E-2414-4698-BBF1-604E22D9A295@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 16, 2008, at 2:57 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > The > Monday is a national holiday (Queen's birthday - I can never remember > if it is the real queen or Elton John). Elton John's birthday is a national holiday in New Zealand? Figures. :-) From geller at nifty.com Thu Jan 17 01:07:11 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:07:11 +0900 Subject: [blml] irrelevant In-Reply-To: <005c01c85896$54fe9bd0$f5d6403e@Mildred> References: <005c01c85896$54fe9bd0$f5d6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200801170007.AA12036@geller204.nifty.com> I know nothing about cricket. What does that mean? -Bob gesta at tiscali.co.uk ????????: >+=+ Whose elephant? > Let's just say that Herman's playing off the back foot. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 17 01:29:25 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:29:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] irrelevant In-Reply-To: <478E8609.7000901@aol.com> References: <478E8609.7000901@aol.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801161629w2b90d764u82756888a11340d3@mail.gmail.com> Jeff: > > Anyone other than me notice a fundamental difference in style? > This is known as selective quoting. Actually, I prefer Herman's style to the personal attacks and belittlements from his foes, including calling some of us "acolytes." To me, vigorous, well-thought-out attacks on a position are proper, but all ad hominem attacks are improper. Also, Herman rarely confuses or misrepresents the other side's position. Jerry Fusselman From john at asimere.com Thu Jan 17 02:12:35 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:12:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] irrelevant References: <005c01c85896$54fe9bd0$f5d6403e@Mildred> <200801170007.AA12036@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <001301c858a6$0b5822c0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] irrelevant >I know nothing about cricket. What does that mean? 2 run game; bottom of the 9th; 2 out; pitcher at bat and God himself pitching. OK? > -Bob > > gesta at tiscali.co.uk $B$5$s$O=q$-$^$7$?(B: >>+=+ Whose elephant? >> Let's just say that Herman's playing off the back foot. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 17 02:41:44 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:41:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy and a new problem References: Message-ID: <09e201c858aa$1db64bf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > 2007 Law 20F4: > > If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous > or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies > Law 21B or Law 40B4. > >> When the 1997 Law 75D1 was discussed on blml as perhaps a refutation of > the De Wael School, Herman pointed to the word "subsequently". Herman > noted that since a De Wael School misexplanation was knowingly given at > the time it was made, there was not any (future tense) subsequent > realisation. It is a shame that the word "subsequently" is there. Still, to argue that its purpose is to allow MI so long and one has previously decided to give it is absurd. But in any case, I don't think that its presence is a good enough excuse. After all, even if someone has deliberately given MI, in every subsequent moment they are in a state of realisation that they have done so. So it seems to me that the obligation to call the director is in force. Here is something which I don't think has been discussed before. The dWSist's partner gave his MI inadvertantly. If he should realise sometime later that he has done so, he must call the director immediately, and presumably the opponents will be told that they have been misinformed. What does the dWSist do now? Volunteer that he has also given misinformation? And what happens when the opponents see that the dWSist has been bidding according to the correct system? > > Of course, by the primary principle of the De Wael School - the Lawbook > is inconsistent - this DWS quibble about "subsequently" is unnecessary, > since it is a non-Euclidean axiom of the De Wael School that the 2007 > Law 20F5(a) has primacy over all other Laws. This has been going on for over a decade. I really think that it is time to stop it. Grattan has noted that the fact that Herman has acquired a small number of acolytes is a worrying development. Whose fault is that, really? All of the long threads that have been devoted to the topic could well give an inexperienced person the impression that the legality of the dWS is a debatable point. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 17 03:21:36 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:21:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be> <005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A478D.4040402@skynet.be> <005d01c8564f$8950fb10$50cb403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801131823k3c9f2c16vb710973b01b464b@mail.gmail.com><001001c856c2$658442f0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478B835C.30108@ulb.ac.be><057301c85791$261d7bc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <478DE6EB.3000103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0a4a01c858af$af558e40$0100a8c0@stefanie> Herman De Wael wrote: > I do not believe [the dWS] is lawful, I believe it is acceptable. Not the > same thing. if you believe the MS is lawful, you are mistaken. But can you really be so sure that the world, includiding the drafters of the newest edition of the Laws, is mistaken and you are the only person who is not? > The MS > is acceptable, but the infraction that is there (UI) will be dealt > with. The transmission of UI is not an infraction. > So it is with the DWS. It contains an infraction (because that's > inevitable) and that infraction will be dealt with. OK > But try and think a bit further - imagine you have the power to rule > the DWS unacceptable. What penalty are you then going to impose on me, > over and above the normal penalty for the infraction (MI), which would > force me to change my habits. And how will you make the distinction > between me acting under DWS guidelines, or me simply believing my > partner's explanation and claiming I have misbid? Are you suggesting that you will also avoid telling the opponents your real agreements before they begin to defend, or after they have played the hand? So now you are advocating no correct disclosure, ever? This is cheating on a scale which you have not suggested before, and all I can say is that if someone is really determined to cheat, there is no way to stop them. However, a pattern may be noticed, and then the organisers will attempt to determine what your true system is. > > That is a problem that hasn't been touched upon yet. You abhor my > actions, but what do you want to do about them? > And I don't mean that as flaunting authority, but as a genuine question? > How are you going to distinguish between me, the notorious DWS adept, > and any normal player who realizes he has misbid? Anti-systemic actions are normally not assumed to be based on undisclosed partnership agreements. A person may make a mistake, or choose a strategic misbid. But these occasions will be rare. Again, with the dWS, a pattern may be noticed. > Our actions will be > completely the same, our intentions totally different. But if you want > to rule against me, you'll either require a mind reader, or laws that > mean misbidding is forbidden too. This depends on whether you intend to keep your actual agreements secret even at the time that you are required to correct any misinformation. Such a blatant flouting of the Laws is cause for banning. But maybe you will get away with it. Good for you. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 17 03:31:16 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:31:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <000001c854ae$ad4c98a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <4788A02D.2010205@skynet.be><056d01c85790$cb083900$0100a8c0@stefanie> <478DE781.50805@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0a6201c858b1$093568d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> From: "Herman De Wael" >> There is no obligation at all to avoid giving UI to partner. It is not >> against the laws of bridge. It is the use of UI that is illegal. As in >> the >> example given above. >> > > Yes, but there can certainly be no obligation to give UI! > It depends on whether doing so would be a consequence of avoiding something that actually IS an infraction, such as giving MI to the opponents. Our obligations vis-a-vis disclosure are not for our benefit, nor for our partner's. They are for the opponents' benefit. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 17 04:07:43 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:07:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <200801152014.m0FKE3OU028959@cfa.harvard.edu> <478D74FF.4080306@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <0a8201c858b6$20daee10$0100a8c0@stefanie> > > > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > > SR: Unfortunately, Herman argues that the dWS is, in fact, lawful > > under the current laws. This is really what the problem is. > > He argues no such thing; I'm surprised anyone who posts on the subject > doesn't realize that. And why "unfortunately?" In what way do you > think dWS is worse for the game than MS? Sorry, I spoke carelessly. I didn't mean that he felt that the dWS broke no laws, but that he was entitled to practice it. The reason I think that it is unfortunate is that I believe that Majority, or as I prefer "Universal" practice is fully in accordance with the Laws. > > I really think the MS proponents are relying too much on past practice > and too little on considering the merits of one school versus the other. > Gross misunderstandings of the dWS don't help matters. As to the merits of the dWS, I think it has very few. There are practical difficulties -- what doyou do if your partner has explained a system or convention that you do not know? Anyway I think that full disclosure is a central tenet of the game and that it should not be compromised. Stefanie Rohan London, England From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jan 17 04:21:55 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:21:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <200801162128.m0GLST4E008053@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801162128.m0GLST4E008053@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <478EC9D3.2080007@nhcc.net> > From: "richard willey" > What if the opponent's buy the contract after recieving an explanation > of the 5D bid. Herman's side is now defending the contract and not > declaring... If MI cause damage, there's an adjusted score. No doubt damage is more likely if the opponents buy the contract, but I don't see any difference in principle. I notice that no MS proponent has yet commented on the situation when the opponents have no reason to enter the auction. > From: Eric Landau ... The DWS depends on breaking the (OK, a) law by > deliberately giving MI, then "making it right" by subsequently > calling attention to one's own infraction at the appropriate time. > ... "anyone else" might lie to > the TD or AC in order to "get away with it, easily". That sounds > more like an argument against the DWS than for it. Or is Herman > trying to justify his actions as simply "leveling the playing field > against the outright cheaters"? I don't understand this argument. Presumably the cheat will always claim misbid or psych, regardless of the truth. What difference does it make which school the rest of us follow? The non-cheats will always call attention to the possible MI, differing only in when they do so. > Grattan Endicott First, 'only recently' does not seem right. Herman has > made his argument for years. The advent of discussion > on the 2007 laws has provided opportunity to say it again. > Second, I have asked for examination of the subject - I am > somewhat hindered by reactions such as "I wouldn't spend > much time on this back and forth stuff. [Third through sixth snipped.] It's distressing that some authorities (meaning not Grattan but those he quotes) are unwilling to consider that there's a real question which approach is better for the game. I was "brought up" in the Majority School and have adhered to it until now. However, the apparent absence of logical argument for it and Herman's sound arguments against have just about persuaded me that the MS is inferior. Once one accepts that either school is preferred, it's easy to read the Laws as supporting that position. That's why an interpretation is needed. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jan 17 04:29:49 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:29:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook Message-ID: <478ECBAD.2000702@nhcc.net> > From: "Sven Pran" > With my very best forthcoming attempt I still cannot understand Herman's > statement other than to say that since he believes his actions are > acceptable, they must be acceptable. Two of us have given suitable paraphrases of what Herman meant. His meaning seemed clear enough to me, though not as well-phrased as might have been. > From: Jeff Easterson > Anyone other than me notice a fundamental difference in style? Yes. Herman has not misconstrued what others have written and has presented logical arguments for his position. He has also avoided making personal attacks, despite considerable provocation. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 17 04:33:12 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:33:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <200801152014.m0FKE3OU028959@cfa.harvard.edu> <478D74FF.4080306@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <0b6201c858b9$b0121bf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Steve Willner: > > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > > SR: Unfortunately, Herman argues that the dWS is, in fact, lawful > > under the current laws. This is really what the problem is. > > He argues no such thing; I'm surprised anyone who posts on the subject > doesn't realize that. And why "unfortunately?" In what way do you > think dWS is worse for the game than MS? > > I really think the MS proponents are relying too much on past practice > and too little on considering the merits of one school versus the other. > Gross misunderstandings of the dWS don't help matters. > Just FYI, Herman De Wael, 10 January 2008: Yes Matthias, but you have given the answer yourself! Kicking a footballer is against the rules! Playing DwS is (IMO) NOT against the laws. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 17 04:50:14 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:50:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDGOj-1YoabA0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de><47875243.9080306@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be><001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0bbd01c858bc$112f0810$0100a8c0@stefanie> [HDW on written explanations] > But let's look at it in more detail: this method would certainly solve > one of the problems the dWS is trying to solve: the UI. OK. > not solve a secondary problem, which is that I would reveal that a > mistake has been made, something L20F5 still forbids me to do > (although the reason for that is not clear and I would not mind seeing > it disappear). Not, as you stated earlier, if all explanations were given this way. >And it certainly does not solve a third problem: the > one of revealing to opponents that a misunderstanding is under way, > and that they might well sit back and double the final outcome. That > is knowledge to which they are not entitled, and if I can hide it from > them, I will. Somehow I expected something like this when HD first made the suggestion about written bidding. But it turns out that there is no law or regulation against letting the opponents know that you are having a bidding misunderstanding. So when a method is suggested that breaks no laws according to your interpretations of them, this issue should not be a consideration. > So you might see me writing the dws explanation on a piece of paper. > And we'd be no further off. How would you know it if you hadn't seen your partner's note? > > Well, I believe there is a better solution still: play with screens! > This is not always practical. Stefanie Rohan London, England From adam at tameware.com Thu Jan 17 01:37:09 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:37:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. Message-ID: On Jan 14, 2008 9:43 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > >>> 12C1(e)(ii) is to be interpreted such that the > >>> words "had the irregularity not occurred" are > >>> inserted between "probable" and the period > >>> ending the sentence. > > > From: Adam Wildavsky > > Years ago I asked here for an example case where the differing > > interpretations would result in different rulings. > > I'm sure there was a reply at the time. I'm likewise sure there was not. No need to fight about it, though, it's easy enough to check. > Here's a simple example: NS use > hesitation Blackwood to bid slam, which should go down. However, EW > through an "irrational, wild, or gambling" defense let the slam make. > > In most jurisdictions, EW get -980 because they weren't damaged by the > UI use but by their own play. (I think a few jurisdictions give them > -480, but I'm not sure of that.) In most of the world, NS get -50, the > worst "at all probable" score _with or without_ the infraction. With > the above ACBL election, they will get +450, the worst "at all probable" > result _without_ the infraction. I reach a slam and take 12 tricks. Why will you award me -50? Because my opponents defended poorly? Because they were unlikely to do so? Suppose I had played well to score 12 tricks. That's certainly unlikely! Suppose I make 12 tricks through guessing a 2-way finesse. Will you rule that, after all, I might have misguessed? Suppose I make 12 tricks by taking a one-way finesse. Will I get -50 since the king might, after all, have been offside? Once we allow for things to have happened differently than they did, other than the illegal call itself, where do we stop? -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080116/33639700/attachment.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 17 09:52:09 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:52:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <000c01c85854$eb5e1d90$62025e47@DFYXB361> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net><000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> <000901c856d1$6947dcd0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478C7856.5090800@skynet.be><000901c8575b$4e04ff90$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478CA57F.9070801@skynet.be><003201c857b4$bdc40890$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478DE3BC.9070809@skynet.be> <000c01c85854$eb5e1d90$62025e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <478F1739.8060401@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > [earlier discussion snipped] > >> Raija, you are telling us that "lying" is bad. Any lying. > > [Herman's depletive deleted] >> You insist on criticising the DWS because it amounts to "lying". Well, >> I find that "lying" is not the worst possible crime. >> You cannot condemn something on the basis of your own, subjective, >> feeling of what constitutes the worst crime possible. > > > My personal feelings have nothing to do with the Laws discussion, nor should > they, nor have I based my opinions of the Law in that way. But I trust that > the Law would never require anyone to lie about their partnership agreement > or to conceal an agreement. > And yet, that is precisely what the law does. Or how do you interpret L20F5 otherwise in this light? A law that instructs you to remain silent while your opponents are misinformed. "conceal an agreement" in your words. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Jan 17 09:54:50 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:54:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c85831$6d0efe00$58ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: ............................................................................ ................. Steve Willner: "Yes; that's why this view is the Majority School. Herman has only recently pointed out an alternative. He has given serious reasons why the alternative is superior. I'm surprised so many people have reacted so strongly against his suggestion without considering its merits." ton: We are playing a difficult game, with difficult rules and complicated situations to deal with. This makes writing rules complicated, the more so because we should try to make them clear and simultaneously compact, which are conflicting criteria once in a while. What this group is allowed to do is telling us, drafting committee, that we did not succeed in fulfilling these criteria. But I consider it rather stupid to continue, as Herman does now for years, to tell us what the laws mean and how they should be interpreted. When we look at Law 20F5a it clearly reads that a player may not correct a mistaken explanation given by partner. That is the main message. We could have deleted the following: 'nor may he indicate in any manner...' but we thought it wise to try to say that a player should not show surprise, should not start shouting, should not start moving his chair or in whatever way show his disgust. There is another law saying that a player has to explain partnership agreements, and nothing else. Now mister de Wael is concentrating on this second rate sentence, forgets the main content and principles and creates his own game. And succeeds in creating another endless row of nonsense. Yes Herman: when a player explains a partnership agreement it is possible that his partner becomes aware of a mistake he made. We deal with that in another law. But people in positions to decide about the meaning of the laws have said that this is the way bridge should be played. And that your very superiour solutions are not valid. ton ............................................................................ .......... (Grattan ) First, 'only recently' does not seem right. Herman has made his argument for years. The advent of discussion on the 2007 laws has provided opportunity to say it again. Second, I have asked for examination of the subject - I am somewhat hindered by reactions such as "I wouldn't spend much time on this back and forth stuff. Mostly, this group just likes to hear themselves talk." when I quote from the emails in this thread. Third, the misunderstanding that appeared in a comment from Stefanie Rohan is not present in my report to my colleagues. Fourth, 'this group' is constantly referred here to the words 'in any manner' in Law 20F5(a). The more important word for study in this law is 'indicate'. Herman chooses to argue that in giving the required explanation of his partner's call the player is infracting 20F5(a) because in doing so he indicates that a mistake has been made. I say this is not so because the explanation may reveal the mistake incidentally but the player is not pointing to it or drawing attention to it and to 'indicate' would require him to do this. Opponent is entitled to draw his own conclusions from what he hears. Fifth, somewhere I noted a remark that the rectification for causing damage by giving MI is score adjustment. So it is, but Law 40C3(b) also applies even in the absence of damage, and particularly when the offence is systemic. Sixth, a mistaken explanation is an infraction (L75B). In deliberately acting to conceal partner's infraction a player violates Law 72B3. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Jan 17 09:54:50 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:54:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000401c85831$6d0efe00$58ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: ............................................................................ ................. Steve Willner: "Yes; that's why this view is the Majority School. Herman has only recently pointed out an alternative. He has given serious reasons why the alternative is superior. I'm surprised so many people have reacted so strongly against his suggestion without considering its merits." ton: We are playing a difficult game, with difficult rules and complicated situations to deal with. This makes writing rules complicated, the more so because we should try to make them clear and simultaneously compact, which are conflicting criteria once in a while. What this group is allowed to do is telling us, drafting committee, that we did not succeed in fulfilling these criteria. But I consider it rather stupid to continue, as Herman does now for years, to tell us what the laws mean and how they should be interpreted. When we look at Law 20F5a it clearly reads that a player may not correct a mistaken explanation given by partner. That is the main message. We could have deleted the following: 'nor may he indicate in any manner...' but we thought it wise to try to say that a player should not show surprise, should not start shouting, should not start moving his chair or in whatever way show his disgust. There is another law saying that a player has to explain partnership agreements, and nothing else. Now mister de Wael is concentrating on this second rate sentence, forgets the main content and principles and creates his own game. And succeeds in creating another endless row of nonsense. Yes Herman: when a player explains a partnership agreement it is possible that his partner becomes aware of a mistake he made. We deal with that in another law. But people in positions to decide about the meaning of the laws have said that this is the way bridge should be played. And that your very superiour solutions are not valid. ton ............................................................................ .......... (Grattan ) First, 'only recently' does not seem right. Herman has made his argument for years. The advent of discussion on the 2007 laws has provided opportunity to say it again. Second, I have asked for examination of the subject - I am somewhat hindered by reactions such as "I wouldn't spend much time on this back and forth stuff. Mostly, this group just likes to hear themselves talk." when I quote from the emails in this thread. Third, the misunderstanding that appeared in a comment from Stefanie Rohan is not present in my report to my colleagues. Fourth, 'this group' is constantly referred here to the words 'in any manner' in Law 20F5(a). The more important word for study in this law is 'indicate'. Herman chooses to argue that in giving the required explanation of his partner's call the player is infracting 20F5(a) because in doing so he indicates that a mistake has been made. I say this is not so because the explanation may reveal the mistake incidentally but the player is not pointing to it or drawing attention to it and to 'indicate' would require him to do this. Opponent is entitled to draw his own conclusions from what he hears. Fifth, somewhere I noted a remark that the rectification for causing damage by giving MI is score adjustment. So it is, but Law 40C3(b) also applies even in the absence of damage, and particularly when the offence is systemic. Sixth, a mistaken explanation is an infraction (L75B). In deliberately acting to conceal partner's infraction a player violates Law 72B3. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 17 09:56:57 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:56:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <006001c8586f$be8572d0$1fd5403e@Mildred> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net><000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> <000901c856d1$6947dcd0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478C7856.5090800@skynet.be><000901c8575b$4e04ff90$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478CA57F.9070801@skynet.be><003201c857b4$bdc40890$62025e47@DFYXB361><478DE3BC.9070809@skynet.be> <000c01c85854$eb5e1d90$62025e47@DFYXB361> <006001c8586f$be8572d0$1fd5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <478F1859.5050300@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Judge not the play before the play be done" > [Sir John Davies 1569-1626] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "raija" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:31 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> >> >> [earlier discussion snipped] >> >>> Raija, you are telling us that "lying" is bad. Any lying. >> [Herman's depletive deleted] >>> You insist on criticising the DWS because it amounts to >>> "lying". Well, I find that "lying" is not the worst possible >>> crime. You cannot condemn something on the basis of >>> your own, subjective, feeling of what constitutes the >>> worst crime possible. >> >> My personal feelings have nothing to do with the Laws >> discussion, nor should they, nor have I based my opinions >> of the Law in that way. But I trust that the Law would >> never require anyone to lie about their partnership >> agreement or to conceal an agreement. >> > +=+ I do not know what a 'depletive' is - could it be > something for emptying out Herman? > The Laws tell us that the worst possible offence is > for partners to exchange information through prearranged > methods of communication other than those sanctioned by > the laws. I suggest that nearly equal to this is any attempt > to conceal an infraction - as for example by committing a > second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke, > mixing the cards prematurely, or misexplaining the partnership > agreement as to the meaning of a call in order not to reveal > that partner has misexplained a prior call. It all constitutes > part of the category of actions that someone has said "comes > rather close to cheating" (sic). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > And yet, Grattan, there is L20F5. This law explicitely states which infraction the WBF considers the worst of the two you mention. One possible infraction is for partners to exchange information: in this case, the information "partner, you have misunderstood". The other infraction for opponents to be left unaware of the true meaning of your call. The WBF has written L20F5, thereby clearly stating which of these two infractions it considers the worst, and the WBF has explicitely ordered players to commit the second infraction. How then can you sit there and use everyday ethics to explain why the reverse should be true? Everyday ethics are not applicable to a game, which defines its own ethics. The WBF has done so, by writing L20F5. You should use that yardstick in your weighing of the infractions, not an everyday one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 17 10:05:46 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:05:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <0a4a01c858af$af558e40$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be> <005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A478D.4040402@skynet.be> <005d01c8564f$8950fb10$50cb403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801131823k3c9f2c16vb710973b01b464b@mail.gmail.com><001001c856c2$658442f0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478B835C.30108@ulb.ac.be><057301c85791$261d7bc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <478DE6EB.3000103@skynet.be> <0a4a01c858af$af558e40$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <478F1A6A.2000504@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I do not believe [the dWS] is lawful, I believe it is acceptable. Not the >> same thing. if you believe the MS is lawful, you are mistaken. > > But can you really be so sure that the world, includiding the drafters of > the newest edition of the Laws, is mistaken and you are the only person who > is not? > Yes, I actually believe so. It does not take a majority to decide who is right - look at Galileo! >> The MS >> is acceptable, but the infraction that is there (UI) will be dealt >> with. > > The transmission of UI is not an infraction. > Ehm? >> So it is with the DWS. It contains an infraction (because that's >> inevitable) and that infraction will be dealt with. > > OK > >> But try and think a bit further - imagine you have the power to rule >> the DWS unacceptable. What penalty are you then going to impose on me, >> over and above the normal penalty for the infraction (MI), which would >> force me to change my habits. And how will you make the distinction >> between me acting under DWS guidelines, or me simply believing my >> partner's explanation and claiming I have misbid? > > Are you suggesting that you will also avoid telling the opponents your real > agreements before they begin to defend, or after they have played the hand? > So now you are advocating no correct disclosure, ever? > Well, if I am going to use DWS principles in an environment that has succeeded in banning DWS, then it will be because I believe partner has correctly explained. So I won't need to say anything before the play starts. I still might, but it would strengthen my case if I don't. > This is cheating on a scale which you have not suggested before, and all I > can say is that if someone is really determined to cheat, there is no way to > stop them. However, a pattern may be noticed, and then the organisers will > attempt to determine what your true system is. > I would never cheat, but I've seen others use the argument that it is best not to create an environment in which it is better for a player to cheat. The MS environment is one such. Others may not be able to resist what I can! >> That is a problem that hasn't been touched upon yet. You abhor my >> actions, but what do you want to do about them? >> And I don't mean that as flaunting authority, but as a genuine question? >> How are you going to distinguish between me, the notorious DWS adept, >> and any normal player who realizes he has misbid? > > Anti-systemic actions are normally not assumed to be based on undisclosed > partnership agreements. A person may make a mistake, or choose a strategic > misbid. But these occasions will be rare. Again, with the dWS, a pattern may > be noticed. > These cases are so far between that it takes a hundred years for the pattern to be noticed. I've been writing about the DWS for ten years now, and have played about 3 tournaments a week during that time. I've never come accross a real DWS case in that time. >> Our actions will be >> completely the same, our intentions totally different. But if you want >> to rule against me, you'll either require a mind reader, or laws that >> mean misbidding is forbidden too. > > This depends on whether you intend to keep your actual agreements secret > even at the time that you are required to correct any misinformation. Such a > blatant flouting of the Laws is cause for banning. But maybe you will get > away with it. Good for you. > The problem is that you will never find out which of the two it is. So if you write "could have known laws" you will be punishing a whole of innocent misbidders before you catch one DWS adept! > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 17 10:13:21 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:13:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01c85866$a6132480$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000d01c85866$a6132480$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <478F1C31.404@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> .............. >>>> And then a case comes up, and I state that I explain partner's call >>>> consistent with his previous explanation because I believe partner was >>>> right and I misbid. No mention of DWS whatsoever. How are you going to >>>> prove your 1VP PP to an AC when you don't have a mind reader present >>>> to show that I did not really believe my partner was right? >>> I'll rest the case until it is possible from other evidence to establish >>> that you are lying when you claim that partner's incorrect explanation >> in >>> fact was correct. >>> >>> Then you would be found guilty of deliberately cheating. >>> >>> Really Herman, is this a situation you would engage into? I hope not, >> and I >>> don't believe you because if you really do you lose every bit of my >> respect >>> as proving yourself a dishonest man. >>> >>> Sven >>> >> Sven, of course I would do nothing against the laws, but how are you >> going to prove that I did or did not? Of course, you know me, so when >> I act this way, it's a fine indication that I'd be lying. But anyone >> else could get away with it, easily. >> Is that what you really want? >> >> I maintain that it is better for my side to not give UI. So I don't. >> If it takes a bit of lying thereafter to get away with that, what's >> stopping me (well, someone else then)? You can never prove that >> someone did not believe that partner was giving the right information >> all along. >> And what do you do with people who are genuinely uncertain? Are they >> allowed to take their best shot at it, or not? Should they be 50% >> certain, or 99%, or 100%? And how do you prove any of these numbers. >> You have argued many times against mind-reading. Well, this one >> requires mind reading to the extreme! > > "You would of course do nothing against the laws"? In my opinion that is > exactly what you argue you will do with DWS. > Well, since I don't believe I am doing something unacceptable, my conscience is clear. You accuse me of doing something far worse. > "How am I going to prove"? - There is something called Convention cards. And > don't forget that if a player cannot prove he is telling the truth on > agreements, we are empowered, and in fact required to assume incorrect > explanation if in doubt. The System Card, as it is now called, does not tell us whether the player genuinely believed he had misbid or whether he is simply lying about that. And it has become a question of intent, now. The action of the genuinely confused are not at stake, only those of the DWS adept. But those actions are completely the same! The SC is not going to tell you anything! > > Then I am vigilant for patterns, and the more a player's behavior conforms > to an unacceptable pattern the more trouble that player will have. > > I don't think I shall need mind-reading. At least I have not during my 28 > years as licensed Director at all levels in Norway. > But that is because during those 28 years you have never been asked to rule on whether someone acting along DWS lines was doing it because he believed partner was right, or because he was called De Wael. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 17 10:17:15 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:17:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: References: <001901c8583f$44d23570$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478E27CC.2080400@skynet.be> Message-ID: <478F1D1B.9050804@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 16, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Sven Pran wrote: >>>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> .............. >>>> And then a case comes up, and I state that I explain partner's call >>>> consistent with his previous explanation because I believe >>>> partner was >>>> right and I misbid. No mention of DWS whatsoever. How are you >>>> going to >>>> prove your 1VP PP to an AC when you don't have a mind reader present >>>> to show that I did not really believe my partner was right? >>> I'll rest the case until it is possible from other evidence to >>> establish >>> that you are lying when you claim that partner's incorrect >>> explanation in >>> fact was correct. >>> >>> Then you would be found guilty of deliberately cheating. >>> >>> Really Herman, is this a situation you would engage into? I hope >>> not, and I >>> don't believe you because if you really do you lose every bit of >>> my respect >>> as proving yourself a dishonest man. >> Sven, of course I would do nothing against the laws, but how are you >> going to prove that I did or did not? Of course, you know me, so when >> I act this way, it's a fine indication that I'd be lying. But anyone >> else could get away with it, easily. >> Is that what you really want? >> >> I maintain that it is better for my side to not give UI. So I don't. >> If it takes a bit of lying thereafter to get away with that, what's >> stopping me (well, someone else then)? You can never prove that >> someone did not believe that partner was giving the right information >> all along. >> And what do you do with people who are genuinely uncertain? Are they >> allowed to take their best shot at it, or not? Should they be 50% >> certain, or 99%, or 100%? And how do you prove any of these numbers. >> You have argued many times against mind-reading. Well, this one >> requires mind reading to the extreme! > > Herman would do nothng against the laws, but, as he points out, if he > were to, he would surely not be caught at it. Of course, that would > be cheating. The DWS depends on breaking the (OK, a) law by > deliberately giving MI, then "making it right" by subsequently > calling attention to one's own infraction at the appropriate time. > If the latter aspect of the DWS protocol were to be somehow forgotten > or omitted, we would be left with outright cheaters getting away with > outright cheating. When Herman acts according to the DWS, he would, > of course, never cheat, but, as he himself says, "anyone else could > get away with it, easily". Indeed, in several recent messages, > including the above, he tells us just how "anyone else" might lie to > the TD or AC in order to "get away with it, easily". That sounds > more like an argument against the DWS than for it. Or is Herman > trying to justify his actions as simply "leveling the playing field > against the outright cheaters"? > Of course it's not an argument against the DWS - it's an argument against banning the DWS. If you continue to allow the DWS, there is no need for cheating to achieve the desired purpose: allow partner to land on his feet without the existence of UI. But if you outlaw the DWS, the same purpose can still be achieved by merely claiming you thought you had misbid. That would be cheating, if done intentionally, but you would never be able to distinguish this from the person whoi genuinely believes he has misbid. In order to be able to rule against the DWSer, you would find yourself ruling against a whole lot of innocents. Far better to allow the DWS! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 17 10:19:33 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:19:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0801161015r573e2446i337b75c0d3392e23@mail.gmail.com> References: <001901c8583f$44d23570$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478E27CC.2080400@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0801161015r573e2446i337b75c0d3392e23@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <478F1DA5.90303@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > On 1/16/08, Eric Landau wrote: >> On Jan 16, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Herman would do nothng against the laws, but, as he points out, if he >> were to, he would surely not be caught at it. Of course, that would >> be cheating. The DWS depends on breaking the (OK, a) law by >> deliberately giving MI, then "making it right" by subsequently >> calling attention to one's own infraction at the appropriate time. >> If the latter aspect of the DWS protocol were to be somehow forgotten >> or omitted, we would be left with outright cheaters getting away with >> outright cheating. When Herman acts according to the DWS, he would, >> of course, never cheat, but, as he himself says, "anyone else could >> get away with it, easily". Indeed, in several recent messages, >> including the above, he tells us just how "anyone else" might lie to >> the TD or AC in order to "get away with it, easily". That sounds >> more like an argument against the DWS than for it. Or is Herman >> trying to justify his actions as simply "leveling the playing field >> against the outright cheaters"? > > I'd like to introduce an additional extension to Herman's favorite DWS > school example: > > What if the opponent's buy the contract after recieving an explanation > of the 5D bid. Herman's side is now defending the contract and not > declaring... > > Herman certain can't inform the opponent's about the misunderstanding > until the hand has been played out. > > During the play of the hand, Herman's opponents figure out the > something fishy happened. They call the Director mid stream and > inform him that Herman doesn't have a hand consistent with their > assumed meaning of his 4NT bid... > > I'm sure that Herman will claim that at the end of the hand he would > have informed the opponents what happened, however, how are we to know > what might have happened? > Well, if they call before the end of the hand, the TD will only have to assume I'm speaking the truth when saying that I would call. But this is not some DWS scenario. This will happen without any second call to be explained as well. In fact, this happens all the time, all over the world. And of course I would call the TD - do you think they would not notice the discrepancy anyway - at any time? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 17 10:45:03 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:45:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478F1C31.404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c858ed$a30d7240$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > But that is because during those 28 years you have never been asked to > rule on whether someone acting along DWS lines was doing it because he > believed partner was right, or because he was called De Wael. No, it is because during those 28 years I have never had any reason for suspecting that a player lied to me in my capacity as the Director. Seeing stories and discussions I have sometimes wondered if we have a higher ethical standard in Norway (and in fact in Scandinavia) than found elsewhere, but I do indeed prefer to doubt it. Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 17 11:18:32 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:18:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] irrelevant In-Reply-To: <001301c858a6$0b5822c0$0701a8c0@john> References: <005c01c85896$54fe9bd0$f5d6403e@Mildred> <200801170007.AA12036@geller204.nifty.com> <001301c858a6$0b5822c0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <478F2B78.4010606@ulb.ac.be> John Probst a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Geller" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:07 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] irrelevant > > > >> I know nothing about cricket. What does that mean? >> > > 2 run game; bottom of the 9th; 2 out; pitcher at bat and God himself > pitching. OK? > Huh ? From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 17 13:54:30 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:54:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <478F1859.5050300@skynet.be> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net><000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> <000901c856d1$6947dcd0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478C7856.5090800@skynet.be><000901c8575b$4e04ff90$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478CA57F.9070801@skynet.be><003201c857b4$bdc40890$62025e47@DFYXB361><478DE3BC.9070809@skynet.be> <000c01c85854$eb5e1d90$62025e47@DFYXB361> <006001c8586f$be8572d0$1fd5403e@Mildred> <478F1859.5050300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c85908$1a446700$4ecd3500$@com> [HdW] And yet, Grattan, there is L20F5. This law explicitely states which infraction the WBF considers the worst of the two you mention. [DALB] Herman, we have explained to you over and over and over again why L20F5 does not mean what you think it means. Your reliance on L20F5 is based on a literal reading that gives rise to absurdity (in particular, the contradiction that a player must explain his partner's bids as meaning one thing, then bid as if they mean another thing). The Laws aren't perfect. The Laws are inconsistent. We accept all that. We have told you what to do about this inconsistency. Now, will you please shut up? David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 17 15:22:58 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:22:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <478EC9D3.2080007@nhcc.net> References: <200801162128.m0GLST4E008053@cfa.harvard.edu> <478EC9D3.2080007@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <7D20FD6D-509D-4C96-8107-45D7EC616A54@starpower.net> On Jan 16, 2008, at 10:21 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > Once one accepts that either school is preferred, it's easy to read > the > Laws as supporting that position. That's why an interpretation is > needed. But, as Herman has made quite clear, one cannot read the laws as supporting the DWS. The entire rationale for the DWS is based on the premise that the laws are inconsistent, that a player may be forced to break one law or another, and that it is therefore legitimate when this occurs to choose for oneself which law to break. The MS reads the laws in such a way that there is no inconsistency, and argues that the MS protocol breaks no laws. ISTM that if we are to resolve differences of interpretation by looking to intent, we must prefer the interpretation that assumes a consistent lawbook over one that assumes that the laws are written in such a way that they cannot be followed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 17 15:30:28 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:30:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <478F1A6A.2000504@skynet.be> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be> <005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A478D.4040402@skynet.be> <005d01c8564f$8950fb10$50cb403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801131823k3c9f2c16vb710973b01b464b@mail.gmail.com><001001c856c2$658442f0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478B835C.30108@ulb.ac.be><057301c85791$261d7bc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <478DE6EB.3000103@skynet.be> <0a4a01c858af$af558e40$0100a8c0@stefanie> <478F1A6A.2000504@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jan 17, 2008, at 4:05 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > The problem is that you will never find out which of the two it is. So > if you write "could have known laws" you will be punishing a whole of > innocent misbidders before you catch one DWS adept! An interesting distinction, between "innocent" and "DWS adept". Freudian slip? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Jan 17 15:13:26 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:13:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3? Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D0939E8@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> David Burn wrote: > But it seems to me that what is intended is that when North says "Blackwood" > in answer to a question about 4NT, South is not supposed *at that point* to > react in any manner, as by saying "No it's not", or by grimacing, shaking > his head, or the like. You certainly don't want to give UI to partner before > he makes his call, and you may not have to give it anyway - the opponents > might not ask any more questions until the end of the auction, when you can > call the Director and have things put right (or at least, less wrong). South > is, however allowed to - nay, mandated to - proceed in every respect > (including answering questions) as if North's reply had been "minors", even > though this may involve indicating at some later stage in the auction that a > mistake has been made. If I can't base my calls or plays on North's > explanation, why should I base my answers to questions on it? David With regard your last sentence, what do you think of Orange Book 3 D 7 ? "It is proper to use any unauthorised information which has been made available by partner to help a player to decide to alert and explain the partnership agreement as accurately as he can, but of course unauthorised information must not be used to help in the bidding and play." Note this is not advocating dWS, it only applies if partner's explanation wakes you up to the fact that you have misbid and partner's explanation is the correct agreement. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 17 15:38:19 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:38:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <7D20FD6D-509D-4C96-8107-45D7EC616A54@starpower.net> References: <200801162128.m0GLST4E008053@cfa.harvard.edu> <478EC9D3.2080007@nhcc.net> <7D20FD6D-509D-4C96-8107-45D7EC616A54@starpower.net> Message-ID: <478F685B.3020809@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Jan 16, 2008, at 10:21 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > > >> Once one accepts that either school is preferred, it's easy to read >> the >> Laws as supporting that position. That's why an interpretation is >> needed. >> > > But, as Herman has made quite clear, one cannot read the laws as > supporting the DWS. The entire rationale for the DWS is based on the > premise that the laws are inconsistent, that a player may be forced > to break one law or another, and that it is therefore legitimate when > this occurs to choose for oneself which law to break. The MS reads > the laws in such a way that there is no inconsistency, and argues > that the MS protocol breaks no laws. ISTM that if we are to resolve > differences of interpretation by looking to intent, we must prefer > the interpretation that assumes a consistent lawbook over one that > assumes that the laws are written in such a way that they cannot be > followed. > > ISTM that this is not the right way to look at Law. The right way is to consder as permitted everything they permit, and consider as forbidden everything they forbid. If they forbid two different courses of action in some specific situation, then two differentl courses of action are forbidden. If this result in a Moton Fork situation, then Morton (er, the Lawmakers) should do something about it. BTW, in real life, such situations lead to discharges. "I know A was disallowed, but I did A because B, the only other possibility, was disallowed, too" is a valid argument. One way out of the woods, of course, is to state explicitly a priority. Despite many claims that this priority exist, it isn't written in TNFLB. Best regards Alain From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Jan 17 15:41:43 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 17 Jan 2008 15:41:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion Message-ID: <20080117144143.7A0587E824E@f17.poczta.interia.pl> > [HdW] > > And yet, Grattan, there is L20F5. This law explicitely states which > infraction the WBF considers the worst of the two you mention. > > [DALB] > > Herman, we have explained to you over and over and over again why L20F5 > does > not mean what you think it means. But repeating your argument over and over and over again doesn't make it any stronger, does it? I'm afraid that your argument boils down to "HdW is invalid because I say so". -- Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bedac w toalecie zagrala w ... Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1cd5 From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 17 15:43:53 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:43:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D0939E8@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D0939E8@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <478F69A9.8060301@ulb.ac.be> Robin Barker a ?crit : > > With regard your last sentence, what do you think of Orange Book 3 D 7 ? > "It is proper to use any unauthorised information which has been made available by > partner to help a player to decide to alert and explain the partnership agreement as > accurately as he can, but of course unauthorised information must not be used to help > in the bidding and play." > > Note this is not advocating dWS, it only applies if partner's explanation wakes you up > to the fact that you have misbid and partner's explanation is the correct agreement. > > So, dWS consissts merely in always "knowing" partner's right, and applying the quotation. Which means that if yor partner is known to have impressive memory, dWS is tolerated ? Essential information ... Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 17 15:45:33 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:45:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be> <005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A478D.4040402@skynet.be> <005d01c8564f$8950fb10$50cb403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801131823k3c9f2c16vb710973b01b464b@mail.gmail.com><001001c856c2$658442f0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478B835C.30108@ulb.ac.be><057301c85791$261d7bc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <478DE6EB.3000103@skynet.be> <0a4a01c858af$af558e40$0100a8c0@stefanie> <478F1A6A.2000504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <478F6A0D.8000609@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Jan 17, 2008, at 4:05 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> The problem is that you will never find out which of the two it is. So >> if you write "could have known laws" you will be punishing a whole of >> innocent misbidders before you catch one DWS adept! >> > > An interesting distinction, between "innocent" and "DWS adept". > Freudian slip? > Well, Eric, dWSites know they are guilty. They only plead nobody is innocent. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 17 15:54:04 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:54:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <478F1C31.404@skynet.be> References: <000d01c85866$a6132480$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478F1C31.404@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jan 17, 2008, at 4:13 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: [snip] > Well, since I don't believe I am doing something unacceptable, my > conscience is clear. You accuse me of doing something far worse. > >> "How am I going to prove"? - There is something called Convention >> cards. And >> don't forget that if a player cannot prove he is telling the truth on >> agreements, we are empowered, and in fact required to assume >> incorrect >> explanation if in doubt. > > The System Card, as it is now called, does not tell us whether the > player genuinely believed he had misbid or whether he is simply lying > about that. And it has become a question of intent, now. The action of > the genuinely confused are not at stake, only those of the DWS adept. > But those actions are completely the same! The SC is not going to tell > you anything! Since the actions won't tell you anything, and the SC won't tell you anything, you'll just have to ask the players. Of course, if the DWS follower will not willingly admit to what he was doing, you still won't be able to tell the difference. But if he doesn't believe he is doing something unacceptable, and his conscience is clear, why would he lie about it? And if he wouldn't, WTP? This whole exchange is rather disturbing. Herman says, "I am doing nothing wrong". Sven says, "Nevertheless, if you play in my game I will explicitly forbid you from doing it." And -- while I'm sure this isn't what he means to say -- Herman appears to reply with, "You'll never catch me!" Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 17 16:12:16 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:12:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] irrelevant In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801161629w2b90d764u82756888a11340d3@mail.gmail.com> References: <478E8609.7000901@aol.com> <2b1e598b0801161629w2b90d764u82756888a11340d3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <478F7050.4050604@ntlworld.com> [Jeff Easterson] Matthias B. wrote in his response to Herman: you disagree which is your privilege. Herman wrote (to Matthias and in other postings) always referring to the arguments of his "opponents". You delude yourself...You are very, very misguided...totally wrong argument...ridiculous argument...too ridiculous...too silly for words. Anyone other than me notice a fundamental difference in style? [Jerry Fusselman] This is known as selective quoting. Actually, I prefer Herman's style to the personal attacks and belittlements from his foes, including calling some of us "acolytes." To me, vigorous, well-thought-out attacks on a position are proper, but all ad hominem attacks are improper. Also, Herman rarely confuses or misrepresents the other side's position. [Nige1] Mathias Berghaus argues logically and calmly. On many occasions, however, some of Herman de Waels's other detractors floundered desperately. Having run out of straw-men to shred, they accused him of cheating, directly and indirectly. Such ad hominem attacks are tantamount to conceding the argument. Herman's reaction has been mild in comparison. Nvertheless, two wrongs rarely make a right, so Herman should be more careful too. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 17 16:13:44 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:13:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <478F685B.3020809@ulb.ac.be> References: <200801162128.m0GLST4E008053@cfa.harvard.edu> <478EC9D3.2080007@nhcc.net> <7D20FD6D-509D-4C96-8107-45D7EC616A54@starpower.net> <478F685B.3020809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <29E757F2-6A90-4EC1-976E-31FD56FCB49B@starpower.net> On Jan 17, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > > ISTM that this is not the right way to look at Law. The right way > is to > consder as permitted everything they permit, and consider as forbidden > everything they forbid. > If they forbid two different courses of action in some specific > situation, then two differentl courses of action are forbidden. > If this result in a Moton Fork situation, then Morton (er, the > Lawmakers) should do something about it. > > BTW, in real life, such situations lead to discharges. > "I know A was disallowed, but I did A because B, the only other > possibility, was disallowed, too" is a valid argument. > > One way out of the woods, of course, is to state explicitly a > priority. > Despite many claims that this priority exist, it isn't written in > TNFLB. There are two ways to look at the Law, which is why we are having this debate over interpretation. One interpretation produces Morton's fork situations in which a player cannot continue to play out a deal without breaking one law or another. The other interpretation raises no such difficulty. One could argue from the principle of reductio ad absurdum that that is a sufficiently definitive difference to dictate which interpretation must be correct. Alain subtly assumes his conclusion, as it is only if we accept the "Morton's fork" interpretation that the question of "priority" between "forbidden" actions arises. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 17 16:31:32 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:31:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080117085605.FEYC15457.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20080117085605.FEYC15457.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <478F74D4.1060202@ntlworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] First, 'only recently' does not seem right. Herman has made his argument for years. The advent of discussion on the 2007 laws has provided opportunity to say it again. Second, I have asked for examination of the subject - I am somewhat hindered by reactions such as "I wouldn't spend much time on this back and forth stuff. Mostly, this group just likes to hear themselves talk." when I quote from the emails in this thread. Third, the misunderstanding that appeared in a comment from Stefanie Rohan is not present in my report to my colleagues. Fourth, 'this group' is constantly referred here to the words 'in any manner' in Law 20F5(a). The more important word for study in this law is 'indicate'. Herman chooses to argue that in giving the required explanation of his partner's call the player is infracting 20F5(a) because in doing so he indicates that a mistake has been made. I say this is not so because the explanation may reveal the mistake incidentally but the player is not pointing to it or drawing attention to it and to 'indicate' would require him to do this. Opponent is entitled to draw his own conclusions from what he hears. Fifth, somewhere I noted a remark that the rectification for causing damage by giving MI is score adjustment. So it is, but Law 40C3(b) also applies even in the absence of damage, and particularly when the offence is systemic. Sixth, a mistaken explanation is an infraction (L75B). In deliberately acting to conceal partner's infraction a player violates Law 72B3. [Nige1] Good stuff, Grattan! You argue that the laws currently outlaw DWS. Nevertheless, please fight for the laws to be clarified, in place, so that ordinary players and directors will be able to understand which protocol is correct. In the longer term, please consider whether Herman's or some other simpler protocol is better. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 17 16:47:25 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:47:25 +0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080117085605.FEYC15457.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20080117085605.FEYC15457.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <478F788D.4070700@ntlworld.com> [ton] We are playing a difficult game, with difficult rules and complicated situations to deal with. This makes writing rules complicated, the more so because we should try to make them clear and simultaneously compact, which are conflicting criteria once in a while. What this group is allowed to do is telling us, drafting committee, that we did not succeed in fulfilling these criteria. But I consider it rather stupid to continue, as Herman does now for years, to tell us what the laws mean and how they should be interpreted. When we look at Law 20F5a it clearly reads that a player may not correct a mistaken explanation given by partner. That is the main message. We could have deleted the following: 'nor may he indicate in any manner...' but we thought it wise to try to say that a player should not show surprise, should not start shouting, should not start moving his chair or in whatever way show his disgust. There is another law saying that a player has to explain partnership agreements, and nothing else. Now mister de Wael is concentrating on this second rate sentence, forgets the main content and principles and creates his own game. And succeeds in creating another endless row of nonsense. Yes Herman: when a player explains a partnership agreement it is possible that his partner becomes aware of a mistake he made. We deal with that in another law. But people in positions to decide about the meaning of the laws have said that this is the way bridge should be played. And that your very superiour solutions are not valid. [nige1] Most players and directors will try to understand the law-book. Whatever the intentions of law-makers, it is the meaning of the laws themselves that matter. Most players and directors will never be aware of the personal views of law-committee members and their "acolytes" :) Some would accord that group's views no more weight than the views of the other experts, whom they patronise. The 2007 law-book provides the WBFLC with the golden opportunity to lay DWS and other controversies to rest until the next edition. So far, the 2007 laws haven't been widely promulgated, so it may not be too late for the WBFLC to grasp this opportunity to reduce confusion. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 17 16:49:38 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:49:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <000001c85908$1a446700$4ecd3500$@com> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net><000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> <000901c856d1$6947dcd0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478C7856.5090800@skynet.be><000901c8575b$4e04ff90$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478CA57F.9070801@skynet.be><003201c857b4$bdc40890$62025e47@DFYXB361><478DE3BC.9070809@skynet.be> <000c01c85854$eb5e1d90$62025e47@DFYXB361> <006001c8586f$be8572d0$1fd5403e@Mildred> <478F1859.5050300@skynet.be> <000001c85908$1a446700$4ecd3500$@com> Message-ID: <478F7912.9080602@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > And yet, Grattan, there is L20F5. This law explicitely states which > infraction the WBF considers the worst of the two you mention. > > [DALB] > > Herman, we have explained to you over and over and over again why L20F5 does > not mean what you think it means. Your reliance on L20F5 is based on a > literal reading that gives rise to absurdity (in particular, the > contradiction that a player must explain his partner's bids as meaning one > thing, then bid as if they mean another thing). > David, I was not talking about the DWS here. I was talking about the following inconsistency: Partner misexplains - you have two options: A1 - you correct it: creates UI A2 - you don't: creates MI The WBF has decided (L20F5 and previous versions) that (A2) is the preferred option. And yet when the next thing happens: Partner bids - they ask - you have two options: B1 - you explain "correctly": creates UI and destroys MI B2 - you explain dws-style: leaves original MI and creates extra MI Grattan and Ton maintain that the WBF has decided that (B1) is now the preferred option. I say that this is inconsistent. That has nothing to do with the interpretation of L20F5 in the dws case, but just with the general choice the wbf has made, and which is clear from the simple reading of L20F5. > The Laws aren't perfect. The Laws are inconsistent. We accept all that. We > have told you what to do about this inconsistency. Now, will you please shut > up? > Why should I? Why should I not argue in favour of a law change (or rather, status-quo) that clears up inconsistencies? I care too much for this game to shut up and leave it to wither to some form of "if it misbids, shoot it". > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 17 16:56:32 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:56:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <7D20FD6D-509D-4C96-8107-45D7EC616A54@starpower.net> References: <200801162128.m0GLST4E008053@cfa.harvard.edu> <478EC9D3.2080007@nhcc.net> <7D20FD6D-509D-4C96-8107-45D7EC616A54@starpower.net> Message-ID: <478F7AB0.7070707@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 16, 2008, at 10:21 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > >> Once one accepts that either school is preferred, it's easy to read >> the >> Laws as supporting that position. That's why an interpretation is >> needed. > > But, as Herman has made quite clear, one cannot read the laws as > supporting the DWS. The entire rationale for the DWS is based on the > premise that the laws are inconsistent, that a player may be forced > to break one law or another, and that it is therefore legitimate when > this occurs to choose for oneself which law to break. Ehm, Eric, the laws ARE inconsistent. L20F5 cannot be reconciled with the MI laws other than through a very distorted reasoning by Grattan. > The MS reads > the laws in such a way that there is no inconsistency, and argues > that the MS protocol breaks no laws. That is only the reasoning from people who wish to have the DWS seen as outlawed. I wonder why that is. > ISTM that if we are to resolve > differences of interpretation by looking to intent, we must prefer > the interpretation that assumes a consistent lawbook over one that > assumes that the laws are written in such a way that they cannot be > followed. > But the mere fact that a player is forced to remain silent about MI on one table, and "forced" to reveal the same MI at another is an inconsistency that is so great it blinds the people who wish not to see it. You do not prefer a consistent reading over a non-consistent one. You prefer the MS, and read the lawbook so that it seems consistent. That includes a distorted definition of the verb "indicate". I prefer the DWS, and I read the lawbook so that it does not contain inconsistencies. That includes, indeed readings such as rendering L20F4 invalid (you cannot subsequently realize you have given a wrong explanation if you have first given it deliberately)n but I don't see that as a problem. Moreover, my reading of the laws is not only internally consistent, it is also consistent in its treatment of MI versus UI, always ruling that giving UI is worse than giving or maintaining MI, something the MS is not always the same. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 17 16:59:45 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:59:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <29E757F2-6A90-4EC1-976E-31FD56FCB49B@starpower.net> References: <200801162128.m0GLST4E008053@cfa.harvard.edu> <478EC9D3.2080007@nhcc.net> <7D20FD6D-509D-4C96-8107-45D7EC616A54@starpower.net> <478F685B.3020809@ulb.ac.be> <29E757F2-6A90-4EC1-976E-31FD56FCB49B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <478F7B71.8050702@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 17, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> ISTM that this is not the right way to look at Law. The right way >> is to >> consder as permitted everything they permit, and consider as forbidden >> everything they forbid. >> If they forbid two different courses of action in some specific >> situation, then two differentl courses of action are forbidden. >> If this result in a Moton Fork situation, then Morton (er, the >> Lawmakers) should do something about it. >> >> BTW, in real life, such situations lead to discharges. >> "I know A was disallowed, but I did A because B, the only other >> possibility, was disallowed, too" is a valid argument. >> >> One way out of the woods, of course, is to state explicitly a >> priority. >> Despite many claims that this priority exist, it isn't written in >> TNFLB. > > There are two ways to look at the Law, which is why we are having > this debate over interpretation. One interpretation produces > Morton's fork situations in which a player cannot continue to play > out a deal without breaking one law or another. The other > interpretation raises no such difficulty. One could argue from the > principle of reductio ad absurdum that that is a sufficiently > definitive difference to dictate which interpretation must be > correct. Alain subtly assumes his conclusion, as it is only if we > accept the "Morton's fork" interpretation that the question of > "priority" between "forbidden" actions arises. > > No Eric, what you are doing is this: We both realize there is one law out of two to break. I look at it and choose the law which seems to me to be the strongest, and leads to the best game. I then break the other one. You OTOH, choose one law as the higher one, a priori, and then reinterpret the laws such that this law is not broken by your actions. And the law you arbitrarily selected as the higher one is precisely the other one from the one the WBF has already once selected (when they wrote the predecessor to L20F5). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 17 17:26:16 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:26:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <20080117144143.7A0587E824E@f17.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20080117144143.7A0587E824E@f17.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <37E42D78-34A9-4AAE-AD58-24CFB855E298@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 17, 2008, at 9:41 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > I'm afraid that your argument boils down to "HdW is invalid > because I say so". David wasn't on the drafting subcommittee. Ton, OTOH, was, if I'm not mistaken. So you might dismiss David's "because I say so", but can you really dismiss Ton's? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 17 17:30:02 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:30:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] irrelevant In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801161629w2b90d764u82756888a11340d3@mail.gmail.com> References: <478E8609.7000901@aol.com> <2b1e598b0801161629w2b90d764u82756888a11340d3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <10338743-4119-423F-B4D6-98771E149D38@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 16, 2008, at 7:29 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Actually, I prefer Herman's style to the personal attacks and > belittlements from his foes, including > calling some of us "acolytes." "Acolyte" means "follower". What's wrong with that? Can you suggest a better word. If Jeff's quotes of Herman aren't "personal attacks and belittlements", what are they? From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 17 17:32:58 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:32:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <29E757F2-6A90-4EC1-976E-31FD56FCB49B@starpower.net> References: <200801162128.m0GLST4E008053@cfa.harvard.edu> <478EC9D3.2080007@nhcc.net> <7D20FD6D-509D-4C96-8107-45D7EC616A54@starpower.net> <478F685B.3020809@ulb.ac.be> <29E757F2-6A90-4EC1-976E-31FD56FCB49B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <478F833A.2070302@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > There are two ways to look at the Law, which is why we are having > this debate over interpretation. One interpretation produces > Morton's fork situations in which a player cannot continue to play > out a deal without breaking one law or another. The other > interpretation raises no such difficulty. One could argue from the > principle of reductio ad absurdum that that is a sufficiently > definitive difference to dictate which interpretation must be > correct. Alain subtly assumes his conclusion, as it is only if we > accept the "Morton's fork" interpretation that the question of > "priority" between "forbidden" actions arises. > > Indeed. But up to now, L73B1, and the ensuing MF situation, still exists. It was claimed it shouldn't apply, it was said (you just did it) life would be easier if it wouldn't, but this ain't proof. BTW, I also claim life would be easier using dWS principles, in some cases at least. MI could lead to technical problems. But the confusion from incoherent explanations nearly always will. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 17 17:46:41 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:46:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] irrelevant In-Reply-To: <10338743-4119-423F-B4D6-98771E149D38@rochester.rr.com> References: <478E8609.7000901@aol.com> <2b1e598b0801161629w2b90d764u82756888a11340d3@mail.gmail.com> <10338743-4119-423F-B4D6-98771E149D38@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <478F8671.7050402@ulb.ac.be> Ed Reppert a ?crit : > On Jan 16, 2008, at 7:29 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > >> Actually, I prefer Herman's style to the personal attacks and >> belittlements from his foes, including >> calling some of us "acolytes." >> > > "Acolyte" means "follower". What's wrong with that? Can you suggest a > better word. > > I suggest "follower". The word "acolyte" isn't neutral. My dictionary says : "person who helps another in undesirable actions", and gives "accomplice" as a synonym. BTA I'm only French-speaking. From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Jan 17 17:55:29 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:55:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] irrelevant In-Reply-To: <478F8671.7050402@ulb.ac.be> References: <478E8609.7000901@aol.com> <2b1e598b0801161629w2b90d764u82756888a11340d3@mail.gmail.com> <10338743-4119-423F-B4D6-98771E149D38@rochester.rr.com> <478F8671.7050402@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0801170855y998240fm5282c5e7e57f8d05@mail.gmail.com> You might want to get another dictionary... I can point a number of examples where people are referred to as acolytes without the intent to convey a negative conotation. For example, within the Lutheran Church altar boys are referred to as "Acolytes". > > "Acolyte" means "follower". What's wrong with that? Can you suggest a > > better word. > > > > > I suggest "follower". > > The word "acolyte" isn't neutral. My dictionary says : "person who helps > another in undesirable actions", and gives "accomplice" as a synonym. > BTA I'm only French-speaking. -- "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 JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Jan 17 18:19:07 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:19:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Vienna Message-ID: <478F8E0B.3040301@aol.com> When I arrived in Germany and started playing in a German club the system was called (translated) Vienna Club. In Berlin, with slight alterations, it was known as Vienna-Berlin. It was still played by some players at least into the 70s. I suspect that in Austria it was also known as the Vienna Club system. JE From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 17 18:22:00 2008 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:22:00 -0600 Subject: [blml] War of the Worlds- was A strory with a conclusion References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net><000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> <000901c856d1$6947dcd0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478C7856.5090800@skynet.be><000901c8575b$4e04ff90$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478CA57F.9070801@skynet.be><003201c857b4$bdc40890$62025e47@DFYXB361><478DE3BC.9070809@skynet.be> <000c01c85854$eb5e1d90$62025e47@DFYXB361> <006001c8586f$be8572d0$1fd5403e@Mildred><478F1859.5050300@skynet.be> <000001c85908$1a446700$4ecd3500$@com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 06:54 Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > [HdW] > > And yet, Grattan, there is L20F5. This law explicitely states which > infraction the WBF considers the worst of the two you mention. > > [DALB] > > Herman, we have explained to you over and over and over again why L20F5 > does > not mean what you think it means. Your reliance on L20F5 is based on a > literal reading that gives rise to absurdity (in particular, the > contradiction that a player must explain his partner's bids as meaning one > thing, then bid as if they mean another thing). > > The Laws aren't perfect. The Laws are inconsistent. We accept all that. We > have told you what to do about this inconsistency. Now, will you please > shut > up? > > David Burn > London, England If read literally the words produce absurdity, that is commentary upon he who produced the words. Instead of then producing words that omit absurdity the words persist for the reason that the words are thought satisfactory, that too is commentary upon he who produced the words. I suggest that it is the duty of the LC and WBF to serve bridge players namely by providing solutions to their problems, and, to minimize the creation of problems. A player with UI will almost certainly hang since he has a duty to take the least favorable action that is logical. And he is expected to figure out what that action is with dubious and imperfect information. And since such a player is unlikely to do his figuring out without mannerisms his partner in turn will thus have UI and therefore almost certainly hang because of that UI even if partner has not yet hung them both. A partnership that has given MI will likely hang because the law gives the opponents a second opportunity to assert they would have done something more advantageous. Additionally, when MI was heard by the partner the partner has some UI and will almost certainly hang [see previous]. A partnership with UI has a problem. The solution is almost certain bridge death by his own hand. A partnership that creates MI has a problem. The solution is almost certainly a more agonizing bridge death by his own hand. Bridge is played by homo sapiens. UI is prolific because players are human. MI is prolific because players are human. And the solution is.. painful and- frequent. And that.. is absurd. I give you a single grain of sand: The 2007 promulgation provides "a player may" as in "a player may substitute his intended call" in L25A1. Once it has been determined that a player is to take one turn during a rotation of the auction, is it absurd to give players permission to take more than one turn? Absurd or not it gives players two messages that conflict with each other, where there ought to be the single message "If a player". regards roger pewick From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 17 19:07:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:07:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: References: <000d01c85866$a6132480$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478F1C31.404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <478F9956.6030303@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 17, 2008, at 4:13 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Sven Pran wrote: > > [snip] > >> Well, since I don't believe I am doing something unacceptable, my >> conscience is clear. You accuse me of doing something far worse. >> >>> "How am I going to prove"? - There is something called Convention >>> cards. And >>> don't forget that if a player cannot prove he is telling the truth on >>> agreements, we are empowered, and in fact required to assume >>> incorrect >>> explanation if in doubt. >> The System Card, as it is now called, does not tell us whether the >> player genuinely believed he had misbid or whether he is simply lying >> about that. And it has become a question of intent, now. The action of >> the genuinely confused are not at stake, only those of the DWS adept. >> But those actions are completely the same! The SC is not going to tell >> you anything! > > Since the actions won't tell you anything, and the SC won't tell you > anything, you'll just have to ask the players. Of course, if the DWS > follower will not willingly admit to what he was doing, you still > won't be able to tell the difference. But if he doesn't believe he > is doing something unacceptable, and his conscience is clear, why > would he lie about it? And if he wouldn't, WTP? > > This whole exchange is rather disturbing. Herman says, "I am doing > nothing wrong". Sven says, "Nevertheless, if you play in my game I > will explicitly forbid you from doing it." And -- while I'm sure > this isn't what he means to say -- Herman appears to reply with, > "You'll never catch me!" > Not really. What I'm trying to say is that, even if I would admit to it being because of DWS considerations, at two other tables there will be two unknown players. One of them would do it because of a genuine belief that he had misbid, the other could be an unknown DWS adept. How are you going to rule against thowe two. Why should actions be forbidden when they are done by HDW, but allowed by all others? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Jan 17 19:39:18 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:39:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <478F9956.6030303@skynet.be> References: <000d01c85866$a6132480$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478F1C31.404@skynet.be> <478F9956.6030303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0801171039t7a292d12ldfcf008120f6b50f@mail.gmail.com> On 1/17/08, Herman De Wael wrote: > Not really. What I'm trying to say is that, even if I would admit to > it being because of DWS considerations, at two other tables there will > be two unknown players. One of them would do it because of a genuine > belief that he had misbid, the other could be an unknown DWS adept. > How are you going to rule against thowe two. Why should actions be > forbidden when they are done by HDW, but allowed by all others? As I have noted in the past, I don't really care much whether the law of the land is based on the mainstream interpretation or the DWS interpretation. Tell me what I'm supposed to do and I will happily follow the rules. What does concern me greatly is that the laws are consistent. I consider a situation where one group of players follows the mainstream school while another group of players follows the DWS highly problematic. This can't lead to anything good... I think that it is useful to distinquish between academic debate regarding the DWS and practical application of the DWS. Here once again, I couldn't care less if Herman enjoys ivory tower arguments regarding the DWS since these don't have any bearing on the way that the game is played. This is very different from real world application of the DWS. Here we have a deliberate attempt to fork the regulatory structure. I find this type of behaviour problematic when it comes from players. However, Herman is not a mere "player". Herman is an experienced director who should known better. He can not claim ignorance. Rather, he is making a deliberate and concious decision to flaunt due process and place his own personal opinons ahead of precedent. Moreover, Herman repeatedly behaves in this same manner. Recall earlier discussions regarding the Herman 1H opening where Herman openly stated that he refuses to provide the local regulatory authorities with a description of his actions because he fears that - in their ignorance - they would rule against him... The difference between Herman and the unknown DWS adept is the amount of information that we have regarding intent. -- "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 jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 17 20:55:53 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:55:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] irrelevant In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0801170855y998240fm5282c5e7e57f8d05@mail.gmail.com> References: <478E8609.7000901@aol.com> <2b1e598b0801161629w2b90d764u82756888a11340d3@mail.gmail.com> <10338743-4119-423F-B4D6-98771E149D38@rochester.rr.com> <478F8671.7050402@ulb.ac.be> <2da24b8e0801170855y998240fm5282c5e7e57f8d05@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801171155h347d0529p7506004f05742a78@mail.gmail.com> Richard Willey: > > I can point a number of examples where people are referred to as > acolytes without the intent to convey a negative conotation. > > For example, within the Lutheran Church altar boys are referred to as > "Acolytes". > Acolytes don't speak, don't share their thoughts, have no words to add. They are 100% followers who do what they are told. They show no originality and give no evidence of independent thought. I assume that there no acolytes on BLML. From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 17 21:03:53 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:03:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <478F9956.6030303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c85944$161c70f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > How are you going to rule against thowe two. Why should actions be > forbidden when they are done by HDW, but allowed by all others? Rest assured that I will rule against anybody I find violating laws. The difference here is that HDW has in advance announced his intention to violate laws that require him to give correct information to opponents. I deal differently with contestants violating laws accidentally or because of ignorance and those that violate laws intentionally. Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 17 22:11:18 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:11:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] irrelevant In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801171155h347d0529p7506004f05742a78@mail.gmail.com> References: <478E8609.7000901@aol.com> <2b1e598b0801161629w2b90d764u82756888a11340d3@mail.gmail.com> <10338743-4119-423F-B4D6-98771E149D38@rochester.rr.com> <478F8671.7050402@ulb.ac.be> <2da24b8e0801170855y998240fm5282c5e7e57f8d05@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0801171155h347d0529p7506004f05742a78@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <872E679D-28C2-4CD1-9BD0-E03857DC1B3A@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 17, 2008, at 2:55 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Acolytes don't speak, don't share their thoughts, have no words to > add. If by "acolyte" you mean "altar boy in the Lutheran church" you may well be right - but to extend those attributes to *all* meanings of the word "acolyte" is ridiculous. From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Thu Jan 17 23:19:55 2008 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:19:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net><000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> <000901c856d1$6947dcd0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478C7856.5090800@skynet.be><000901c8575b$4e04ff90$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478CA57F.9070801@skynet.be><003201c857b4$bdc40890$62025e47@DFYXB361><478DE3BC.9070809@skynet.be> <000c01c85854$eb5e1d90$62025e47@DFYXB361> <006001c8586f$be8572d0$1fd5403e@Mildred> <478F1859.5050300@skynet.be><000001c85908$1a446700$4ecd3500$@com> <478F7912.9080602@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002101c85957$17cac290$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > > Partner misexplains - you have two options: > A1 - you correct it: creates UI > A2 - you don't: creates MI > Herman, you're still operating under a misconception that people have been trying to clear up for a long time. Option A1 doesn't exist. You may not correct partner's MI until the time allowed by Law. If your explanation tells partner that he has created MI, as an accidental consequence of your communicating to the opponents, he must summon the TD immediately. The hidden assumption of dWs is that partner is an unethical player who will not summon the TD if he realizes that he committed MI. If he's that unethical, why are you playing with him? If you are asked a question, you are talking to your opponents, not your partner. All you are doing is explaining your agreements as required by Law. Any information in that explanation is UI to partner. So what? There are Laws that tell us how to deal with that. If you do not reveal your partnership agreements to an opponent, conceal your partner's infraction by deliberately committing another infraction, or IMO worst of all, use the UI of your partner's misexplanation to take a course of action that is more advantageous to your side than an alternative action, there are Laws that deal with those also, and the consequences are much more severe. Hirsch From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Thu Jan 17 23:27:43 2008 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:27:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be> <005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A478D.4040402@skynet.be> <005d01c8564f$8950fb10$50cb403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801131823k3c9f2c16vb710973b01b464b@mail.gmail.com><001001c856c2$658442f0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478B835C.30108@ulb.ac.be><057301c85791$261d7bc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <478DE6EB.3000103@skynet.be><0a4a01c858af$af558e40$0100a8c0@stefanie> <478F1A6A.2000504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003801c85958$2fc409f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook > > These cases are so far between that it takes a hundred years for the > pattern to be noticed. I've been writing about the DWS for ten years > now, and have played about 3 tournaments a week during that time. I've > never come accross a real DWS case in that time. > Wait a minute. You've been playing three times a week for ten years. During that time, are you saying that partner has never misexplained one of your calls, followed by an opponent asking about your subsequent call? Hirsch From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 17 23:39:19 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:39:19 -0600 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <002101c85957$17cac290$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <478CA57F.9070801@skynet.be> <003201c857b4$bdc40890$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478DE3BC.9070809@skynet.be> <000c01c85854$eb5e1d90$62025e47@DFYXB361> <006001c8586f$be8572d0$1fd5403e@Mildred> <478F1859.5050300@skynet.be> <000001c85908$1a446700$4ecd3500$@com> <478F7912.9080602@skynet.be> <002101c85957$17cac290$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801171439j7c12a467wb40f0bb2f709c36@mail.gmail.com> > > Partner misexplains - you have two options: > > A1 - you correct it: creates UI > > A2 - you don't: creates MI > > > > Herman, you're still operating under a misconception that people have been > trying to clear up for a long time. Option A1 doesn't exist. You may not > correct partner's MI until the time allowed by Law. Herman knows this. He is trying to make a comparison. When he said "you two options," imagine a complete newbie contemplating his two options. Imagine someone who wants to know if UI or MI is worse. Herman is illustrating that sometimes in the laws, UI is considered worse than MI. Jerry Fusselman From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Jan 17 23:40:02 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:40:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] something for Sven Message-ID: <478FD942.7020600@aol.com> Here is a quotation from a recent Herman posting in which the sentence has not been truncated. "I have not agreed with that conclusion. That leaves your argument lacking in foundation." My years of formal logic at university are in the dim past but I think I spot a logical fallacy here. Or Herman's position is absolute. JE From john at asimere.com Thu Jan 17 23:58:50 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:58:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. References: Message-ID: <00b301c8595c$89dfd4b0$0701a8c0@john> > > > I reach a slam and take 12 tricks. Why will you award me -50? Because my > opponents defended poorly? Because they were unlikely to do so? Suppose I > had played well to score 12 tricks. That's certainly unlikely! Suppose I > make 12 tricks through guessing a 2-way finesse. Will you rule that, after > all, I might have misguessed? Suppose I make 12 tricks by taking a one-way > finesse. Will I get -50 since the king might, after all, have been > offside? > > Once we allow for things to have happened differently than they did, other > than the illegal call itself, where do we stop? "In 6 I have to take a finesse for just made or two off, so I take the finesse. In 5 I can establish 11 tricks by brute force" > > -- > Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Jan 18 00:14:55 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:14:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] requesting that no calls be alerted Message-ID: <478FE16F.4010808@aol.com> We did! (That is, we made the request to some pairs and not to others.) Generally based on the experience we had of them, if they were unsure of their agreements and/or misused alerts in that sense. JE From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 18 00:39:25 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:39:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3? References: <200801162128.m0GLST4E008053@cfa.harvard.edu> <478EC9D3.2080007@nhcc.net><7D20FD6D-509D-4C96-8107-45D7EC616A54@starpower.net> <478F685B.3020809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <015101c85962$69da7250$aed0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 40B3? ISTM that this is not the right way to look at Law. The right way is to consider as permitted everything they permit, and consider as forbidden everything they forbid. If they forbid two different courses of action in some specific situation, then two different courses of action are forbidden. If this result in a Morton's Fork situation, then Morton (er, the Lawmakers) should do something about it. BTW, in real life, such situations lead to discharges. "I know A was disallowed, but I did A because B, the only other possibility, was disallowed, too" is a valid argument. One way out of the woods, of course, is to state explicitly a priority. Despite many claims that this priority exists, it isn't written in TNFLB. ................................................................................... +=+ The reason the laws do not state a priority is that the conflict does not exist. A correct understanding of 'indicate' avoids the fallacious argument that Herman bases on a poor grasp of the English. Whether we will issue a clarification is a moot point - certain of my colleagues regard the source of the disagreement with the official view as too inconsequential to call for a response. However, to quote one of us who does not contribute here, the view we share is that "what Herman says is clearly wrong" The fact is that in complying with the requirement to explain his partner's call correctly a player may reveal incidentally that in his view his partner has misexplained a prior call. In doing so he is not acting with purpose to draw attention to this and there is no violation of Law 20F5(a). Add this, my opinion, to the views of five DSC colleagues quoted at the head of this message. As an aside, I have evidence also of opinions in the European Bridge League Laws Committee that Herman is wrong - potentially a unanimous opinion. So a helpful pronouncement soon in Zone 1 is well within the bounds of possibility. (Who knows if perhaps we will meet in Pau? If so, in what is a small committee, decisions are come by fairly readily.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 18 01:25:16 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:25:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists Message-ID: <00e501c85968$999615c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> It is clearly fruitless to argue whether the dWS is legal or at least no less illegal than traditional practice. But discussions of whether or not it would be good for the game may do some good. So... you sit down at a bridge tournament. You are playing system A. Early in the auction partner explains one of your calls according to system B. So you, the good dWSist, explain partner's calls according to system B, while yourself bidding and interpreting his calls as system A. Meanwhile, partner soon realises that you are in fact playing system A. However, he is also an adherent, so he can do nothing but explain your calls as per system B, while himself interpreting them and bidding as in system A. You are both now playing the correct system, but are feeding the opponents a total fiction. Or... suppose what actually happens is that partner fails to alert a call that was alertable under system A. Now, you must guess whether he is playing system B or C or D, but suppose you think that system B is by far the most likely candidate. So again you explain system B, and so does partner after hearing you do it. Meanwhile, neither one of you was ever playing system B; partner simply forgot to alert. Yet your opponents are receiving explanations of system B from both of you. Can any of this be good for bridge? From geller at nifty.com Fri Jan 18 01:30:45 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:30:45 +0900 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <015101c85962$69da7250$aed0403e@Mildred> References: <015101c85962$69da7250$aed0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200801180030.AA12057@geller204.nifty.com> I don 't think the "DWS controversy" per se is worthy of serious consideration, so mostly I skip over the mails discussing DWS. But I do think this extended discussion has exposed a moderately serious and easily corrected flaw in the Laws that goes well beyond the "DWS." Namely, Law 20 contains relatively detailed provisions on when questions may be asked, but doesn't say anything about how questions should be answered. For example, IMO, in L20G, the following provision could usefully be added. 1. It is incorrect to answer questions in any other way than based on systemic agreements (including partnership experience), even if the answerer thinks that his partner might have forgotten the agreement. Incidentally, this may have been discussed in previous mails that I've skipped, but L40C3b says: (b) Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership understandings may be penalized. Since the heart of DWS is "non-disclosure of partnership agreements" this (1) shows that DWS is wrong (as if we didn't already know that) and (2) shows that DWS proponents should be penalized if they actually implement DWS in real-life play. -Bob gesta at tiscali.co.uk ????????: > >Grattan Endicott[following address discontinued: >grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >******************************************** >"this group just likes to hear themselves talk" >"we have contentious language, self-styled 'Schools' taking >on unqualified reality by monotonous repetition, guru-like >pronouncements, heels dug in positions regardless of >overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and out-of-context >usage of words". >" (the above) words reflect my own thought." >"what Herman says is clearly wrong" >"when a player explains a partnership agreement it is possible >that his partner becomes aware of a mistake he made. We >deal with that in another law. But people in positions to decide >about the meaning of the laws have said that this is the way >bridge should be played. And that your (Herman's) very >superior solutions are not valid." > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >******************************************** >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:38 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] 40B3? > > >ISTM that this is not the right way to look at Law. The right >way is to consider as permitted everything they permit, and >consider as forbidden everything they forbid. >If they forbid two different courses of action in some specific >situation, then two different courses of action are forbidden. >If this result in a Morton's Fork situation, then Morton (er, the >Lawmakers) should do something about it. > >BTW, in real life, such situations lead to discharges. >"I know A was disallowed, but I did A because B, the only >other possibility, was disallowed, too" is a valid argument. > >One way out of the woods, of course, is to state explicitly >a priority. Despite many claims that this priority exists, it isn't >written in TNFLB. >................................................................................... >+=+ The reason the laws do not state a priority is >that the conflict does not exist. A correct understanding >of 'indicate' avoids the fallacious argument that Herman >bases on a poor grasp of the English. Whether we will >issue a clarification is a moot point - certain of my >colleagues regard the source of the disagreement with >the official view as too inconsequential to call for a >response. However, to quote one of us who does not >contribute here, the view we share is that "what Herman >says is clearly wrong" The fact is that in complying with >the requirement to explain his partner's call correctly a >player may reveal incidentally that in his view his partner >has misexplained a prior call. In doing so he is not acting >with purpose to draw attention to this and there is no >violation of Law 20F5(a). Add this, my opinion, to the >views of five DSC colleagues quoted at the head of this >message. > As an aside, I have evidence also of opinions in the >European Bridge League Laws Committee that Herman >is wrong - potentially a unanimous opinion. So a helpful >pronouncement soon in Zone 1 is well within the bounds >of possibility. (Who knows if perhaps we will meet in >Pau? If so, in what is a small committee, decisions are >come by fairly readily.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Thu Jan 17 22:40:44 2008 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:40:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] irrelevant In-Reply-To: <872E679D-28C2-4CD1-9BD0-E03857DC1B3A@rochester.rr.com> References: <478E8609.7000901@aol.com> <2b1e598b0801161629w2b90d764u82756888a11340d3@mail.gmail.com> <10338743-4119-423F-B4D6-98771E149D38@rochester.rr.com> <478F8671.7050402@ulb.ac.be> <2da24b8e0801170855y998240fm5282c5e7e57f8d05@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0801171155h347d0529p7506004f05742a78@mail.gmail.com> <872E679D-28C2-4CD1-9BD0-E03857DC1B3A@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Why are we excluding all the Moscitoytes and Viennaytes? On Jan 17, 2008 4:11 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2008, at 2:55 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > Acolytes don't speak, don't share their thoughts, have no words to > > add. > > If by "acolyte" you mean "altar boy in the Lutheran church" you may > well be right - but to extend those attributes to *all* meanings of > the word "acolyte" is ridiculous. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20080117/0cea2029/attachment-0001.htm From adam at tameware.com Fri Jan 18 06:51:11 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:51:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. In-Reply-To: <00b301c8595c$89dfd4b0$0701a8c0@john> References: <00b301c8595c$89dfd4b0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <694eadd40801172151t5814b9f2ud51ad90e4b7a63d7@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 17, 2008 5:58 PM, John Probst wrote: > > I reach a slam and take 12 tricks. Why will you award me -50? Because my > > opponents defended poorly? Because they were unlikely to do so? Suppose > I > > had played well to score 12 tricks. That's certainly unlikely! Suppose I > > make 12 tricks through guessing a 2-way finesse. Will you rule that, > after > > all, I might have misguessed? Suppose I make 12 tricks by taking a > one-way > > finesse. Will I get -50 since the king might, after all, have been > > offside? > > > > Once we allow for things to have happened differently than they did, > other > > than the illegal call itself, where do we stop? > > "In 6 I have to take a finesse for just made or two off, so I take the > finesse. In 5 I can establish 11 tricks by brute force" How is this relevant? I was in slam and I took 12 tricks. Do you propose adjusting my score to -50 because I would have played differently has we stopped at the five level? +450 instead of +480 I would understand -- perhaps that's what you're suggesting. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080118/53b78836/attachment.htm From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Jan 18 09:20:51 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:20:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <478F788D.4070700@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: [nige1] Most players and directors will try to understand the law-book. Whatever the intentions of law-makers, it is the meaning of the laws themselves that matter. Most players and directors will never be aware of the personal views of law-committee members and their "acolytes" :) Some would accord that group's views no more weight than the views of the other experts, whom they patronise. The 2007 law-book provides the WBFLC with the golden opportunity to lay DWS and other controversies to rest until the next edition. So far, the 2007 laws haven't been widely promulgated, so it may not be too late for the WBFLC to grasp this opportunity to reduce confusion. ton: This blml group produces idiotic views day by day and has no memory. It likes too much controversion and creates it. This typical example has come up at least three times in the last couple of years and in all three cases DWS was told to be wrong. By experts who, believe it or not, are entitled to explain the meaning of the laws. But, illustrating the attitude in this group, Nigel calls this 'patronizing other experts'. It is much too late for anybody to reduce confusion, you live on it. ton From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 18 10:13:26 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:13:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] A strory with a conclusion In-Reply-To: <002101c85957$17cac290$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <200801081707.m08H785a021162@cfa.harvard.edu> <4788E6F6.7090803@nhcc.net><000a01c855a6$e74fadf0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A06DB.4000302@skynet.be> <000901c856d1$6947dcd0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478C7856.5090800@skynet.be><000901c8575b$4e04ff90$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478CA57F.9070801@skynet.be><003201c857b4$bdc40890$62025e47@DFYXB361><478DE3BC.9070809@skynet.be> <000c01c85854$eb5e1d90$62025e47@DFYXB361> <006001c8586f$be8572d0$1fd5403e@Mildred> <478F1859.5050300@skynet.be><000001c85908$1a446700$4ecd3500$@com> <478F7912.9080602@skynet.be> <002101c85957$17cac290$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <47906DB6.6070504@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:49 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] A strory with a conclusion > > >> Partner misexplains - you have two options: >> A1 - you correct it: creates UI >> A2 - you don't: creates MI >> > > Herman, you're still operating under a misconception that people have been > trying to clear up for a long time. Option A1 doesn't exist. Of course it does - it's not allowed, but it's an option. And if you were trying to follow my argument, rather than jump in at the first sign of something you can disagree about, then you would have seen that I was talking about the WBF having to decide which options to allow and not. And that by disallowing option A1, the WBF have made a choice. A choice they would be reversing when they say option B1 is to preferred over B2. But hey, would you read all my post? No, of course not. > You may not > correct partner's MI until the time allowed by Law. If your explanation > tells partner that he has created MI, as an accidental consequence of your > communicating to the opponents, he must summon the TD immediately. The > hidden assumption of dWs is that partner is an unethical player who will not > summon the TD if he realizes that he committed MI. If he's that unethical, > why are you playing with him? > > If you are asked a question, you are talking to your opponents, not your > partner. All you are doing is explaining your agreements as required by Law. > Any information in that explanation is UI to partner. So what? There are > Laws that tell us how to deal with that. If you do not reveal your > partnership agreements to an opponent, conceal your partner's infraction by > deliberately committing another infraction, or IMO worst of all, use the UI > of your partner's misexplanation to take a course of action that is more > advantageous to your side than an alternative action, there are Laws that > deal with those also, and the consequences are much more severe. > > Hirsch > And what news have you said now, Hirsh? You snipped all but 4 lines of my post, and out of context, you answered to those. Please do me the courtesy of re-taking my post, reading it completely, and comment. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 18 10:28:15 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:28:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook In-Reply-To: <003801c85958$2fc409f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <47873153.7080808@skynet.be> <1JDIcH-2ECj0C0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><47876C09.1040303@skynet.be> <001a01c854f2$c20167f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><47889DE6.4050702@skynet.be> <004201c85534$4ee91e60$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A08BA.9080005@skynet.be> <005501c85604$a64ad880$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><478A478D.4040402@skynet.be> <005d01c8564f$8950fb10$50cb403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801131823k3c9f2c16vb710973b01b464b@mail.gmail.com><001001c856c2$658442f0$62025e47@DFYXB361> <478B835C.30108@ulb.ac.be><057301c85791$261d7bc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <478DE6EB.3000103@skynet.be><0a4a01c858af$af558e40$0100a8c0@stefanie> <478F1A6A.2000504@skynet.be> <003801c85958$2fc409f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <4790712F.6090008@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:05 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook > >> These cases are so far between that it takes a hundred years for the >> pattern to be noticed. I've been writing about the DWS for ten years >> now, and have played about 3 tournaments a week during that time. I've >> never come accross a real DWS case in that time. >> > > Wait a minute. You've been playing three times a week for ten years. > During that time, are you saying that partner has never misexplained one of > your calls, followed by an opponent asking about your subsequent call? > Actually, no. But I may not have been counting the cases where my alert was based on the MI system rather than the supposedly real one. I have been talking about this problem for 10 years now, so if I had had a real-life experience, I would hae told blml about it. The only case I've had was far earlier in my career, even before I was a TD. Even then, I "knew" it was right to act according to dws principles. That was when I answered 3He Albarran to partner's 2Cl (strongest bid). 3He showed to aces of the same colour, but he explained it as hearts. Next he bid 4NT, to which I of course replied 5Cl with zero kings. He was obviously under the impression that there were two aces out, and he bid 5He. I'm still wondering how this could be real, but I did not think long about it then, and I gave an ethical pass. He made 11 tricks (after a lead out of turn, I later realized) because trumps were nicely 4-4. Several people later asked us how we stayed out of the obvious 7NT. Anyway, there was no "next" question, but if pressed, I would have explained 4NT as asking for aces, obviously (during the bidding, not afterwards). Now imagine what would have happened if they has asked. At my table, I would have answered "asking for aces", and the bidding and play would have been as it was at the table. You, OTOH, would have answered "asking for kings", which would have revealed to your partner that he had missed something. Now, your partner has UI. He knows you have 2 aces and zero kings, and he also knows he has to bid as if he has heard zero aces. What call do you think he's going to make? Maybe something sensible like 5Sp->5NT, thinking that is being ethical. And then the TD arrives, and he has to sort out the mess. Now either the TD is not very inventive, and he commends your partner for staying out of seven, and your +720 stays on the books, or the TD is a better one, and he discovers the possible 5He bid. He looks at the hands and discovers that this can go one down with optimal play, and you write down -100. Either way, your score is different from mine, and I don't think my opponents have been harmed. All UI and MI has been dealt with. My point is that it is very difficult to know where the game will end up in the presence of UI, so everything ought to be done to limit the giving of UI. That is what the lawmakers intended when they wrote L20F5 in some previous incarnation. That is what I believe the MS is forgetting. That is why I believe the DWS is better for the game of bridge. > Hirsch > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 18 10:38:16 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:38:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0801171039t7a292d12ldfcf008120f6b50f@mail.gmail.com> References: <000d01c85866$a6132480$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478F1C31.404@skynet.be> <478F9956.6030303@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0801171039t7a292d12ldfcf008120f6b50f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47907388.1040402@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > On 1/17/08, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Not really. What I'm trying to say is that, even if I would admit to >> it being because of DWS considerations, at two other tables there will >> be two unknown players. One of them would do it because of a genuine >> belief that he had misbid, the other could be an unknown DWS adept. >> How are you going to rule against thowe two. Why should actions be >> forbidden when they are done by HDW, but allowed by all others? > > As I have noted in the past, I don't really care much whether the law > of the land is based on the mainstream interpretation or the DWS > interpretation. Tell me what I'm supposed to do and I will happily > follow the rules. > At present, the law of the land is what we know it to be. The DWS is not outlawed as such, and I will be subject to MI rulings (but no UI ones). > What does concern me greatly is that the laws are consistent. I > consider a situation where one group of players follows the mainstream > school while another group of players follows the DWS highly > problematic. This can't lead to anything good... > I don't see why not. I act like this, because I want to. Someone else acts like that, because he thinks that is right. I will face a MI ruling, he will face a UI ruling. No problems there. > I think that it is useful to distinquish between academic debate > regarding the DWS and practical application of the DWS. Here once > again, I couldn't care less if Herman enjoys ivory tower arguments > regarding the DWS since these don't have any bearing on the way that > the game is played. > Not until I sit down and it happens, and I do it. > This is very different from real world application of the DWS. Here > we have a deliberate attempt to fork the regulatory structure. I find > this type of behaviour problematic when it comes from players. > However, Herman is not a mere "player". Herman is an experienced > director who should known better. He can not claim ignorance. > Rather, he is making a deliberate and concious decision to flaunt due > process and place his own personal opinons ahead of precedent. > "a deliberate attempt to fork the regulatory structure" - even if I understood what that meant, I don't see why that would matter. I do my actions, and I face the ruling about it. That ruling will be exactly the same as some other bloke who takes the same action, because he believes that his partner is right about the system. > Moreover, Herman repeatedly behaves in this same manner. Recall > earlier discussions regarding the Herman 1H opening where Herman > openly stated that he refuses to provide the local regulatory > authorities with a description of his actions because he fears that - > in their ignorance - they would rule against him... > Please don't drag up old cows - we're discussing something important here. > The difference between Herman and the unknown DWS adept is the amount > of information that we have regarding intent. > Precisely my point. You would rule against me, but not against someone else who might have had the same intent. You brought up the H1H, a similar case. You would rule against me, because I have been honest and admitted to my habits on my SC, but not against someone else, who may have done it just as many times, but failed to write it on his SC. And I was not talking about the present situation, but about some future one, in which the DWS as such would be outlawed. If under that law you would rule against me - even more heavily than simply on the given MI - but not against someone else, because you know my intentions but not his, that is not a good law change. Law 20F6: if the player is called De Wael, give him 90IMPs penalty. (I'll tell my sister - maybe she won't be as keen about taking up bridge then) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 18 10:41:11 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:41:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <000101c85944$161c70f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000101c85944$161c70f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47907437.5020305@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .............. >> How are you going to rule against thowe two. Why should actions be >> forbidden when they are done by HDW, but allowed by all others? > > Rest assured that I will rule against anybody I find violating laws. > > The difference here is that HDW has in advance announced his intention to > violate laws that require him to give correct information to opponents. > > I deal differently with contestants violating laws accidentally or because > of ignorance and those that violate laws intentionally. > We're talking current laws, are we? I would not dream of using DWS when it's being outlawed. What is the difference between me, who breaks the MI laws because of L20F5, and someone else, who does it because he's been told not to give UI? In fact, you would only rule against me; and you would do it because you believe my interpretation to be wrong. Now that's a very strong basis for giving me a penalty that you would not give to someone else! > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 18 10:49:48 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:49:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <00e501c85968$999615c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <00e501c85968$999615c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4790763C.3060409@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > It is clearly fruitless to argue whether the dWS is legal or at least no > less illegal than traditional practice. But discussions of whether or not it > would be good for the game may do some good. > > So... you sit down at a bridge tournament. You are playing system A. Early > in the auction partner explains one of your calls according to system B. So > you, the good dWSist, explain partner's calls according to system B, while > yourself bidding and interpreting his calls as system A. Meanwhile, partner > soon realises that you are in fact playing system A. However, he is also an > adherent, so he can do nothing but explain your calls as per system B, while > himself interpreting them and bidding as in system A. > I have to interrupt you here, Stephanie. As soon as partner realizes that I might have been playing system A, he's bound to correct his previous explanation. After which, we're both explaining as system A. If he believes, when noticing the problem, that system B is the correct one, then he should continue (as I am) to explain under B, all the while making his calls without taking into account that my bids are satisfying system A, not B. In fact, our bidding will always be the same (and the same as any pair playing MS, in fact). Our explanations will also always be under one system, either A (if he has switched his beliefs) or B (if he hasn't). > You are both now playing the correct system, but are feeding the opponents a > total fiction. > No, we're giving MI. Nothing we can do about that. In fact, L20F5 tells us that once MI has been given, only the one who has given it can change that. The other one is barred from "indicating in any manner". > Or... suppose what actually happens is that partner fails to alert a call > that was alertable under system A. Now, you must guess whether he is playing > system B or C or D, but suppose you think that system B is by far the most > likely candidate. So again you explain system B, and so does partner after > hearing you do it. Meanwhile, neither one of you was ever playing system B; > partner simply forgot to alert. Yet your opponents are receiving > explanations of system B from both of you. > > Can any of this be good for bridge? > Is any MI ever good for bridge? Before you put down a hypothetical in order to discredit DWS, it might be wise to think about what would happen at the same table if MS were in place. Would that be better for bridge? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 18 11:06:40 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:06:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3? References: <000d01c85866$a6132480$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478F1C31.404@skynet.be><478F9956.6030303@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0801171039t7a292d12ldfcf008120f6b50f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <018a01c859bb$93aaa650$6aca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 40B3? > On 1/17/08, Herman De Wael wrote: > > What does concern me greatly is that the laws are consistent. I > consider a situation where one group of players follows the mainstream > school while another group of players follows the DWS highly > problematic. This can't lead to anything good... > +=+ Do not worry. Directors will not follow the DWS view in their rulings. I can add the comment of one more DSC member to those I quoted previously (leaving just one member unheard). Viz: to "this group just likes to hear themselves talk" "we have contentious language, self-styled 'Schools' taking on unqualified reality by monotonous repetition, guru-like pronouncements, heels dug in positions regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and out-of-context usage of words". " (the above) words reflect my own thought." "what Herman says is clearly wrong" "when a player explains a partnership agreement it is possible that his partner becomes aware of a mistake he made. We deal with that in another law. But people in positions to decide about the meaning of the laws have said that this is the way bridge should be played. And that your (Herman's) very superior solutions are not valid." *now add* "I agree with ( .......) here and broadly with your solution. However I think it could be done with fewer words eg. " ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 18 11:47:59 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:47:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <4790763C.3060409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01c859bf$98018080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > It is clearly fruitless to argue whether the dWS is legal or at least no > > less illegal than traditional practice. But discussions of whether or > > not it would be good for the game may do some good. > > > > So... you sit down at a bridge tournament. You are playing system A. > > Early in the auction partner explains one of your calls according > > to system B. So you, the good dWSist, explain partner's calls > > according to system B, while yourself bidding and interpreting his > > calls as system A. Meanwhile, partner soon realises that you are in > > fact playing system A. However, he is also an adherent, so he can do > > nothing but explain your calls as per system B, while himself > > interpreting them and bidding as in system A. > > > > I have to interrupt you here, Stephanie. As soon as partner realizes > that I might have been playing system A, he's bound to correct his > previous explanation. Please explain why partner in doing so does not himself violate Law 20F5 in "indicating" that you (as a consequence of his own previous incorrect explanation) have given incorrect explanations? > After which, we're both explaining as system A. After both of you of course have not only corrected your own previous incorrect explanations, but in doing so even confirmed that your respective partners had given incorrect explanations. > If he believes, when noticing the problem, that system B is the > correct one, then he should continue (as I am) to explain under B, all > the while making his calls without taking into account that my bids > are satisfying system A, not B. In fact, our bidding will always be > the same (and the same as any pair playing MS, in fact). > Our explanations will also always be under one system, either A (if he > has switched his beliefs) or B (if he hasn't). > > > You are both now playing the correct system, but are feeding the > opponents a > > total fiction. > > > > No, we're giving MI. Nothing we can do about that. In fact, L20F5 > tells us that once MI has been given, only the one who has given it > can change that. The other one is barred from "indicating in any manner". But in the current situation both players have given MI so according to your own statement both players are barred from correcting their own errors because such corrections would "indicate" their respective partner's error! ............. > Is any MI ever good for bridge? Before you put down a hypothetical in > order to discredit DWS, it might be wise to think about what would > happen at the same table if MS were in place. Would that be better for > bridge? At least it would be legal. And I believe that in the long run it would also be better. Finding specific examples for or against the contrary does not prove anything. Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 18 11:58:32 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:58:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <47907437.5020305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001001c859c1$10fb1630$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > .............. > > Rest assured that I will rule against anybody I find violating laws. > > > > The difference here is that HDW has in advance announced his intention > > to violate laws that require him to give correct information to > > opponents. > > > > I deal differently with contestants violating laws accidentally or > > because of ignorance and those that violate laws intentionally. > > > > > > We're talking current laws, are we? Indeed we are. > I would not dream of using DWS when it's being outlawed. According to my interpretation of the current laws (See Law 81C2) DWS is already outlawed. > What is the difference between me, who breaks the MI laws because of > L20F5, and someone else, who does it because he's been told not to > give UI? You have demonstrated your intention to break the laws deliberately while the other person is assumed to break them accidentally or from ignorance until otherwise indicated. > In fact, you would only rule against me; and you would do it because > you believe my interpretation to be wrong. Now that's a very strong > basis for giving me a penalty that you would not give to someone else! Are you trying to read my mind or predict my action, and in doing so reaching a result contrary to the truth? Sven From tsvecfob at iol.ie Fri Jan 18 11:58:40 2008 From: tsvecfob at iol.ie (Fearghal O'Boyle) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:58:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: Message-ID: <00c601c859c1$1587ca40$cc0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> Hi ton, You might have read that Grattan suggests the strange 7S is an LA because this player actually chose it or maybe it becomes an LA to anyone who knows that 4S will be disallowed. Personally I think this is stretching the definition of LA a bit too far. I prefer to adjust via L12 rather than L16 but then I have to ask if there really is an irregularity that sends me to L12? Strictly read I see no reason to adjust but like you I suspect something funny has happened but what? Are you still unsure of an answer? Regards, Fearghal. ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] LA > Hi Fearghal, > > If I remember well we have had this discussion in blml. But which not? > > And I do not have a sure answer. I tend to say that there is no relation > between the UI and the call made. Formally spoken the bid of 7S is not > suggested at all, nor is it a logical alternative, so I think that we do > not > have a choice but to allow it. But I do not like it too much. > > ton > > -----Original Message----- >>From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Fearghal O'Boyle > Sent: woensdag 9 januari 2008 14:16 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [blml] LA > > Hi ton, > I am in the mood for a good discussion on the laws...should I be troubling > you or resorting to blml? > > For instance, a player is in receipt of UI in a 1S - 3S auction which > suggests bidding 4S rather than passing. He is sort of ethical and aware > of > 73C so he decides to bid 7S which happens to make today because of 4 > successful finesses and extremely lucky breaks. > > Has he chosen from among logical alternatives one that could have been > suggested by the UI? > If he has not do you propose to use L12 to take back his gain? > > Regards, > Fearghal. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 18 12:11:32 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:11:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <20080117085605.FEYC15457.aamtain09-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <478F74D4.1060202@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <021a01c859c3$2807be30$6aca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [Nige1] > Good stuff, Grattan! You argue that the laws currently outlaw DWS. > Nevertheless, please fight for the laws to be clarified, in place, so > that ordinary players and directors will be able to understand which > protocol is correct. In the longer term, please consider whether > Herman's or some other simpler protocol is better. > +=+ Such flattery! On blml I should beware, irony is more common. But, more seriously, if we agree guidance on the subject our responsibility is to ensure that NBOs know of it. We do have the means to forward the guidance to (is it 116 ?) NBOs. Zones also receive it. At the present moment the latest draft with the DSC seeks to make clear the difference between an incidental outcome and an intention. It states: "In trying to explain fully and correctly his partner's call a player may reveal incidentally that he thinks his partner has misexplained a prior call. In such a case there is no violation of law 20F5(a) " ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 18 12:33:14 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:33:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] irrelevant In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801171155h347d0529p7506004f05742a78@mail.gmail.com> References: <478E8609.7000901@aol.com> <2b1e598b0801161629w2b90d764u82756888a11340d3@mail.gmail.com> <10338743-4119-423F-B4D6-98771E149D38@rochester.rr.com> <478F8671.7050402@ulb.ac.be> <2da24b8e0801170855y998240fm5282c5e7e57f8d05@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0801171155h347d0529p7506004f05742a78@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47908E7A.3040401@ulb.ac.be> Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > Richard Willey: > >> I can point a number of examples where people are referred to as >> acolytes without the intent to convey a negative conotation. >> >> For example, within the Lutheran Church altar boys are referred to as >> "Acolytes". >> >> > > Acolytes don't speak, don't share their thoughts, have no words to > add. They are 100% followers who do what they are told. They show no > originality and give no evidence of independent thought. I assume > that there no acolytes on BLML. > I ran acroos a copy of the OED, and the result is very interesting. The word "acolyte" is defined only in the religious sense (strict follower, or sevant in Church), and in some technical senses (like /acolyte star/). Those who use it as meaning only "sharing thoughts with" will surely say I need a better dictionary, but I can't find one. I chacked in two specifically American-English dictionaries, just in case : the word doesn't appear. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 18 12:38:25 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:38:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <200801180030.AA12057@geller204.nifty.com> References: <015101c85962$69da7250$aed0403e@Mildred> <200801180030.AA12057@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47908FB1.9000709@ulb.ac.be> Robert Geller a e'crit : > I don 't think the "DWS controversy" per se is worthy of serious > consideration, so mostly I skip over the mails discussing DWS. But I do think this > extended discussion has exposed a moderately serious and easily > corrected flaw in the Laws that goes well beyond the "DWS." Namely, > Law 20 contains relatively detailed provisions on when questions may be > asked, but doesn't say anything about how questions should be answered. > L73 does. (retranslated from French, sorry) Communication between partners is disallowed, by [...] explanations given or not given. Surely, if explaining the way partner didn't understand it isn't "indicating", it is "communication" ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 18 12:42:04 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:42:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <200801180030.AA12057@geller204.nifty.com> References: <015101c85962$69da7250$aed0403e@Mildred> <200801180030.AA12057@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <4790908C.9060000@ulb.ac.be> Robert Geller a e'crit : > Incidentally, this may have been discussed in previous mails that I've > skipped, but L40C3b says: > (b) Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership > understandings may be penalized. > Since the heart of DWS is "non-disclosure of partnership agreements" > this (1) shows that DWS is wrong (as if we didn't already know that) and > (2) shows that DWS proponents should be penalized if they actually implement > DWS in real-life play. > You didn't understand anything. dWS proponents know perfectly well they might get penalized. They only claim the ensuing trouble (to them, opponents, TDs) will be less than after an impossible exlpanation satisfying MS principles. What's wrong with accepting being penalized to avoid bigger trouble ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 18 12:45:10 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:45:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <00c601c859c1$1587ca40$cc0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> References: <00c601c859c1$1587ca40$cc0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> Message-ID: <47909146.1040303@ulb.ac.be> Fearghal O'Boyle a ?crit : > Hi ton, > > You might have read that Grattan suggests the strange 7S is an LA because > this player actually chose it or maybe it becomes an LA to anyone who knows > that 4S will be disallowed. Personally I think this is stretching the > definition of LA a bit too far. > Indeed. We need two conditions to make a LA : 1 - a substantial part of the player's peers woud think about bidding 7S. 2 - at least a small nomber might well do it. Clearly, condition # 1 isn't satisfied. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 18 12:49:57 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:49:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <018a01c859bb$93aaa650$6aca403e@Mildred> References: <000d01c85866$a6132480$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478F1C31.404@skynet.be><478F9956.6030303@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0801171039t7a292d12ldfcf008120f6b50f@mail.gmail.com> <018a01c859bb$93aaa650$6aca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47909265.6070706@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: someone wrote: > However I think it could be done with fewer words eg. > a player may unintentionally reveal he thinks his partner > has misexplained a prior call. In such a case there is no > violation of law 20F5(a)>" > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I consider this to be a helpful addition. I respectfully bow to the WBFLC for this clarification. I would like to ask the WBFLC however to consider the following: What they would do, in adapting this clarification, is to change the status of the MS action from "acceptable" to "legal". I believe this to be a change of Law, but the WBFLC is empowered to do that. It would seem that this change of status for the MS causes a change in status for the DWS as well: from acceptable to illegal. Indeed, my main argument was always that I needed to break one law or another. Can the WBFLC then please describe what the penalty shall be for any DWS action? What shall a TD do when he sees a player consistently explaining his partner's bid after hearing a misexplanation of his own bidding. There is no UI, the MI will be ruled upon, and the infraction is the one of "not giving UI, not providing rectification for MI". You could compare this to the penalty for the specific infraction of not correcting MI (as dummy or declarer) before the opening lead. There too, no specific penalty is prescribed. The penalty for the continued existence of MI during the play is considered enough. Indeed, as a player, it would not occur to me not do take the prescribed action. The penalty is severe. But in the DWS case, if the penalty is no more than the MI ruling on the original MI, and on the added MI (which should be very small), then I am inclined to take that penalty if the alternative is giving UI, barring my partner from doing something sensible. Oh yes, that would be cheating. So I won't that. But I may do something else: claim that I misbid. It has become a regular occurence for Directors to rule on the actions rather than on the intentions. "You do exactly as a cheat would do" says John Probst. So in future all players who claim misbid should be treated as DWS cheats. And that still does not answer my question. What is the penalty. Remember that the normal penalty is one I can live with. I believe the alternative (with the UI restrictions) to be worse than the MI penalty. So how are you going to rule. Ah yes, David said: 90IMP penalty. So in future all misbids will be penalized by a 90IMP PP for DWS cheating. Has the WBFLC really thought this one through? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 18 13:11:37 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:11:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <000d01c859bf$98018080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000d01c859bf$98018080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47909779.5050704@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> It is clearly fruitless to argue whether the dWS is legal or at least no >>> less illegal than traditional practice. But discussions of whether or >>> not it would be good for the game may do some good. >>> >>> So... you sit down at a bridge tournament. You are playing system A. >>> Early in the auction partner explains one of your calls according >>> to system B. So you, the good dWSist, explain partner's calls >>> according to system B, while yourself bidding and interpreting his >>> calls as system A. Meanwhile, partner soon realises that you are in >>> fact playing system A. However, he is also an adherent, so he can do >>> nothing but explain your calls as per system B, while himself >>> interpreting them and bidding as in system A. >>> >> I have to interrupt you here, Stephanie. As soon as partner realizes >> that I might have been playing system A, he's bound to correct his >> previous explanation. > > Please explain why partner in doing so does not himself violate Law 20F5 in > "indicating" that you (as a consequence of his own previous incorrect > explanation) have given incorrect explanations? > Indeed he does violate L20F5. But since he knows I have only given the "wrong" explanation because of that same L20F5, I feel it should be allowed. The laws are not able to solve their own dilemmas. >> After which, we're both explaining as system A. > > After both of you of course have not only corrected your own previous > incorrect explanations, but in doing so even confirmed that your respective > partners had given incorrect explanations. > Yes, but since that was triggered by his realisation (without UI) of his own misexplanation, there is still only UI in one direction, not two. >> If he believes, when noticing the problem, that system B is the >> correct one, then he should continue (as I am) to explain under B, all >> the while making his calls without taking into account that my bids >> are satisfying system A, not B. In fact, our bidding will always be >> the same (and the same as any pair playing MS, in fact). >> Our explanations will also always be under one system, either A (if he >> has switched his beliefs) or B (if he hasn't). >> >>> You are both now playing the correct system, but are feeding the >> opponents a >>> total fiction. >>> >> No, we're giving MI. Nothing we can do about that. In fact, L20F5 >> tells us that once MI has been given, only the one who has given it >> can change that. The other one is barred from "indicating in any manner". > > But in the current situation both players have given MI so according to your > own statement both players are barred from correcting their own errors > because such corrections would "indicate" their respective partner's error! > Of course if you keep throwing dilemma upon dilemma, you can make this as difficult as you please. At the table, this will all be solved quite easily. Remember that the inconsistencies are only there because L20F5 is badly written, regardless of whose school you want to follow. One need only look at the contorted definition of "indicate" by Grattan to realize this. If the DWS is written into the laws in a consistent manner, there are no more dilemmas. OTOH, the MS cannot be written into the laws without dilemmas to surface. > ............. > >> Is any MI ever good for bridge? Before you put down a hypothetical in >> order to discredit DWS, it might be wise to think about what would >> happen at the same table if MS were in place. Would that be better for >> bridge? > > At least it would be legal. And I believe that in the long run it would also > be better. Finding specific examples for or against the contrary does not > prove anything. > Drop the argument that it would be legal. We're far beyond that one. Even the WBFLC have now admitted that they need an official pronouncement in order to make the DWS illegal. As to your belief of the long run, my belief is exactly opposite. So that argument does not really count. And as for examples, finding them does prove something, if they all point in the same direction. So please give me an example where the MS produces an end result that is "better" for the game of bridge. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 18 13:22:32 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:22:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] irrelevant In-Reply-To: <47908E7A.3040401@ulb.ac.be> References: <478E8609.7000901@aol.com> <2b1e598b0801161629w2b90d764u82756888a11340d3@mail.gmail.com> <10338743-4119-423F-B4D6-98771E149D38@rochester.rr.com> <478F8671.7050402@ulb.ac.be> <2da24b8e0801170855y998240fm5282c5e7e57f8d05@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0801171155h347d0529p7506004f05742a78@mail.gmail.com> <47908E7A.3040401@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <0902591A-6379-4131-940F-48D7F314B71E@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 18, 2008, at 6:33 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I ran acroos a copy of the OED, and the result is very interesting. > > The word "acolyte" is defined only in the religious sense (strict > follower, or sevant in Church), and in some technical senses (like > /acolyte star/). > > Those who use it as meaning only "sharing thoughts with" will > surely say > I need a better dictionary, but I can't find one. > > I chacked in two specifically American-English dictionaries, just in > case : the word doesn't appear. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/acolyte - in particular, the second meaning. From geller at nifty.com Fri Jan 18 13:23:34 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:23:34 +0900 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <4790908C.9060000@ulb.ac.be> References: <4790908C.9060000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200801181223.AA12072@geller204.nifty.com> Alain Gottcheiner writes: >You didn't understand anything. > >dWS proponents know perfectly well they might get penalized. On the contrary, I understand perfectly. Actions which are subject to penalty are illegal. Period. ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 18 13:29:24 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:29:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <4790908C.9060000@ulb.ac.be> References: <015101c85962$69da7250$aed0403e@Mildred> <200801180030.AA12057@geller204.nifty.com> <4790908C.9060000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8DBFC2F5-CA2B-45CD-A415-77A12B2894B6@rochester.rr.com> On Jan 18, 2008, at 6:42 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > You didn't understand anything. > > dWS proponents know perfectly well they might get penalized. > > They only claim the ensuing trouble (to them, opponents, TDs) will be > less than after an impossible exlpanation satisfying MS principles. > > What's wrong with accepting being penalized to avoid bigger trouble ? "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay." - Law 72B2, 1997 "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." - Law 72B1, 2007. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 18 13:42:55 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:42:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <47908FB1.9000709@ulb.ac.be> References: <015101c85962$69da7250$aed0403e@Mildred> <200801180030.AA12057@geller204.nifty.com> <47908FB1.9000709@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Jan 18, 2008, at 6:38 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Geller a e'crit : >> I don 't think the "DWS controversy" per se is worthy of serious >> consideration, so mostly I skip over the mails discussing DWS. >> But I do think this >> extended discussion has exposed a moderately serious and easily >> corrected flaw in the Laws that goes well beyond the "DWS." Namely, >> Law 20 contains relatively detailed provisions on when questions >> may be >> asked, but doesn't say anything about how questions should be >> answered. >> > L73 does. > > > (retranslated from French, sorry) > > Communication between partners is disallowed, by [...] explanations > given or not given. > > Surely, if explaining the way partner didn't understand it isn't > "indicating", it is "communication" ? By a strict definition of "communication", anything a player says in the hearing of another player, and any action ("mannerism") a player takes in sight of another player is "communication". The laws do not attempt to preclude all mannerisms, and all speech save legal calls and plays - they recognize that such things *will* happen. What the laws do is provide for rectification when the recipient of such communication from his partner takes action which may have been based on the information conveyed in the communication. In my view, the laws' approach is that it isn't "communication" if the recipient does not act on the information conveyed. No, that's not in the dictionary definition. So sue me. From geller at nifty.com Fri Jan 18 13:45:27 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:45:27 +0900 Subject: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B, (2) L11 Message-ID: <200801181245.AA12073@geller204.nifty.com> Q1. L11A reads as follows: ********************************************** LAW 11 - FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO RECTIFICATION A. Action by Non-Offending Side The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law. ************************************************ QUESTION: Can anyone give me an example of a case "when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law." Q2. The footnote to L20B reads as follows: ************************************************* * When the calls are not spoken responders must ensure that it is clear to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made. ************************************************* Let's say we're using bidding boxes. Could someone please explain what the above law means, in practical terms? Does it just mean the bidding cards should be kept clearly visible and neatly laid out? Or does it have some more profound meaning? Thanks. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 18 14:10:10 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:10:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <47909779.5050704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001101c859d3$7505b920$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: ............... > > Please explain why partner in doing so does not himself violate > > Law 20F5 in "indicating" that you (as a consequence of his own > > previous incorrect explanation) have given incorrect explanations? > > > > Indeed he does violate L20F5. But since he knows I have only given the > "wrong" explanation because of that same L20F5, I feel it should be > allowed. The laws are not able to solve their own dilemmas. So at least you admit that L20F5 is not necessarily the superior law over those demanding full and correct description of agreements? > >> After which, we're both explaining as system A. > > > > After both of you of course have not only corrected your own previous > > incorrect explanations, but in doing so even confirmed that your > respective > > partners had given incorrect explanations. > > > > Yes, but since that was triggered by his realisation (without UI) of > his own misexplanation, there is still only UI in one direction, not two. To me it appears to be UI in both directions now because both players have "indicated" to their respective partner's that their explanations were wrong and that this fact has been understood. ............. > > > >> Is any MI ever good for bridge? Before you put down a hypothetical in > >> order to discredit DWS, it might be wise to think about what would > >> happen at the same table if MS were in place. Would that be better for > >> bridge? > > > > At least it would be legal. And I believe that in the long run it > > would also be better. Finding specific examples for or against the > > contrary does not prove anything. > > > > Drop the argument that it would be legal. We're far beyond that one. > Even the WBFLC have now admitted that they need an official > pronouncement in order to make the DWS illegal. I do not see it that way. But I realize that there are people who refuse to accept the intention of the laws until after such elaboration. > > As to your belief of the long run, my belief is exactly opposite. So > that argument does not really count. > > And as for examples, finding them does prove something, if they all > point in the same direction. So please give me an example where the MS > produces an end result that is "better" for the game of bridge. > I do not need any specific example. It is sufficient for me to appreciate that a player shall never have to lie to his opponents in order to comply with the laws. As we all know DWS sometimes requires a player to lie. Sven From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Jan 18 14:10:14 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:10:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <47909265.6070706@skynet.be> References: <000d01c85866$a6132480$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478F1C31.404@skynet.be> <478F9956.6030303@skynet.be> <2da24b8e0801171039t7a292d12ldfcf008120f6b50f@mail.gmail.com> <018a01c859bb$93aaa650$6aca403e@Mildred> <47909265.6070706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0801180510j6536a3f4l2c58f812bde4e5ba@mail.gmail.com> On 1/18/08, Herman De Wael wrote: > Oh yes, that would be cheating. So I won't that. But I may do > something else: claim that I misbid. It has become a regular occurence > for Directors to rule on the actions rather than on the intentions. > "You do exactly as a cheat would do" says John Probst. So in future > all players who claim misbid should be treated as DWS cheats. > > And that still does not answer my question. What is the penalty. > Remember that the normal penalty is one I can live with. I believe the > alternative (with the UI restrictions) to be worse than the MI > penalty. So how are you going to rule. Ah yes, David said: 90IMP penalty. For what its worth, I don't agree with the proposed 90 IMP Proceedural Penalty Personally, I'd recommend yanking your Director's license. I think that this is a much better match for the the infractions that you're committing. More over, I think that it would be a more effective deterrent. If this doesn't work and we see repeat offenses, expulsion for cheating would seem warranted -- "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 agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 18 14:17:06 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:17:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <200801181223.AA12072@geller204.nifty.com> References: <4790908C.9060000@ulb.ac.be> <200801181223.AA12072@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <4790A6D2.4000708@ulb.ac.be> Robert Geller a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner writes: > >> You didn't understand anything. >> >> dWS proponents know perfectly well they might get penalized. >> > > On the contrary, I understand perfectly. Actions which are subject to > penalty are illegal. Period. > It's the other way. When an action is illegal, it is subject to penalty. And communicating using explanations is illegal (L73). From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 18 14:31:34 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:31:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B, (2) L11 In-Reply-To: <200801181245.AA12073@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <001201c859d6$7201e7a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > Sent: 18. januar 2008 13:45 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B, (2) L11 > ................. > Q2. > The footnote to L20B reads as follows: > ************************************************* > * When the calls are not spoken responders must ensure that it is clear > to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made. > ************************************************* > Let's say we're using bidding boxes. Could someone please explain what > the above law means, in practical terms? Does it just mean the bidding > cards should be kept clearly visible and neatly laid out? Or does it have > some more profound meaning? "Calls not spoken" include for instance calls written by hand on a piece of paper. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 18 14:33:59 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:33:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] irrelevant In-Reply-To: <47908E7A.3040401@ulb.ac.be> References: <478E8609.7000901@aol.com> <2b1e598b0801161629w2b90d764u82756888a11340d3@mail.gmail.com> <10338743-4119-423F-B4D6-98771E149D38@rochester.rr.com> <478F8671.7050402@ulb.ac.be> <2da24b8e0801170855y998240fm5282c5e7e57f8d05@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0801171155h347d0529p7506004f05742a78@mail.gmail.com> <47908E7A.3040401@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <671848DD-D6E7-4746-A9D7-33058B09CFFE@starpower.net> On Jan 18, 2008, at 6:33 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : >> Richard Willey: >> >>> I can point a number of examples where people are referred to as >>> acolytes without the intent to convey a negative conotation. >>> >>> For example, within the Lutheran Church altar boys are referred >>> to as >>> "Acolytes". >> >> Acolytes don't speak, don't share their thoughts, have no words to >> add. They are 100% followers who do what they are told. They >> show no >> originality and give no evidence of independent thought. I assume >> that there no acolytes on BLML. > > I ran acroos a copy of the OED, and the result is very interesting. > > The word "acolyte" is defined only in the religious sense (strict > follower, or sevant in Church), and in some technical senses (like > /acolyte star/). > > Those who use it as meaning only "sharing thoughts with" will > surely say > I need a better dictionary, but I can't find one. > > I chacked in two specifically American-English dictionaries, just in > case : the word doesn't appear. From the Random House Unabridged (American): "acolyte: n. 1. an altar attendant... 2. (Rom. Cath. Ch.)... 3. any attendant, assistant or follower." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 18 14:37:32 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:37:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: References: <015101c85962$69da7250$aed0403e@Mildred> <200801180030.AA12057@geller204.nifty.com> <47908FB1.9000709@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4790AB9C.1000500@ulb.ac.be> Ed Reppert a ?crit : > > In my view, the laws' approach is that it isn't "communication" if > the recipient does not act on the information conveyed. > No, that's > not in the dictionary definition. So sue me. > I won't, but perhaps that's an indication that you're deluding yourself. We both know perfectly well that :: 1) Communication, in its main sense, happens continually, as you pointed it. 2) The Laws disallow communicaiton, except by means of bids and plays. 3) This causes umpteen problems when some prescript of Law creates communication. 4) This is precisely the problem dWS want to tackle. (the prescript = explain your agreements) And I still don't understand how you could feel at ease with it. Of course, some will alter the meaning of words like "information", "indicate" and "communication" so that their favoured principles look right, but that's not very scientific. I still insist on the fact that when all possible courses of action lead to being outlawed, the Law is wrong and we'd strive to get in changed. My personal view is NOT that dWS should replace MS ; it would be a lost cause ; it is that, if you want MS to be bearable, one should change some lines in TFLB. The 'orange book" lines recently mentioned on blml are a step in the right direction. Regards Alain From geller at nifty.com Fri Jan 18 14:37:33 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:37:33 +0900 Subject: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B, (2) L11 In-Reply-To: <001201c859d6$7201e7a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <001201c859d6$7201e7a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <200801181337.AA12075@geller204.nifty.com> ................>> Q2. >> The footnote to L20B reads as follows: >> ************************************************* >> * When the calls are not spoken responders must ensure that it is clear >> to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made. >> ************************************************* >> Let's say we're using bidding boxes. Could someone please explain what >> the above law means, in practical terms? Does it just mean the bidding >> cards should be kept clearly visible and neatly laid out? Or does it have >> some more profound meaning? > >"Calls not spoken" include for instance calls written by hand on a piece of >paper. Yes, I understand that part. But that's not my question. My question is, what does "must ensure that it is clear to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made." mean? The bids (if written) are on the table in plain sight already. What, exactly, does the person who answers the question need to do to "ensure that it is clear to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made," when the bidding sheet is already visible to all? -Bob -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 18 14:50:51 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:50:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B, (2) L11 In-Reply-To: <200801181245.AA12073@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <001301c859d9$23c5a5b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > Q1. > > L11A reads as follows: > ********************************************** > LAW 11 - FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO RECTIFICATION > A. Action by Non-Offending Side > The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either > member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the > Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending > side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in > ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law. > ************************************************ > QUESTION: Can anyone give me an example of a case "when the > non-offending > side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in > ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law." North: "1 spade", East: "Double", South: "1 spade", Either opponent: "Insufficient bid, you must correct it" (Action by NOS!) South: "Redouble" Now the Director is summoned. He shall cancel the redouble without any rectification (under Law 27D2) and allow South to replace his bid of 1S as prescribed in Law 27C1. Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 18 14:54:28 2008 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:54:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <4790AB9C.1000500@ulb.ac.be> References: <015101c85962$69da7250$aed0403e@Mildred> <200801180030.AA12057@geller204.nifty.com> <47908FB1.9000709@ulb.ac.be> <4790AB9C.1000500@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Jan 18, 2008, at 8:37 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I won't, but perhaps that's an indication that you're deluding > yourself. Sure. I don't agree with you, so I must be delusional. I see no point in further communication with you - or with blml. I have better things to do with my time. From geller at nifty.com Fri Jan 18 14:56:57 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:56:57 +0900 Subject: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B, (2) L11 In-Reply-To: <001301c859d9$23c5a5b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <001301c859d9$23c5a5b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <200801181356.AA12076@geller204.nifty.com> Sven Pran ????????: >> On Behalf Of Robert Geller >> Q1. >> >> L11A reads as follows: >> ********************************************** >> LAW 11 - FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO RECTIFICATION >> A. Action by Non-Offending Side >> The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either >> member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the >> Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending >> side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in >> ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law. >> ************************************************ >> QUESTION: Can anyone give me an example of a case "when the >> non-offending >> side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in >> ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law." > >North: "1 spade", >East: "Double", >South: "1 spade", >Either opponent: "Insufficient bid, you must correct it" (Action by NOS!) >South: "Redouble" >Now the Director is summoned. He shall cancel the redouble without any >rectification (under Law 27D2) and allow South to replace his bid of 1S as >prescribed in Law 27C1. > >Regards Sven In other words, in your specific example, "takes any action" means the NOS issued a ruling on its own, rather than waiting for the director to rule. Can you provide a couple of other examples? Thanks. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 18 15:17:14 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:17:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <02bb01c859dc$f0360b50$6aca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Judge not the play before the play be done" > [Sir John Davies 1569-1626] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Guthrie" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:31 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in > lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> [Nige1] >> Good stuff, Grattan! You argue that the laws currently outlaw DWS. >> Nevertheless, please fight for the laws to be clarified, in place, so >> that ordinary players and directors will be able to understand which >> protocol is correct. In the longer term, please consider whether >> Herman's or some other simpler protocol is better. >> > +=+ Such flattery! On blml I should beware, irony is more common. But, > more seriously, if we agree guidance on the subject our responsibility is > to ensure that NBOs know of it. We do have the means to forward the > guidance to (is it 116 ?) NBOs. Zones also receive it. At the present > moment the latest draft with the DSC seeks to make clear the difference > between an incidental outcome and an intention. It states: > "In trying to explain fully and correctly his > partner's call a player may reveal incidentally > that he thinks his partner has misexplained a > prior call. In such a case there is no violation > of law 20F5(a) " > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ < +=+ In further developments this has become: "When asked for the meaning of his partner's call it is a player's duty to explain the partnership understanding fully and correctly. If in doing so he reveals incidentally that he thinks his partner has misexplained a prior call there is no violation of Law 20F5(a)." and has led to comments that "we are dealing with the first lesson in a course for TD's. There is no need to react to every stupid remark made by ... (Herman De Wael)..., but otherwise saying it does no harm." and "Since ... (Herman De Wael) ..... is getting support from graffiti scratchers both in Europe and in the USA (one of whom describes him as an 'expert' in the laws), I think it eminently desirable to kill the illusion." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 18 15:17:14 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:17:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <02bb01c859dc$f0360b50$6aca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Judge not the play before the play be done" > [Sir John Davies 1569-1626] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Guthrie" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:31 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in > lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> [Nige1] >> Good stuff, Grattan! You argue that the laws currently outlaw DWS. >> Nevertheless, please fight for the laws to be clarified, in place, so >> that ordinary players and directors will be able to understand which >> protocol is correct. In the longer term, please consider whether >> Herman's or some other simpler protocol is better. >> > +=+ Such flattery! On blml I should beware, irony is more common. But, > more seriously, if we agree guidance on the subject our responsibility is > to ensure that NBOs know of it. We do have the means to forward the > guidance to (is it 116 ?) NBOs. Zones also receive it. At the present > moment the latest draft with the DSC seeks to make clear the difference > between an incidental outcome and an intention. It states: > "In trying to explain fully and correctly his > partner's call a player may reveal incidentally > that he thinks his partner has misexplained a > prior call. In such a case there is no violation > of law 20F5(a) " > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ < +=+ In further developments this has become: "When asked for the meaning of his partner's call it is a player's duty to explain the partnership understanding fully and correctly. If in doing so he reveals incidentally that he thinks his partner has misexplained a prior call there is no violation of Law 20F5(a)." and has led to comments that "we are dealing with the first lesson in a course for TD's. There is no need to react to every stupid remark made by ... (Herman De Wael)..., but otherwise saying it does no harm." and "Since ... (Herman De Wael) ..... is getting support from graffiti scratchers both in Europe and in the USA (one of whom describes him as an 'expert' in the laws), I think it eminently desirable to kill the illusion." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 18 15:32:07 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:32:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <4790908C.9060000@ulb.ac.be> References: <015101c85962$69da7250$aed0403e@Mildred> <200801180030.AA12057@geller204.nifty.com> <4790908C.9060000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <02ED46B2-A1F6-4889-AC51-995EB94CBB16@starpower.net> On Jan 18, 2008, at 6:42 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Geller a e'crit : >> Incidentally, this may have been discussed in previous mails that >> I've >> skipped, but L40C3b says: >> (b) Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership >> understandings may be penalized. >> Since the heart of DWS is "non-disclosure of partnership agreements" >> this (1) shows that DWS is wrong (as if we didn't already know >> that) and >> (2) shows that DWS proponents should be penalized if they actually >> implement >> DWS in real-life play. >> > You didn't understand anything. > > dWS proponents know perfectly well they might get penalized. > > They only claim the ensuing trouble (to them, opponents, TDs) will be > less than after an impossible exlpanation satisfying MS principles. > > What's wrong with accepting being penalized to avoid bigger trouble ? What's wrong with it is that it is explicitly forbidden, by L72B1. The majority believes that the DWS, which counsels flagrantly violating this law, is cheating. The DWS counter-argues that it applies only when the player must flagrantly violate L72B1 perforce. This is based on the argument that it may be impossible to comply with L75B without violating L20F5 (a), so the player can only choose the manner in which he will violate L72B1. The majority rejects this argument; it interprets L20F5(a) in such a way that it is not violated by fully complying with L75B. The entire debate over the validity of the DWS is in fact a debate over the interpretation of L20F5(a). "...nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made." The majority reads "in any manner" as not applying to those rights or obligations that are explicitly granted or imposed elsewhere in the laws. Accepting that reading destroys the DWS. The DWS, per Herman, reads "in any manner" as "in any manner whatsoever, absolutely". But the DWS is not consistent in its interpretation. "In any manner whatsoever, absolutely" must include not only explanations, but calls. The DWS counsels choosing one's explanations so as to avoid violating (its interpretation of) L20F5(a) by giving partner UI even when doing so requires violating L75B. Yet it does *not* counsel choosing one's subsequent call so as to avoid the same UI, even though it would *not* explicitly violate some other law to do so. That, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that applying the DWS to explanations will normally work to the benefit of the pair doing so, while applying it to calls would work to their disadvantage. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Fri Jan 18 15:37:54 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:37:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B, (2) L11 References: <001201c859d6$7201e7a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200801181337.AA12075@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <002e01c859df$b9034f00$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B, (2) L11 > ................>> Q2. >>> The footnote to L20B reads as follows: >>> ************************************************* >>> * When the calls are not spoken responders must ensure that it is clear >>> to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made. >>> ************************************************* >>> Let's say we're using bidding boxes. Could someone please explain what >>> the above law means, in practical terms? Does it just mean the bidding >>> cards should be kept clearly visible and neatly laid out? Or does it >>> have >>> some more profound meaning? >> >>"Calls not spoken" include for instance calls written by hand on a piece >>of >>paper. > > Yes, I understand that part. But that's not my question. My question > is, what > does "must ensure that it is clear > to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made." mean? The bids (if > written) are on the table in plain sight already. What, exactly, does the > person who answers the question need to do to "ensure that it is clear > to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made," when the bidding > sheet is already visible to all? On bidding sheets the calls are legible; using boxes the calls are tidily arranged with all the passes in place (and not hidden behind a bidding box; I've had to rule that one); using silent bidders it probably requires a restatement of the auction. i see it as no more sinister than "Everyone has the right to know what's happened to date." > > -Bob > > -Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 18 15:41:24 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:41:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <001101c859d3$7505b920$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <001101c859d3$7505b920$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4790BA94.2020402@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: > ............... >>> Please explain why partner in doing so does not himself violate >>> Law 20F5 in "indicating" that you (as a consequence of his own >>> previous incorrect explanation) have given incorrect explanations? >>> >> Indeed he does violate L20F5. But since he knows I have only given the >> "wrong" explanation because of that same L20F5, I feel it should be >> allowed. The laws are not able to solve their own dilemmas. > > So at least you admit that L20F5 is not necessarily the superior law over > those demanding full and correct description of agreements? > I fail to see how you can deduce that from what I wrote. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 18 15:40:58 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:40:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <47909779.5050704@skynet.be> References: <000d01c859bf$98018080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47909779.5050704@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jan 18, 2008, at 7:11 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Drop the argument that it would be legal. We're far beyond that one. > Even the WBFLC have now admitted that they need an official > pronouncement in order to make the DWS illegal. I'm no apologist for the WBFLC, but that's an outright slander. To the extent that Grattan and Ton have represented the thinking of the WBFLC, they have stated clearly and uneqivocably that they do not need any further pronouncement in order to make the DWS illegal. They have now admitted that they may need an official pronouncement in order to convince Herman that the DWS is illegal and get him to shut up already. That's not the same thing by a long shot. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Fri Jan 18 15:46:30 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:46:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. References: <00b301c8595c$89dfd4b0$0701a8c0@john> <694eadd40801172151t5814b9f2ud51ad90e4b7a63d7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <008601c859e0$ecef9610$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 5:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. > On Jan 17, 2008 5:58 PM, John Probst wrote: > >> > I reach a slam and take 12 tricks. Why will you award me -50? Because >> > my >> > opponents defended poorly? Because they were unlikely to do so? Suppose >> I >> > had played well to score 12 tricks. That's certainly unlikely! Suppose >> > I >> > make 12 tricks through guessing a 2-way finesse. Will you rule that, >> after >> > all, I might have misguessed? Suppose I make 12 tricks by taking a >> one-way >> > finesse. Will I get -50 since the king might, after all, have been >> > offside? >> > >> > Once we allow for things to have happened differently than they did, >> other >> > than the illegal call itself, where do we stop? >> >> "In 6 I have to take a finesse for just made or two off, so I take the >> finesse. In 5 I can establish 11 tricks by brute force" > > > How is this relevant? I was in slam and I took 12 tricks. Do you propose > adjusting my score to -50 because I would have played differently has we > stopped at the five level? +450 instead of +480 I would understand -- > perhaps that's what you're suggesting. Yup, it is, and would be a valid claim by the NOs against the OS. TD: "adjust from 980 to 450" > > -- > Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 18 16:03:01 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:03:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <02bb01c859dc$f0360b50$6aca403e@Mildred> References: <02bb01c859dc$f0360b50$6aca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4790BFA5.5060000@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > and has led to comments that "we are dealing with the > first lesson in a course for TD's. There is no need to react > to every stupid remark made by ... (Herman De Wael)..., > but otherwise saying it does no harm." > and > "Since ... (Herman De Wael) ..... is getting support from > graffiti scratchers both in Europe and in the USA (one of > whom describes him as an 'expert' in the laws), I think it > eminently desirable to kill the illusion." > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I believe the words "stupid remark", "graffiti scratchers" and the parenthesis around expert are personal attacks that are unworthy of repeating on blml. I note that Grattan did not write them himself, but by repeating them he has committed the error the original writer at least avoided. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 18 16:23:12 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:23:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <02ED46B2-A1F6-4889-AC51-995EB94CBB16@starpower.net> References: <015101c85962$69da7250$aed0403e@Mildred> <200801180030.AA12057@geller204.nifty.com> <4790908C.9060000@ulb.ac.be> <02ED46B2-A1F6-4889-AC51-995EB94CBB16@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4790C460.50607@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > The DWS counter-argues that it applies only when the player must > flagrantly violate L72B1 perforce. This is based on the argument > that it may be impossible to comply with L75B without violating L20F5 > IMOCO, the problem doesn't lie with L20F5, but with L73B1, with also is an explicit prohibition. From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 18 16:36:51 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:36:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B, (2) L11 In-Reply-To: <200801181337.AA12075@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000101c859e7$f2b08030$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Robert Geller .............. > >"Calls not spoken" include for instance calls written by hand on a piece > of > >paper. > > Yes, I understand that part. But that's not my question. My question > is, what > does "must ensure that it is clear > to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made." mean? The bids (if > written) are on the table in plain sight already. What, exactly, does the > person who answers the question need to do to "ensure that it is clear > to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made," when the bidding > sheet is already visible to all? Oh dear! Have you never experienced a bridge player writing so illegible that even he himself has difficulties knowing what he has written? Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 18 16:41:40 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:41:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B, (2) L11 In-Reply-To: <002e01c859df$b9034f00$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000201c859e8$9f0a0d60$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of John Probst > > ................>> Q2. > >>> The footnote to L20B reads as follows: > >>> ************************************************* > >>> * When the calls are not spoken responders must ensure that it is > clear > >>> to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made. > >>> ************************************************* > >>> Let's say we're using bidding boxes. Could someone please explain > what > >>> the above law means, in practical terms? Does it just mean the > bidding > >>> cards should be kept clearly visible and neatly laid out? Or does it > >>> have > >>> some more profound meaning? > >> > >>"Calls not spoken" include for instance calls written by hand on a piece > >>of > >>paper. > > > > Yes, I understand that part. But that's not my question. My question > > is, what > > does "must ensure that it is clear > > to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made." mean? The bids (if > > written) are on the table in plain sight already. What, exactly, does > the > > person who answers the question need to do to "ensure that it is clear > > to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made," when the bidding > > sheet is already visible to all? > > On bidding sheets the calls are legible; using boxes the calls are tidily > arranged with all the passes in place (and not hidden behind a bidding > box; Are you absolutely sure that means for making auctions when calls are not spoken are guaranteed free of the possibility to create misunderstandings everywhere in the world? Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 18 16:43:58 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:43:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080118082201.HAGE17256.aamtain03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> References: <20080118082201.HAGE17256.aamtain03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <4790C93E.40109@ntlworld.com> [ton] This blml group produces idiotic views day by day and has no memory. It likes too much controversion and creates it. This typical example has come up at least three times in the last couple of years and in all three cases DWS was told to be wrong. By experts who, believe it or not, are entitled to explain the meaning of the laws. But, illustrating the attitude in this group, Nigel calls this 'patronizing other experts'. It is much too late for anybody to reduce confusion, you live on it. [nige1] As Ton points out, over the past ten years, DWS and some other controversies rage on BLML for a while, then resurface a little later, again and again. Some ordinary BLMLers regard these disputes as important, even if law-makers would prefer to dismiss them. Players and directors who read BLML are grateful to the WBFLC and their "acolytes" :) for explaining what the law-makers really mean. Of course, such experts are entitled to respect for their views; but unfortunately such interpretations *don't have the force of law*. It would be better if the WBFLC published an *official clarification* that did have the force of law. Preferably, altering the *text of the law-book*, in place, rather than issuing an obscure minute. Incidentally, IMO, Ton's *appendix* of paradigm rulings is not really the place for fundamental clarification but it would be better than nothing. To be of real use, however, its guidance would have to be *official* and it would have to have the *force of law*. Some of the WBFLC may believe that the law book is as good as it can get. Does it matter whether discrepancies are real or figments of the reader's imagination? The WBFLC should still be concerned that so many ordinary people "misunderstand" what is written in the same way. Manifestly Ton is correct when he implies that the law-makers cannot satisfy all nit-pickers. In the opinion of some critics, there will always remain minor ambiguities, inconsistencies, and solecisms. Surely, however, the law makers can resolve the major "perceived" discrepancies -- whether or not they are real. As Ton says, these anomalies have been highlighted repeatedly in BLML and elsewhere by the likes of Konrad Ciborowski, Jerry Fusselman, David Burn, Robert Geller, Herman de Wael, Adam Widavski, and Steve Willner. Ton may regard these contributors as non-expert but he should still consider the merits of their arguments. In summary: IMO, most players depend on the law-book as their source of informaton on Bridge rules. Ton has a low opinion of BLMLers but they are typical of non-BLML players and directors who have similar difficulties in interpreting the law book. Realistically, such people are unlikely to consult obscure minutes or search discussion groups like BLML for clarification from WBFLC gurus. Hence, the law-book needs urgent clarification. I apologise to BLMLers for repeating the same simple argument in such tedious detail but IMO, nobody has yet made a real attempt to refute it and clarifying the rules of bridge is the prime purpose of BLML. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 18 16:46:34 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:46:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B, (2) L11 In-Reply-To: <200801181337.AA12075@geller204.nifty.com> References: <001201c859d6$7201e7a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200801181337.AA12075@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <4790C9DA.6060000@ntlworld.com> [L11A] FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO RECTIFICATION A. Action by Non-Offending Side The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law. [Rober Geller] QUESTION 1: Can anyone give me an example of a case "when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law." [nigel] Some guesses until you get an expert opinion: A non-offender may misexplain relevant law; or he may continue bidding or playing when the the director could have "wound back" the auction. Or he may attempt to substitute a different card in an established revoke. [L20B footnote] ************************************************* * When the calls are not spoken responders must ensure that it is clear to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made. ************************************************* Let's say we're using bidding boxes. Could someone please explain what the above law means, in practical terms? Does it just mean the bidding cards should be kept clearly visible and neatly laid out? Or does it have some more profound meaning? [nige1] I think Robert's interpretation is correct. In the EBU, we are told how to lay out our bidding cards in a uniform and visible way; a bidder must prominently display the "stop" card before a jump bid. When appropriate, a caller's partner must promptly display the "alert" card and ensure that his opponents are aware of it. In particular, we must leave the bidding cards visible *on the table* until the opening lead is faced, so that questions may be asked. From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 18 16:58:58 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:58:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B, (2) L11 In-Reply-To: <200801181356.AA12076@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000301c859eb$09ed4370$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Robert Geller ...................... > In other words, in your specific example, "takes any action" means the NOS > issued a ruling on its own, rather than waiting for the director to rule. Absolutely > Can you provide a couple of other examples? Thanks. Isn't one example sufficient to show the principle that if NOS takes any action before summoning the Director and because of this may have gained from the rectification due to subsequent actions taken by OS then the Director shall rule such rectification forfeited? Be aware that the Director may also rule all rectification (for the original irregularity) forfeited when NOS takes any action before summoning the Director after attention has been called to an irregularity. Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 18 17:05:58 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:05:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <02bb01c859dc$f0360b50$6aca403e@Mildred> References: <02bb01c859dc$f0360b50$6aca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4790CE66.7030302@ntlworld.com> [Eric Landau] The majority believes that the DWS, which counsels flagrantly violating this law, is cheating. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ In further developments this has become: "When asked for the meaning of his partner's call it is a player's duty to explain the partnership understanding fully and correctly. If in doing so he reveals incidentally that he thinks his partner has misexplained a prior call there is no violation of Law 20F5(a)." and has led to comments that "we are dealing with the first lesson in a course for TD's. There is no need to react to every stupid remark made by ... (Herman De Wael)..., but otherwise saying it does no harm." and "Since ... (Herman De Wael) ..... is getting support from graffiti scratchers both in Europe and in the USA (one of whom describes him as an 'expert' in the laws), I think it eminently desirable to kill the illusion." [nige1] When contributors descend to virulent invective, they demean their arguments, themselves, and BLML. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 18 18:25:56 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:25:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists References: <000d01c859bf$98018080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47909779.5050704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <044b01c859f7$2f62fdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Indeed he does violate L20F5. But since he knows I have only given the > "wrong" explanation because of that same L20F5, I feel it should be > allowed. The laws are not able to solve their own dilemmas. > Please, Herman. How does he know this? I think that this question is very important. I think it seems that there must be more cross-table communication than just explanations, if I am aware that partner has not forgotten the system, but is only explaining the wrong system because I am. >>> After which, we're both explaining as system A. >> >> After both of you of course have not only corrected your own previous >> incorrect explanations, but in doing so even confirmed that your >> respective >> partners had given incorrect explanations. >> > > Yes, but since that was triggered by his realisation (without UI) of > his own misexplanation, there is still only UI in one direction, not two. So the dWS goes out the window when both players have forgotten the system, or when one has forgot and the other is misexplaining on purpose. As I understand it so far, one player (perhaps N or E?) is permitted required to tell the director once he realises that he has given information, while the other player (do we choose which is which beforehand?) can go through tthe whole auction realising that he has given, and is continuing to give, misinformation. Wow. >>> No, we're giving MI. Nothing we can do about that. In fact, L20F5 >>> tells us that once MI has been given, only the one who has given it >>> can change that. The other one is barred from "indicating in any >>> manner". >> >> But in the current situation both players have given MI so according to >> your >> own statement both players are barred from correcting their own errors >> because such corrections would "indicate" their respective partner's >> error! >> Do please answer this. It is an important issue to resolve if you aim to convince people that dWS might be better for the game and should be legalised at some future point. Stefanie Rohan London, England From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 18 18:29:02 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:29:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <4790C460.50607@ulb.ac.be> References: <015101c85962$69da7250$aed0403e@Mildred> <200801180030.AA12057@geller204.nifty.com> <4790908C.9060000@ulb.ac.be> <02ED46B2-A1F6-4889-AC51-995EB94CBB16@starpower.net> <4790C460.50607@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801180929k6f80eb5arc08267e2fbb327f4@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 18, 2008 10:23 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > > The DWS counter-argues that it applies only when the player must > > flagrantly violate L72B1 perforce. This is based on the argument > > that it may be impossible to comply with L75B without violating L20F5 > > > IMOCO, the problem doesn't lie with L20F5, but with L73B1, with also is > an explicit prohibition. > I currently consider Eric's argument the strongest in favor of MS, but it is only a positive argument---i.e., it focuses only on what the law *is*. Eric is not here addressing the normative side of DWS---what the law *should be*---i.e., whether or not DWS is better for the game. Alain's point is interesting. Here is Law 73B1: "Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them." This seems to support the notion that calls that communicate to partner that there has been a misunderstanding are just as legal under DWS as they are under MS. In both, no doubt one cannot choose from the logical alternatives one that more clearly demonstrates that a misunderstanding is present if that demonstration is likely to help the score. (Surely someone can word this better.) The positive side of DWS might soon be moot, but the normative argument for DWS seems to me quite strong. Jerry Fusselman From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 18 18:31:58 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:31:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists References: <000d01c859bf$98018080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47909779.5050704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <044d01c859f8$07100130$0100a8c0@stefanie> From: "Eric Landau" > On Jan 18, 2008, at 7:11 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Drop the argument that it would be legal. We're far beyond that one. >> Even the WBFLC have now admitted that they need an official >> pronouncement in order to make the DWS illegal. > > I'm no apologist for the WBFLC, but that's an outright slander. To > the extent that Grattan and Ton have represented the thinking of the > WBFLC, they have stated clearly and uneqivocably that they do not > need any further pronouncement in order to make the DWS illegal. > They have now admitted that they may need an official pronouncement > in order to convince Herman that the DWS is illegal and get him to > shut up already. That's not the same thing by a long shot. On the one hand, it seems astounding that the WBFLC are compelled to make an official pronouncement in order to shut one troublemaker up. However, it is one troublemaker on BLML; there may be others out in the wider world who have hit upon the dWS independently. Yes, it requires tortured logic to get from TFLB to the dWS, but it cannot hurt to make the situation clear. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 18 20:06:21 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:06:21 -0600 Subject: [blml] Fw: DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4790CE66.7030302@ntlworld.com> References: <02bb01c859dc$f0360b50$6aca403e@Mildred> <4790CE66.7030302@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801181106m35bf93c0hd29697ea9b5592e7@mail.gmail.com> > > [nige1] > When contributors descend to virulent invective, they demean their > arguments, themselves, and BLML. > I agree. From geller at nifty.com Sat Jan 19 01:00:52 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:00:52 +0900 Subject: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B, (2) L11 In-Reply-To: <002e01c859df$b9034f00$0701a8c0@john> References: <002e01c859df$b9034f00$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <200801190000.AA12080@geller204.nifty.com> John Probst writes: >>What, exactly, does the >> person who answers the question need to do to "ensure that it is clear >> to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made," when the bidding >> sheet is already visible to all? > >On bidding sheets the calls are legible; using boxes the calls are tidily >arranged with all the passes in place (and not hidden behind a bidding box; >I've had to rule that one); using silent bidders it probably requires a >restatement of the auction. i see it as no more sinister than "Everyone has >the right to know what's happened to date." Thanks, John. That's what we thought it meant, but we weren't sure. The obvious question though: if that's what was meant (I agree it probably is) why isn't that what the DSC said? It would have been much easier to understand. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Jan 19 01:25:28 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 01:25:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWs/MS Message-ID: <47914378.6090107@aol.com> Am I missing something? It seems that the whole dWs/Ms discussion is concerned (only) with hands in which there is uncertainty about the meaning of a bid.(?) Better expressed: in which (at least) one partner has forgotten the agreed system and the pair is on different wave lengths. Is that true or have I misunderstood something? When I play, or direct, the players agree on their system and conventions, discuss them, etc. Many are partnerships of long duration. They (almost) never have such misunderstandings. With newer partnerships such misunderstandings do occur. I should estimate in something like 1% or 2% of the hands; surely not more than 5%. Am I misestimating the frequency? If not we have been discussing, vitriolically in part, for a long time something that rarely occurs. When I direct a normal club game it might come up once -- more likely not at all. Is my experience here extraordinary? Have I been reading millions of words about something that occurs so infrequently? Ciao, JE From agot at ulb.ac.be Sat Jan 19 11:33:00 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:33:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWs/MS In-Reply-To: <47914378.6090107@aol.com> References: <47914378.6090107@aol.com> Message-ID: <4791D1DC.4090702@ulb.ac.be> Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > When I play, or direct, the players agree on their system and > conventions, discuss them, etc. Many are partnerships of long duration. > They (almost) never have such misunderstandings. With newer > partnerships such misunderstandings do occur. I should estimate in > something like 1% or 2% of the hands; surely not more than 5%. Am I > misestimating the frequency? If not we have been discussing, > vitriolically in part, for a long time something that rarely occurs. > When I direct a normal club game it might come up once -- more likely > not at all. Is my experience here extraordinary? > > It isn't. But I have a different perception. A problem that is likely to apply (according to your figures) to 1 to 2 % of the deals (once every two sessions for a given partnership) and will create a problem for the TD once every 2 sessions of a club game is no small fry. 1 or 2 % of the deals is much more than the surm of my revokes, BOOTs, LOOTs and inadvertently exposed cards. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Jan 19 12:51:09 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:51:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <044b01c859f7$2f62fdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000d01c859bf$98018080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47909779.5050704@skynet.be> <044b01c859f7$2f62fdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4791E42D.4000003@skynet.be> Hello Stefanie, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> Indeed he does violate L20F5. But since he knows I have only given the >> "wrong" explanation because of that same L20F5, I feel it should be >> allowed. The laws are not able to solve their own dilemmas. >> > Please, Herman. How does he know this? I think that this question is very > important. I have forgotten what this argument is about, but my partner knows I have given the "wrong" explanation because he knows I do dws principles. He knows my explanation will conform to his previous one. It bears no relation to what the actual system should be. I have not given him information as to whether I believe his explanation was right or wrong. > > I think it seems that there must be more cross-table communication than just > explanations, if I am aware that partner has not forgotten the system, but > is only explaining the wrong system because I am. > The situation is even better. Suppose my partner does not remember our system. He guesses. He next makes a call, under the same guess. I know what that call means, but that is UI to me. I should continue to interpret his call under what I thought our system was. Under DWS, I shall explain his call consistently with his explanation. He knows this is correct, as to his hand, but he still has no idea of what our system really is. All this is independent of what our system is, of what I think our system is, and of how certain I am this is right. >>>> After which, we're both explaining as system A. >>> After both of you of course have not only corrected your own previous >>> incorrect explanations, but in doing so even confirmed that your >>> respective >>> partners had given incorrect explanations. >>> >> Yes, but since that was triggered by his realisation (without UI) of >> his own misexplanation, there is still only UI in one direction, not two. > > So the dWS goes out the window when both players have forgotten the system, No, of course not. > or when one has forgot and the other is misexplaining on purpose. As I No, of course not. > understand it so far, one player (perhaps N or E?) is permitted required to > tell the director once he realises that he has given information, while the > other player (do we choose which is which beforehand?) can go through tthe > whole auction realising that he has given, and is continuing to give, > misinformation. Wow. > No, neither player realizes he has given misinformation. The first misexplainer does not know, and will not learn, whether or not his explanation is right. The second explainer (=the first bidder) also does not need to know whether the system he is explaining is the correct one (in fact, how could he know that for certain - he's not allowed to look it up). But only by explaining consistently can he keep the first misexplainer from knowing whether the first explanation suits his hand. >>>> No, we're giving MI. Nothing we can do about that. In fact, L20F5 >>>> tells us that once MI has been given, only the one who has given it >>>> can change that. The other one is barred from "indicating in any >>>> manner". >>> But in the current situation both players have given MI so according to >>> your >>> own statement both players are barred from correcting their own errors >>> because such corrections would "indicate" their respective partner's >>> error! >>> > Do please answer this. It is an important issue to resolve if you aim to > convince people that dWS might be better for the game and should be > legalised at some future point. > I have not yet stopped answering to posts that are still willing to listen, and that not merely repeat everything that has been said 27 times already. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john at asimere.com Sat Jan 19 16:01:38 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:01:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B, (2) L11 References: <000201c859e8$9f0a0d60$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <003901c85aac$3810d0c0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B, (2) L11 >> On Behalf Of John Probst >> > ................>> Q2. >> >>> The footnote to L20B reads as follows: >> >>> ************************************************* >> >>> * When the calls are not spoken responders must ensure that it is >> clear >> >>> to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made. >> >>> ************************************************* >> >>> Let's say we're using bidding boxes. Could someone please explain >> what >> >>> the above law means, in practical terms? Does it just mean the >> bidding >> >>> cards should be kept clearly visible and neatly laid out? Or does it >> >>> have >> >>> some more profound meaning? >> >> >> >>"Calls not spoken" include for instance calls written by hand on a >> >>piece >> >>of >> >>paper. >> > >> > Yes, I understand that part. But that's not my question. My question >> > is, what >> > does "must ensure that it is clear >> > to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made." mean? The bids >> > (if >> > written) are on the table in plain sight already. What, exactly, does >> the >> > person who answers the question need to do to "ensure that it is clear >> > to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made," when the bidding >> > sheet is already visible to all? >> >> On bidding sheets the calls are legible; using boxes the calls are tidily >> arranged with all the passes in place (and not hidden behind a bidding >> box; > > Are you absolutely sure that means for making auctions when calls are not > spoken are guaranteed free of the possibility to create misunderstandings > everywhere in the world? I see it this way. I had a player, unintentionally I'm sure, hiding part of the auction under his bidding box (or scorecard, doesn't matter); and this misled opponents. i used this law to get to 72B1 and thus an adjustment. cheers John > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sat Jan 19 16:05:43 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:05:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] dWs/MS References: <47914378.6090107@aol.com> Message-ID: <004801c85aac$c67e2650$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 12:25 AM Subject: [blml] dWs/MS snip > > Have I been reading millions of words about something that occurs so > infrequently? Ciao, JE > Come, come, Jeff. Most of what we discuss here _is_ esoteric. Most of the time we _do_ know what we're doing as TDs. But now and then we spot (to use Robin's phrase) a lacuna and robust discussion is how, eventually (pace dWS), we do come to a conclusion. This is a _good_ thing. John > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sat Jan 19 16:07:31 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:07:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <20080118082201.HAGE17256.aamtain03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@toybox.amsterdamned.org> <4790C93E.40109@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <004d01c85aad$06215930$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] snip > > I apologise to BLMLers for repeating the same simple argument in such > tedious detail but IMO, nobody has yet made a real attempt to refute > it and clarifying the rules of bridge is the prime purpose of BLML. > Amen, Nigel. John > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 19 16:59:44 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:59:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B, (2) L11 In-Reply-To: <003901c85aac$3810d0c0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000001c85ab4$4f9420a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of John Probst ........... > >> >>> The footnote to L20B reads as follows: > >> >>> ************************************************* > >> >>> * When the calls are not spoken responders must ensure that it is > >> clear > >> >>> to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made. > >> >>> ************************************************* ................. > > Are you absolutely sure that means for making auctions when calls are > not > > spoken are guaranteed free of the possibility to create > misunderstandings > > everywhere in the world? > > I see it this way. I had a player, unintentionally I'm sure, hiding part > of > the auction under his bidding box (or scorecard, doesn't matter); and this > misled opponents. i used this law to get to 72B1 and thus an adjustment. > cheers John Quite. My point is that regardless of circumstances Law 20B footnote places the responsibility on responder for ensuring that it is clear to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made when calls are not spoken. We don't need to speculate about under what circumstances this might be a case. Regards Sven From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Jan 19 19:16:23 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:16:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <02bb01c859dc$f0360b50$6aca403e@Mildred> References: <02bb01c859dc$f0360b50$6aca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801191016n38e98021n2545e32a3acc57dd@mail.gmail.com> Grattan: > > "When asked for the meaning of his partner's call it is a > player's duty to explain the partnership understanding > fully and correctly. If in doing so he reveals incidentally > that he thinks his partner has misexplained a prior call > there is no violation of Law 20F5(a)." > Three questions. 1. Suppose this is the law and that partner explained my 4NT as Blackwood (possibly an unusual version), but I am 100% sure that our agreement was minors. Now my partner bids 5D and the opponents ask what it means, would this law authorize my saying, "By our system, it shows a preference of diamonds over clubs, because 4NT here is not really Blackwood---it actually shows the minors." ? 2. Are the opponents entitled to know what 5D would mean in response to Blackwood, even though that is not our system here? 3. What if instead of 100%, I am only about 50% sure? What should I do then? Jerry Fusselman From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Jan 19 20:12:03 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:12:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Story (I refuse to write "strory") with a conclusion and truth Message-ID: <47924B83.5030008@aol.com> Probably I am being dimwitted but I don't really understand Herman's comments about truth ("I believe all N...."). I think in most philosophic (and logical) systems there is a difference between truth and what one might believe to be truth. They are not necessarily the same. (The systems in which objective truth is considered a valid concept.) Has Herman left out a phrase (again) or does he not recognise the difference in his answer to Raija? Or have I misunderstood somethiung again? JE From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jan 19 20:56:31 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:56:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B Message-ID: <479255EF.8020509@nhcc.net> From: "John Probst" > I had a player, unintentionally I'm sure, hiding part of > the auction under his bidding box (or scorecard, doesn't matter); and this > misled opponents. i used this law to get to 72B1 and thus an adjustment. Why in the world do you need 72B1? Do you care whether the player "could have known?" I'd think you would go directly from 20B3 to 12A1 (1997 numbers). Of course you wind up at the same place this time, but perhaps some other time you might not. In particular, by this route you adjust whenever a player violates correct procedure and damages an opponent, regardless of whether such damage was "likely" or could have been anticipated. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Jan 20 01:52:45 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:52:45 +0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <02bb01c859dc$f0360b50$6aca403e@Mildred> References: <02bb01c859dc$f0360b50$6aca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47929B5D.3010601@ntlworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Such flattery! On blml I should beware, irony is more common. But, more seriously, if we agree guidance on the subject our responsibility is to ensure that NBOs know of it. We do have the means to forward the guidance to (is it 116 ?) NBOs. Zones also receive it. At the present moment the latest draft with the DSC seeks to make clear the difference between an incidental outcome and an intention. It states: "In trying to explain fully and correctly his partner's call a player may reveal incidentally that he thinks his partner has misexplained a prior call. In such a case there is no violation of law 20F5(a) " [Grattan2] +=+ In further developments this has become: "When asked for the meaning of his partner's call it is a player's duty to explain the partnership understanding fully and correctly. If in doing so he reveals incidentally that he thinks his partner has misexplained a prior call there is no violation of Law 20F5(a)." and has led to comments that ... "we are dealing with the first lesson in a course for TD's. There is no need to react to every stupid remark made by ... (Herman De Wael)..., but otherwise saying it does no harm." and ... "Since ... (Herman De Wael) ..... is getting support from graffiti scratchers both in Europe and in the USA (one of whom describes him as an 'expert' in the laws), I think it eminently desirable to kill the illusion." [Nige1] Perhaps Grattan shouldn't quote the snide remarks of his colleagues. We are grateful to Grattan, however, for trying to clarify the DWS issue. The problem is that the proposed solution seems to involve a lot of palaver, generate reams of bumf, and, on past experience, is unlikely to work: the information is unlikely to reach ordinary players. Why can't the law-committee simply amend the text of the 2007 laws in place? They might even make a few other minor corrections to appease Robert Geller and David Burn; and to render the laws more useful to those unaware of the "intentions" of the WBFLC. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 20 02:48:46 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 01:48:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: DWS - internal inconsistencies inlawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <02bb01c859dc$f0360b50$6aca403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801191016n38e98021n2545e32a3acc57dd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <011701c85b08$afa19f50$1bcb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 6:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: DWS - internal inconsistencies inlawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan: >> >> "When asked for the meaning of his partner's call it is a >> player's duty to explain the partnership understanding >> fully and correctly. If in doing so he reveals incidentally >> that he thinks his partner has misexplained a prior call >> there is no violation of Law 20F5(a)." >> > > Three questions. > > 1. Suppose this is the law and that partner explained my > 4NT as Blackwood (possibly an unusual version), but I am > 100% sure that our agreement was minors. Now my partner > bids 5D and the opponents ask what it means, would this law > authorize my saying, "By our system, it shows a preference of > diamonds over clubs, because 4NT here is not really Blackwood > ---it actually shows the minors." ? > > 2. Are the opponents entitled to know what 5D would mean > in response to Blackwood, even though that is not our system > here? > > 3. What if instead of 100%, I am only about 50% sure? What > should I do then? > > Jerry Fusselman > +=+ To say what you suggest in 1 would not be to reveal *incidentally* in explaining. However, please be patient - the subject is moving on, albeit slowly, and it is just possible there will be something more comprehensive to say in due course. Give us time. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 20 03:00:09 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options References: <200801111634.m0BGYJxf005802@cfa.harvard.edu> <478C1A05.8080407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <011801c85b08$b0b88d90$1bcb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 2:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options >> From: >> +=+ Did the ACBL regulations also add [weighted scores] >> into the 1997 Law 12C2? - or is it a change of policy? > > The ACBL has never adopted weighted scores and > will not do so now, at least as I read the ACBL LC > decisions recently posted. > +=+ I am puzzled. My question had nothing to do with weighted scores. I was asking whether the ACBL's treatment of 1997 Law 12C2 was to add 'had the irregularity not occurred' after 'the most unfavourable result that was at all probable' (as they have decided to do in the 2007 laws) ? ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 20 03:00:09 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options References: <200801111634.m0BGYJxf005802@cfa.harvard.edu> <478C1A05.8080407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <011801c85b08$b0b88d90$1bcb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 2:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options >> From: >> +=+ Did the ACBL regulations also add [weighted scores] >> into the 1997 Law 12C2? - or is it a change of policy? > > The ACBL has never adopted weighted scores and > will not do so now, at least as I read the ACBL LC > decisions recently posted. > +=+ I am puzzled. My question had nothing to do with weighted scores. I was asking whether the ACBL's treatment of 1997 Law 12C2 was to add 'had the irregularity not occurred' after 'the most unfavourable result that was at all probable' (as they have decided to do in the 2007 laws) ? ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 20 03:02:58 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:02:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: <00c601c859c1$1587ca40$cc0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> <47909146.1040303@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <011901c85b08$b19fb940$1bcb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] LA Fearghal O'Boyle a ?crit : > Hi ton, > > You might have read that Grattan suggests the strange > 7S is an LA because this player actually chose it or maybe > it becomes an LA to anyone who knows that 4S will be > disallowed. Personally I think this is stretching the > definition of LA a bit too far. > +=+ I think Fearghal should perhaps read again what I actually wrote +=+ Indeed. We need two conditions to make a LA : 1 - a substantial part of the player's peers woud think about bidding 7S. 2 - at least a small number might well do it. Clearly, condition # 1 isn't satisfied. +=+ Perhaps Alain should consider the definition of LA again. It refers to 'the class of players in question' and to 'a significant proportion' of them. I would think two in nine a significant proportion, maybe even fewer. I raised the question whether the choice of 7S does not perhaps say something about 'the class of players'. I was debating an analysis of the conditions, not making a judgement on the point. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Jan 20 04:45:53 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:45:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B, (2) L11 In-Reply-To: <200801181245.AA12073@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200801181245.AA12073@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <215B08CA5B3D4BA7B18885E484FAA711@erdos> "Robert Geller" writes: > L11A reads as follows: > ********************************************** > LAW 11 - FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO RECTIFICATION > A. Action by Non-Offending Side > The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either > member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the > Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending > side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in > ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law. > ************************************************ > QUESTION: Can anyone give me an example of a case "when the > non-offending > side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in > ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law." West plays the SA on a club trick, then corrects his revoke. South says, "That's a penalty card," but does not call the TD. South loses a trick to East. South then tells East, "You may not lead a spade". East would have let West win the trick if he had known about the penalty. The TD should rule that South may not impose a lead penalty. East leads the HQ out of turn. South says, "I do not accept the lead, and I forbid a heart lead from West", but does not call the TD. West leads the SA, which holds, then switches to a heart. The TD should allow this heart lead, as West was apparently unaware of the rule that he could not lead hearts as long as he retained the lead, and he cashed the SA in ignorance of that rule. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Jan 21 02:05:25 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:05:25 -0800 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <011901c85b08$b19fb940$1bcb403e@Mildred> References: <00c601c859c1$1587ca40$cc0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> <47909146.1040303@ulb.ac.be> <011901c85b08$b19fb940$1bcb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080120170001.01dab620@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 06:02 PM 19/01/2008, you wrote: >Grattan Endicott[following address discontinued: >grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >******************************* >"Judge not the play before the play be done" > [Sir John Davies 1569-1626] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:45 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] LA > > >Fearghal O'Boyle a ?crit : > > Hi ton, > > > > You might have read that Grattan suggests the strange > > 7S is an LA because this player actually chose it or maybe > > it becomes an LA to anyone who knows that 4S will be > > disallowed. Personally I think this is stretching the > > definition of LA a bit too far. > > >+=+ I think Fearghal should perhaps read again what > I actually wrote +=+ > >Indeed. We need two conditions to make a LA : > >1 - a substantial part of the player's peers woud think about > bidding 7S. >2 - at least a small number might well do it. > >Clearly, condition # 1 isn't satisfied. > >+=+ Perhaps Alain should consider the definition of LA again. > It refers to 'the class of players in question' and to > 'a significant proportion' of them. I would think two > in nine a significant proportion, maybe even fewer. > I raised the question whether the choice of 7S does > not perhaps say something about 'the class of players'. > I was debating an analysis of the conditions, not making > a judgement on the point. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I think the original problem was that the 7S bidder may have considered bidding a 50/50 game after an in tempo 3S. He now thinks that the game is more likely 80/20 because of his partner's hesitation. Moreover, he feels that even if he should bid 4S, it is likely to be ruled back to 3S if 4S should make. So In Australia we call 7S a retribution bid to teach partner better control of his hesitations. When it is doubled we redouble. If the player explains his action to me in these terms, I might allow the 7S and penalise the action under another law which I will look up, or make up, Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jan 20 07:17:34 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 01:17:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: DWS - internal inconsistencies inlawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <011701c85b08$afa19f50$1bcb403e@Mildred> References: <02bb01c859dc$f0360b50$6aca403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801191016n38e98021n2545e32a3acc57dd@mail.gmail.com> <011701c85b08$afa19f50$1bcb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801192217v6ae0e473ubff8fd95421925e7@mail.gmail.com> > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Judge not the play before the play be done" > [Sir John Davies 1569-1626] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > > > Grattan: > >> > >> "When asked for the meaning of his partner's call it is a > >> player's duty to explain the partnership understanding > >> fully and correctly. If in doing so he reveals incidentally > >> that he thinks his partner has misexplained a prior call > >> there is no violation of Law 20F5(a)." > >> > > > > Three questions. > > > > 1. Suppose this is the law and that partner explained my > > 4NT as Blackwood (possibly an unusual version), but I am > > 100% sure that our agreement was minors. Now my partner > > bids 5D and the opponents ask what it means, would this law > > authorize my saying, "By our system, it shows a preference of > > diamonds over clubs, because 4NT here is not really Blackwood > > ---it actually shows the minors." ? > > > > 2. Are the opponents entitled to know what 5D would mean > > in response to Blackwood, even though that is not our system > > here? > > > > 3. What if instead of 100%, I am only about 50% sure? What > > should I do then? > > > > Jerry Fusselman > > > +=+ To say what you suggest in 1 would not be to reveal > *incidentally* in explaining. However, please be patient - the > subject is moving on, albeit slowly, and it is just possible > there will be something more comprehensive to say in due > course. Give us time. > ~ G ~ +=+ > Thanks for responding. While patiently waiting, I am hoping that it will address all three issues. Especially, perhaps, #3. Funny what you said about #1, for if I had instead quoted ""By our system, it shows a preference of diamonds over clubs," I am almost sure you would have said that that is fine. Only the densest would not realize the rest of the story, and if they didn't realise it and were curious, surely MS would eventually allow saying, "Yes, I admit that it is weird to be talking about the minors instead of responding to Blackwood, but you see, 4NT here was not Blackwood in our system. Yes, I realize partner said so, but he was mistaken." What's the difference, whether my original way above or this more prolonged way? The opponents get the same information at the same time. Any my partner does too. Maybe it has something to do with divining intent. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what you come up with. Jerry Fusselman From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Jan 20 10:46:16 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:46:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <4790908C.9060000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain: What's wrong with accepting being penalized to avoid bigger trouble ? ton: Read L 72B1 and L72 B3 and you know the answer. ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Jan 20 10:50:07 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:50:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <00c601c859c1$1587ca40$cc0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> Message-ID: Hi ton, You might have read that Grattan suggests the strange 7S is an LA because this player actually chose it or maybe it becomes an LA to anyone who knows that 4S will be disallowed. Personally I think this is stretching the definition of LA a bit too far. I prefer to adjust via L12 rather than L16 but then I have to ask if there really is an irregularity that sends me to L12? Strictly read I see no reason to adjust but like you I suspect something funny has happened but what? Are you still unsure of an answer? Regards, Fearghal. Hi, I am afraid the answer is 'yes'. We can be sure that the 7S bid has been influenced by the irregularity, but what is the logical part in it. I do not see it and we need an interpretation to let it appear. I put it on an agenda. ton From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 20 11:20:19 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:20:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> Message-ID: <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> ton wrote: > Alain: > > > What's wrong with accepting being penalized to avoid bigger trouble ? > > > ton: > > Read L 72B1 and L72 B3 and you know the answer. > > ton > OK, so I'll put the question differently: What would be wrong with the WBF accepting a certain infraction to become legal, to avoid bigger trouble? So far, Ton and Grattan have given their own personal perception of the case. They believe the DWS is currently illegal, and they have tried to prove that. Failing to convince me, they have used stronger techniques (as is their right), first by using their authorative name, and then by drafting a WBFLC resolution. In their own words, they have tried to silence me. What Ton and Grattan have so far (at least outwardly) failed to consider is whether one option or the other is better for the game of bridge. And that is why I ask the question again: What is so wrong with accepting DWS principles? After all, the DWS minimizes UI, that must be good. The DWS leaves MI uncorrected, but that non-correction was the WBF's wish just prior to the asking of the question, so why should it change when a question is asked? And the DWS adds to that equation some additional MI, which is harmless, in any case far far less harmful than the exisiting one. Ton and Grattan should really consider this before they wish to rule the MS into law, just in order to shut Herman up. If the WBF chooses the DWS, I will also shut up! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 20 12:05:50 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 12:05:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Story (I refuse to write "strory") with a conclusion and truth In-Reply-To: <47924B83.5030008@aol.com> References: <47924B83.5030008@aol.com> Message-ID: <47932B0E.9060602@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Probably I am being dimwitted but I don't really understand Herman's > comments about truth ("I believe all N...."). I think in most > philosophic (and logical) systems there is a difference between truth > and what one might believe to be truth. They are not necessarily the > same. (The systems in which objective truth is considered a valid > concept.) Has Herman left out a phrase (again) or does he not recognise > the difference in his answer to Raija? Or have I misunderstood > somethiung again? JE The problem with "truth" and "lying" here is that we are talking about two different things. In the oft-quoted example, both: "5Di systemically shows diamonds" and "my partner has shown 1 ace" are TRUE. (and don't deny it, any of you). The question is whether saying only the second is "lying". And whether "lying" (in its biblical sense) is permitted by bridge laws and/or acceptable at the bridge table. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 20 12:42:46 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:42:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: <00c601c859c1$1587ca40$cc0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000><47909146.1040303@ulb.ac.be><011901c85b08$b19fb940$1bcb403e@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080120170001.01dab620@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <007c01c85b62$512f34f0$88ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 1:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] LA I think the original problem was that the 7S bidder may have considered bidding a 50/50 game after an in tempo 3S. He now thinks that the game is more likely 80/20 because of his partner's hesitation. Moreover, he feels that even if he should bid 4S, it is likely to be ruled back to 3S if 4S should make. So In Australia we call 7S a retribution bid to teach partner better control of his hesitations. When it is doubled we redouble. If the player explains his action to me in these terms, I might allow the 7S and penalise the action under another law which I will look up, or make up, +=+ If the player's motives are as Tony says I would question whether he is playing the game in accordance with the object in Law 72A1. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 20 13:44:13 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 12:44:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS > > So far, Ton and Grattan have given their own personal perception of > the case. They believe the DWS is currently illegal, and they have > tried to prove that. Failing to convince me, they have used stronger > techniques (as is their right), first by using their authorative name, > and then by drafting a WBFLC resolution. In their own words, they have > tried to silence me. > > What Ton and Grattan have so far (at least outwardly) failed to > consider is whether one option or the other is better for the game of > bridge. > +=+ Herman, Whether one thing or the other is better for the game was something to be considered when we were rewriting the laws in the period 2002 - 2007. There was no suggestion that we reconsider this aspect of the laws from any NBO or Zone, nor from any member of the DSC, when they were consulted early in proceedings for their views on the laws. Again the question did not arise when the drafts (as they were in November) were shown to NBOs and Zones for their final comments. The position now is that we are past the stage of 'what is good for the game'. We are looking at 'what do these laws mean? How do they operate?'. The personal perceptions of the subject to which you refer are supported, and more, throughout the DSC. We are fine tuning the coordination of our views and until this is done it is not useful to say more. However, the DSC as such is not trying to silence you - our object is to back with the authority of the WBF DSC a statement that squashes in the game what we are agreed is a flawed understanding of the law that you are seen to be propagating. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jan 20 16:29:58 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:29:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com> Grattan: > The position now is that we are past the stage of 'what > is good for the game'. We are looking at 'what do these laws > mean? How do they operate?'. The laws could mean exactly what Herman says they mean. Therefore, now is a fine time to consider what is good for game. Not, 'what is good for the game,' but what is actually good for the game. It sounds absurd to me to close down an interpretation that is being used somewhere if that interpretation is good for the game. Think about consequences before taking action. It seems absurd not to. So please, think about it now. Think about a few cases and possibilities. Spell out your arguments. Write about it now. As I wrote a few days ago, writing down reasons is the way to make the best decisions, and it is also the way to make the meaning of those decisions clearest. If you are not thinking one bit about what is best for the game, what are you thinking of? Jerry Fusselman From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 20 17:03:24 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:03:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <479370CC.7040309@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Judge not the play before the play be done" > [Sir John Davies 1569-1626] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 10:20 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS > > >> So far, Ton and Grattan have given their own personal perception of >> the case. They believe the DWS is currently illegal, and they have >> tried to prove that. Failing to convince me, they have used stronger >> techniques (as is their right), first by using their authorative name, >> and then by drafting a WBFLC resolution. In their own words, they have >> tried to silence me. >> >> What Ton and Grattan have so far (at least outwardly) failed to >> consider is whether one option or the other is better for the game of >> bridge. >> > +=+ Herman, > Whether one thing or the other is better for the game > was something to be considered when we were rewriting the > laws in the period 2002 - 2007. There was no suggestion > that we reconsider this aspect of the laws from any NBO or > Zone, nor from any member of the DSC, when they were > consulted early in proceedings for their views on the laws. > Again the question did not arise when the drafts (as they were > in November) were shown to NBOs and Zones for their final > comments. > The position now is that we are past the stage of 'what > is good for the game'. We are looking at 'what do these laws > mean? How do they operate?'. That is not fair, Grattan. You cannot say that you were not aware of my perceptions of what the laws say. You decided not to change anything to those laws. If you had presented law changes, I would have been able to comment on them. To me, under the 2007 laws as I read them, the DWS is still allowed. If you decide to issue the interpretation you suggest now, that is, to me, a law change. It is not fair of you to say "sorry Herman, too late, for the next 10 years you'll be banned from using DWS, you'll have a new chance in 2017". > The personal perceptions of the subject to which you > refer are supported, and more, throughout the DSC. We are > fine tuning the coordination of our views and until this is done > it is not useful to say more. However, the DSC as such is not > trying to silence you - our object is to back with the authority > of the WBF DSC a statement that squashes in the game what > we are agreed is a flawed understanding of the law that you > are seen to be propagating. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > And I urge you to consider very strongly whether my "flawed" understanding may not be, after all, better for the game. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From mustikka at charter.net Sun Jan 20 19:21:12 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:21:12 -0800 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000b01c85b91$3cd7a490$62025e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 7:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS > Grattan: >> The position now is that we are past the stage of 'what >> is good for the game'. We are looking at 'what do these laws >> mean? How do they operate?'. > JF > The laws could mean exactly what Herman says they mean. Therefore, > now is a fine time to consider what is good for game. Not, 'what is > good for the game,' but what is actually good for the game. It sounds > absurd to me to close down an interpretation that is being used > somewhere if that interpretation is good for the game. > > Think about consequences before taking action. It seems absurd not > to. So please, think about it now. Think about a few cases and > possibilities. Spell out your arguments. Write about it now. As I > wrote a few days ago, writing down reasons is the way to make the best > decisions, and it is also the way to make the meaning of those > decisions clearest. > > If you are not thinking one bit about what is best for the game, what > are you thinking of? > > Jerry Fusselman From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Jan 20 19:21:33 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:21:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] WBFLC consultation In-Reply-To: <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4793912D.60902@ntlworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] Whether one thing or the other is better for the game was something to be considered when we were rewriting the laws in the period 2002 - 2007. There was no suggestion that we reconsider this aspect of the laws from any NBO or Zone, nor from any member of the DSC, when they were consulted early in proceedings for their views on the laws. Again the question did not arise when the drafts (as they were in November) were shown to NBOs and Zones for their final comments. The position now is that we are past the stage of 'what is good for the game'. We are looking at 'what do these laws mean? How do they operate?'. [Nige1] Is the consultation process effective? Few players seem to have been aware that the 2007 edition of the laws was imminent. Did any NBO or Zone ask members for suggestions? If an ordinary BLMLer was consulted, please would he let us know how? If, as I suspect, there was no such consultation, was any formal and official channel publicised, whereby ordinary members could influence the WBFLC? Assuming there was no consultation with ordinary players, did any director, official, zone or NBO submit a radical simplifying suggestion? Did a member of the WBFLC come up with one? If so, which, were considered by the WBFLC? Did the WBFLC list the pros and cons for a proposal (as suggested by Jerry Fusselman)? If a proposal was rejected, were any reasons given? Is a bowdlerised version of minutes of WBFLC deliberations on such a suggestion available? From john at asimere.com Sun Jan 20 19:57:29 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:57:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B References: <479255EF.8020509@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002901c85b96$4f37d420$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Two questions (1) footnote to L20B > From: "John Probst" >> I had a player, unintentionally I'm sure, hiding part of >> the auction under his bidding box (or scorecard, doesn't matter); and >> this >> misled opponents. i used this law to get to 72B1 and thus an adjustment. > > Why in the world do you need 72B1? Do you care whether the player > "could have known?" I'd think you would go directly from 20B3 to 12A1 > (1997 numbers). Of course you wind up at the same place this time, but > perhaps some other time you might not. In particular, by this route you > adjust whenever a player violates correct procedure and damages an > opponent, regardless of whether such damage was "likely" or could have > been anticipated. Yeah, but i go via 72B1 as a style thing. i don't need to look up any laws by going that route (complete laziness on my part) :) You're right of course. best John > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sun Jan 20 19:59:44 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:59:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: Message-ID: <003601c85b96$9f869b00$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 9:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] LA > > > Hi ton, > > You might have read that Grattan suggests the strange 7S is an LA because > this player actually chose it or maybe it becomes an LA to anyone who > knows > that 4S will be disallowed. Personally I think this is stretching the > definition of LA a bit too far. > > I prefer to adjust via L12 rather than L16 but then I have to ask if there > really is an irregularity that sends me to L12? Strictly read I see no > reason to adjust but like you I suspect something funny has happened but > what? there is also the possibility of a wire from the previous table :) John > > Are you still unsure of an answer? > Regards, > Fearghal. > > Hi, > > I am afraid the answer is 'yes'. > We can be sure that the 7S bid has been influenced by the irregularity, > but > what is the logical part in it. I do not see it and we need an > interpretation to let it appear. > I put it on an agenda. > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Jan 20 23:51:01 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:51:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Announce [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47862CA4.7000408@immi.gov.au> <2b1e598b0801111030i43a6c69o9e1e1749f64b0578@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0c6201c85bb6$ee6a52a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Jerry Fusselman: > How is "general bridge knowledge and experience" (1997) so vastly > different from "knowledge and experience of matters generally known to > bridge players" (2007)? There does not seem to be a big difference, but I think that the change was an attempt to "tighten up" the requirement. I am sure we all remember a contributor who interpreted this law to mean that he had to disclose virtually nothing; anything he knew was part of HIS experience of generally playing bridge, and the knowledge obtained therefrom. I think the revised law is meant to prevent this sort of thing; "your" knowledge and experience might be wider than your opponent's, so you must disclose inferences, etc., that might be beyond him. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 21 00:17:07 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:17:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie> From: "Jerry Fusselman" > Not, 'what is > good for the game,' but what is actually good for the game. It sounds > absurd to me to close down an interpretation that is being used > somewhere if that interpretation is good for the game. The feeling I get from what Grattan and Ton have written is that the dWS was not considered important enough to address, and would not seriously be considered as being "good for the game". Additionally, the DCS in general did not think that the dWS was a plausible interpretation of the Laws, and so did not see the necessity of changing anything. I think that this discussion rages only on BLML, and that those players who are well-enough educated in the Laws know that it is illegal, and directors know how to deal with it. > > Think about consequences before taking action. It seems absurd not > to. So please, think about it now. Think about a few cases and > possibilities. Spell out your arguments. Write about it now. As I > wrote a few days ago, writing down reasons is the way to make the best > decisions, and it is also the way to make the meaning of those > decisions clearest. There have been a lot of examples posted here. It has become a waste of time. > > If you are not thinking one bit about what is best for the game, what > are you thinking of? I might bang on on BLML that it would be good for the game if, every time a ten was played, the direction of play was reversed. The DCS would give as much consideration to my idea as they apparently have to the dSW. And rightly so. Stefanie Rohan London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 21 02:09:09 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 01:09:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com> <0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000001c85bca$3a4bd9b0$aee38d10$@com> [JF] Think about a few cases and possibilities. Spell out your arguments. Write about it now. [DALB] This has actually happened - I remember it well, for I was on the appeals committee and missed dinner, which I would not have done had the blasted dWS never occurred to anyone. South opened 1D, West passed, North bid 1S and East bid 1NT. Systemically this showed hearts and clubs (the convention card confirmed this), but West - thinking it was natural - did not alert. South, a little taken aback but knowing he could beat 1NT, passed and West bid 2C. East, a dWS practitioner, alerted 2C and explained it as Stayman. Actually, he had never heard of the dWS, but when asked why he alerted, he said "I thought I'd better, when partner didn't alert 1NT." There was no doubt that East-West were honest folk; there was no possibility that East was acting as he did in an effort to put his opponents off (although a true dWS practitioner could know that he was doing precisely that, and no one would ever be able to tell whether or not he did know). North, now thinking that East had a strong no trump and South a weak hand, passed when otherwise he would have bid. He said afterwards, when my committee was trying to unravel the whole mess, that he himself played 1NT as hearts and clubs, and was thinking that this East-West pair did likewise until East alerted 2C. Already, the dWS had made it close to impossible for bridge to continue normally at this table - if East had just kept his trap shut, nothing bad would have happened. East, of course, passed 2C. Now South had to work out what was going on - which again, he would not have done had East not invented the dWS all by himself. Eventually, he concluded that East had psyched a 1NT overcall with a long club suit. Since he had a pretty good hand with a long diamond suit and a club stopper or two, he bid 3NT - after all, West had passed over 1D and East had psyched, so North figured to have more than a minimum 1S response. He said afterwards that he also played 1NT as hearts and clubs, but when East alerted 2C, he assumed that this East-West pair didn't. Afterwards, when questioned as to why he didn't ask West whether 1NT had perhaps meant "hearts and clubs", he said "Why should I ask about an unalerted call, especially when East explained 2C as Stayman?" West led a heart, and 3NT went down when alternative games would have made. When asked why he led a heart and not a club, he said "Because I had QJ108 of hearts and a singleton club." This at least could be empirically verified, and turned out to be true. Now, obviously North-South could have asked more questions than they actually did ask. Equally obviously, the appeals committee could (and did) spend the best part of an hour and a half working out what questions North-South might have asked, and what they would have done had they received the right answers. Here were four honest toilers trying to play some bridge - but neither of the non-offending side knew what had really happened, nor could they reasonably be expected to find out after the dWS had reared its hideous head. The offenders were acting in all good faith, and in strict accordance with the dWS, and it caused the most unholy shambles. If they had been MS practitioners, of course, the auction would have kept the noiseless tenor of its way, and I would not have had to play the evening session in a state bordering on starvation (although I am prepared to concede that the buffer zone was probably sufficient). Good for the game? Pass the sick-bag, Alice. David Burn London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 21 09:11:36 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:11:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com> <0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <479453B8.8030307@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > >> Not, 'what is >> good for the game,' but what is actually good for the game. It sounds >> absurd to me to close down an interpretation that is being used >> somewhere if that interpretation is good for the game. > > The feeling I get from what Grattan and Ton have written is that the dWS was > not considered important enough to address, and would not seriously be > considered as being "good for the game". Additionally, the DCS in general > did not think that the dWS was a plausible interpretation of the Laws, and > so did not see the necessity of changing anything. > I doubt if these people are so foolish as to investigate this and not write a single syllable countering my arguments. All we received from Grattan and Ton were short, generally derogatory remarks. I think that the time spent by myself and others on this topic deserves more consideration than that. I doubt if the full proceedings of the DCS will be made available, but I urge Grattan to correct me and tell me how many time has been spent officially at DWS. > I think that this discussion rages only on BLML, and that those players who > are well-enough educated in the Laws know that it is illegal, and directors > know how to deal with it. You might think so. I beg to differ. >> Think about consequences before taking action. It seems absurd not >> to. So please, think about it now. Think about a few cases and >> possibilities. Spell out your arguments. Write about it now. As I >> wrote a few days ago, writing down reasons is the way to make the best >> decisions, and it is also the way to make the meaning of those >> decisions clearest. > > There have been a lot of examples posted here. It has become a waste of > time. Very nice, Stefanie. I have posted lots of examples. I have given lots of reasons why DWS is better. I don't think it's a waste of time. The MS have banged on trying to prove DWS is illegal, but they have never given a single example (sorry, Sven has - we've also dealt with that one) in which MS performs better, not has a single argument been put forward trying to claim why the MS is better for the game. BTW, I count "because it is not lying to opponents" as a bad claim. >> If you are not thinking one bit about what is best for the game, what >> are you thinking of? > > I might bang on on BLML that it would be good for the game if, every time a > ten was played, the direction of play was reversed. The DCS would give as > much consideration to my idea as they apparently have to the dSW. And > rightly so. > Don't be flippant. If you really believe that such a suggestion comes even close to the DWS in value, you're not worthy of discussion. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sun Jan 20 00:00:47 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:00:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <005001c85aef$5946e0c0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 3:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > [nige1] > Most players and directors will try to understand the law-book. > Whatever the intentions of law-makers, it is the meaning of the laws > themselves that matter. Most players and directors will never be aware of > the personal views of law-committee members and their "acolytes" :) Some > would accord that group's views no more weight than the views of the other > experts, whom they patronise. The 2007 law-book provides the WBFLC with > the > golden opportunity to lay DWS and other controversies to rest until the > next > edition. So far, the 2007 laws haven't been widely promulgated, so it may > not be too late for the WBFLC to grasp this opportunity to reduce > confusion. > > > ton: > This blml group produces idiotic views day by day and has no memory. It > likes too much controversion and creates it. This typical example has come > up at least three times in the last couple of years and in all three cases > DWS was told to be wrong. By experts who, believe it or not, are entitled > to > explain the meaning of the laws. But, illustrating the attitude in this > group, Nigel calls this 'patronizing other experts'. > > It is much too late for anybody to reduce confusion, you live on it. > > ton > I was in a session discussing some new developments for US government program officers who oversee contracts this week. One thing that the speaker said struck me as relevant to this group, and perhaps to the WBFLC. The speaker told of three new sets of contract regulations that are being forwarded, some of which are in conflict (and some of which are absurd), and told of things that were being done to resolve the conflicts prior to official implementations of the regulations. He then went on to say something important which I will try to paraphrase correctly: "...but we all know that what is said is irrelevant, we will have to wait for the written regulations. When they are issued, that is what we will have to do". Note that the people who were issuing the verbal reassurances are the same people that will be issuing the regulations. However, the regulations that will have to be followed by US government employees are going to be the ones that come out in writing. Those can be changed, if necessary, but they cannot be verbally interpreted, even by the people that wrote them. Nor can faulty or incomprehensible regulations be ignored by those under their jurisdiction. We simply read them, and comply as best we can. Experts can tell Herman that he is wrong. I happen to agree with them. However, neither my comments nor those of experts have the force of a written regulation accessible to all. The written Laws are what we have to follow. So, when Herman says that L20F5 tells him that he may not "indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made", he is correct in one sense. His view is a valid interpretation of what was written. That is what the Law says, and that which is written in the Laws is what counts. There are enough conflicts with other Laws that most of us can see that Herman's interpretation of what is said by this Law is not the intent of the Law. However, the intent of the Law is not the Law. A simple qualification added to the first sentence of L20F5, such as "except if such an indication should arise from explanations required under L20F1" might do it. The exact wording I leave to those who write Laws better than I. I agree that from the standpoint of those who write the Laws, some of these discussions might be seem silly. The Lawmakers know how they intend the game to be played. However, that intent means absolutely nothing unless it appears in the final written Laws, accessible to a TD standing at the table making a ruling. Those TD were not party to the discussions where the intent of the Law was made clear. They simply have to figure out the written Laws and hope that they got it right. It is up to the WBFLC to look at the language of the Laws, and remove or correct those parts of Laws that are incomplete, have valid alternate interpretations or are simply incomprehensible. To that extent, much of the discussion that the WBFLC find idiotic can be laid at their own feet. A simple clause in L20F5 would end DWS once and for all. If an expert is required to explain the meaning of a Law to someone of reasonable intelligence, it is a badly written Law. Hirsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080119/bb23683d/attachment-0001.htm From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sun Jan 20 00:36:04 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:36:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <001e01c85af4$0f30b6f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 3:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > [nige1] > Most players and directors will try to understand the law-book. > Whatever the intentions of law-makers, it is the meaning of the laws > themselves that matter. Most players and directors will never be aware of > the personal views of law-committee members and their "acolytes" :) Some > would accord that group's views no more weight than the views of the other > experts, whom they patronise. The 2007 law-book provides the WBFLC with > the > golden opportunity to lay DWS and other controversies to rest until the > next > edition. So far, the 2007 laws haven't been widely promulgated, so it may > not be too late for the WBFLC to grasp this opportunity to reduce > confusion. > > > ton: > This blml group produces idiotic views day by day and has no memory. It > likes too much controversion and creates it. This typical example has come > up at least three times in the last couple of years and in all three cases > DWS was told to be wrong. By experts who, believe it or not, are entitled > to > explain the meaning of the laws. But, illustrating the attitude in this > group, Nigel calls this 'patronizing other experts'. > > It is much too late for anybody to reduce confusion, you live on it. > > ton > I was in a session discussing some new developments for US government program officers who oversee contracts this week. One thing that the speaker said struck me as relevant to this group, and perhaps to the WBFLC. The speaker told of three new sets of contract regulations that are being forwarded, some of which are in conflict (and some of which are absurd), and told of things that were being done to resolve the conflicts prior to official implementations of the regulations. He then went on to say something important which I will try to paraphrase correctly: "...but we all know that what is said is irrelevant, we will have to wait for the written regulations. When they are issued, that is what we will have to do". Note that the people who were issuing the verbal reassurances are the same people that will be issuing the regulations. However, the regulations that will have to be followed by US government employees are going to be the ones that come out in writing. Those can be changed, if necessary, but they cannot be verbally interpreted, even by the people that wrote them. Nor can faulty or incomprehensible regulations be ignored by those under their jurisdiction. We simply read them, and comply as best we can. Experts can tell Herman that he is wrong. I happen to agree with them. However, neither my comments nor those of experts have the force of a written regulation accessible to all. The written Laws are what we have to follow. So, when Herman says that L20F5 tells him that he may not "indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made", he is correct in one sense. His view is a valid interpretation of what was written. That is what the Law says, and that which is written in the Laws is what counts. There are enough conflicts with other Laws that most of us can see that Herman's interpretation of what is said by this Law is not the intent of the Law. However, the intent of the Law is not the Law. A simple qualification added to the first sentence of L20F5, such as "except if such an indication should arise from explanations required under L20F1" might do it. The exact wording I leave to those who write Laws better than I. I agree that from the standpoint of those who write the Laws, some of these discussions might be seem silly. The Lawmakers know how they intend the game to be played. However, that intent means absolutely nothing unless it appears in the final written Laws, accessible to a TD standing at the table making a ruling. Those TD were not party to the discussions where the intent of the Law was made clear. They simply have to figure out the written Laws and hope that they got it right. It is up to the WBFLC to look at the language of the Laws, and remove or correct those parts of Laws that are incomplete, have valid alternate interpretations or are simply incomprehensible. To that extent, much of the discussion that the WBFLC find idiotic can be laid at their own feet. A simple clause in L20F5 would end DWS once and for all. If an expert is required to explain the meaning of a Law to someone of reasonable intelligence, it is a badly written Law. Hirsch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080119/35e9fc88/attachment.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 21 09:33:39 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:33:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <000001c85bca$3a4bd9b0$aee38d10$@com> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com> <0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000001c85bca$3a4bd9b0$aee38d10$@com> Message-ID: <479458E3.4060504@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [JF] > > Think about a few cases and possibilities. Spell out your arguments. Write > about it now. > > [DALB] > > This has actually happened - I remember it well, for I was on the appeals > committee and missed dinner, which I would not have done had the blasted dWS > never occurred to anyone. > > South opened 1D, West passed, North bid 1S and East bid 1NT. Systemically > this showed hearts and clubs (the convention card confirmed this), but West > - thinking it was natural - did not alert. > > South, a little taken aback but knowing he could beat 1NT, passed and West > bid 2C. East, a dWS practitioner, alerted 2C and explained it as Stayman. > Actually, he had never heard of the dWS, but when asked why he alerted, he > said "I thought I'd better, when partner didn't alert 1NT." There was no > doubt that East-West were honest folk; there was no possibility that East > was acting as he did in an effort to put his opponents off (although a true > dWS practitioner could know that he was doing precisely that, and no one > would ever be able to tell whether or not he did know). > > North, now thinking that East had a strong no trump and South a weak hand, > passed when otherwise he would have bid. He said afterwards, when my > committee was trying to unravel the whole mess, that he himself played 1NT > as hearts and clubs, and was thinking that this East-West pair did likewise > until East alerted 2C. Already, the dWS had made it close to impossible for > bridge to continue normally at this table - if East had just kept his trap > shut, nothing bad would have happened. > > East, of course, passed 2C. Now South had to work out what was going on - > which again, he would not have done had East not invented the dWS all by > himself. Eventually, he concluded that East had psyched a 1NT overcall with > a long club suit. Since he had a pretty good hand with a long diamond suit > and a club stopper or two, he bid 3NT - after all, West had passed over 1D > and East had psyched, so North figured to have more than a minimum 1S > response. He said afterwards that he also played 1NT as hearts and clubs, > but when East alerted 2C, he assumed that this East-West pair didn't. > Afterwards, when questioned as to why he didn't ask West whether 1NT had > perhaps meant "hearts and clubs", he said "Why should I ask about an > unalerted call, especially when East explained 2C as Stayman?" > > West led a heart, and 3NT went down when alternative games would have made. > When asked why he led a heart and not a club, he said "Because I had QJ108 > of hearts and a singleton club." This at least could be empirically > verified, and turned out to be true. > > Now, obviously North-South could have asked more questions than they > actually did ask. Equally obviously, the appeals committee could (and did) > spend the best part of an hour and a half working out what questions > North-South might have asked, and what they would have done had they > received the right answers. Here were four honest toilers trying to play > some bridge - but neither of the non-offending side knew what had really > happened, nor could they reasonably be expected to find out after the dWS > had reared its hideous head. The offenders were acting in all good faith, > and in strict accordance with the dWS, and it caused the most unholy > shambles. If they had been MS practitioners, of course, the auction would > have kept the noiseless tenor of its way, and I would not have had to play > the evening session in a state bordering on starvation (although I am > prepared to concede that the buffer zone was probably sufficient). > > Good for the game? Pass the sick-bag, Alice. > OK David, I'll bite. I imagine the TD and AC solved this mess, yes? The final result was based on the table score, the MI ruling, and the UI from one player to another. I fail to see what is difficult about that. If it turns out that the bidding goes too far astray, a 60% score is still possible, isn't it? But when you give an example (and this is a good one, thank you, David) you should compare it to the same example using MS. And then you get: 1Di - pass - 1Sp - 1NT no alert pass - 2Cl **** different from now : no alert this is UI from west to east, OK? English rules: Stayman has to be alerted What should North think now? He still believes 1NT is strong, and 2Cl is natural, and long. Exactly the same situation. This is where your example is not a typical DWS case. 2Cl Stayman and 2Cl natural are both possible replies to 1NT natural, strong. Your example lacks what most examples have - that the misunderstanding is cleared up by the second explanation. That is why there is "a mess". But that mess would be equally great with the other explanation. Moreover, with the "right" explanation (club preference), a wrong light is shed on west's hand. I imagine that west did indeed have a staymanish hand, and was bidding with some majors? So I imagine that, with a MS explanation (no alert), the mess would be equally great. Only then, NS would not have deduced from East's pass that he psyched. They would have let 2Cl being played. The TD would be at the table also, and another mess would have to be cleared up. Only then, UI would also have been given from East to West. So David, I really don't see how you can attribute the "mess" of an AC appearance by your good self to the DWS. I fail to see why an AC was needed. A competent TD ought to have been able to work out what rectification to give to NS. EW should not have appealed that rectification. David, I do not wish to belittle your example - it's a fine one. But it is not a typical example because the second explanation does not clear up the misunderstanding. But you have to admit that this man gave a correct picture of his partner's hand. If there is any mess, it's because of the first MI, not the second one. Also, this man gave no UI to his partner. You might think that the MS leads to a lesser "mess", but that would only be because the first MI is cleared up, and that is precisely what the lawmakers have said they did not want. > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Jan 21 10:32:01 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:32:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman: OK, so I'll put the question differently: What would be wrong with the WBF accepting a certain infraction to become legal, to avoid bigger trouble? So far, Ton and Grattan have given their own personal perception of the case. They believe the DWS is currently illegal, and they have tried to prove that. ton: No Herman, this is not just my personal perception nor do I need to prove anything. Your opinion is plain wrong and that will be the decision of the wbf lc if I ask it to make such a decision. But as I said before I am not going to react as chairman of the lc on any deviating opinion read in this forum. You are not that important. A complete other question is whether your approach would be better for bridge. That is a philosophical question you may put. As you might ask whether a wrong claim should not lead to loosing all tricks that could legally be lost, a view David seems to like, or an insufficient bid just treated as UI without any other rectification, or.... Nice discussions but as long as you suggest to follow your approach in Belgium I pity the Belgiums and can't take you seriously. ton From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 21 10:48:25 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:48:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <20080120094625.2788A84@mach.vub.ac.be> References: <20080120094625.2788A84@mach.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <47946A69.5040803@ulb.ac.be> ton a ?crit : > Alain: > > > What's wrong with accepting being penalized to avoid bigger trouble ? > > > ton: > > Read L 72B1 and L72 B3 and you know the answer. > Well, if that's the answer, you're forgetting that "communicating through answers given" is an infraction per se according to L73 (the UI doesn't need to be used). Whence MS exponennts can be chastised according to L72B1-B3 too. Of course, you're allowed to thnik this is less of an offence. But then why not write it in the Laws ? Best regards Alain PS : don't argue that communicating needs actual understanding of the message to exist, or you will need to overturn the whole of psychological science. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 21 10:52:39 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:52:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <007c01c85b62$512f34f0$88ca403e@Mildred> References: <00c601c859c1$1587ca40$cc0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000><47909146.1040303@ulb.ac.be><011901c85b08$b19fb940$1bcb403e@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080120170001.01dab620@mail.optusnet.com.au> <007c01c85b62$512f34f0$88ca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47946B67.7070701@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Judge not the play before the play be done" > [Sir John Davies 1569-1626] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tony Musgrove" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 1:05 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] LA > > > I think the original problem was that the 7S bidder may have > considered bidding a 50/50 game after an in tempo 3S. He > now thinks that the game is more likely 80/20 because > of his partner's hesitation. Moreover, he feels that even > if he should bid 4S, it is likely to be ruled back to 3S if > 4S should make. So In Australia we call 7S a retribution > bid to teach partner better control of his hesitations. When it > is doubled we redouble. If the player explains his action > to me in these terms, I might allow the 7S and penalise the > action under another law which I will look up, or make up, > L74A2 and L74C2 would be enough. And I agree with the distinguo. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Jan 21 11:13:36 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:13:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <479370CC.7040309@skynet.be> Message-ID: That is not fair, Grattan. You cannot say that you were not aware of my perceptions of what the laws say. You decided not to change anything to those laws. If you had presented law changes, I would have been able to comment on them. To me, under the 2007 laws as I read them, the DWS is still allowed. If you decide to issue the interpretation you suggest now, that is, to me, a law change. It is not fair of you to say "sorry Herman, too late, for the next 10 years you'll be banned from using DWS, you'll have a new chance in 2017". ton: Goodness gracious, our new Calimero From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 21 12:13:36 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:13:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <20080121101510.CF35DC0C1@maildelivery017.isp.belgacom.be> References: <20080121101510.CF35DC0C1@maildelivery017.isp.belgacom.be> Message-ID: <47947E60.3000903@skynet.be> ton wrote: > > Herman: > > OK, so I'll put the question differently: > > What would be wrong with the WBF accepting a certain infraction to become > legal, to avoid bigger trouble? > > So far, Ton and Grattan have given their own personal perception of the > case. They believe the DWS is currently illegal, and they have tried to > prove that. > > > ton: > > No Herman, > this is not just my personal perception nor do I need to prove anything. Sorry Ton, but your attitude does not become you. You do not wish to put it to the WBFLC because "you're not that important", yet you are certain that the whole WBFLC is with you on this. And no, you don't need to prove anything. You can let my arguments go unchallenged and simply say "it's like that because the WBFLC Chairman says so". As far as I can see, Grattan was trying to "prove" that I was wrong by commenting on the meaning of the word "indicate". > Your opinion is plain wrong and that will be the decision of the wbf lc if I > ask it to make such a decision. Very democratic indeed! > But as I said before I am not going to react as chairman of the lc on any > deviating opinion read in this forum. You are not that important. > ehm. > A complete other question is whether your approach would be better for > bridge. Indeed it is. It is the only one you should be talking about in your capacity as WBFLC. Since the current text brings us this problem, an extra interpretation (at least) or text (better) is needed to solve the problem. You can solve it in two directions. I think it would be better to solve it in the direction of which is best for bridge, not in the direction which leaves the majority with the option they've been defending to the death. Some of you have gotten to see this personally (for themselves and/or against Herman) and are perhaps unwilling to admit that Herman has "won", even if that brings down the whole structure of bridge as we know it. > That is a philosophical question you may put. As you might ask > whether a wrong claim should not lead to loosing all tricks that could > legally be lost, a view David seems to like, or an insufficient bid just > treated as UI without any other rectification, or.... > Nice discussions but as long as you suggest to follow your approach in > Belgium I pity the Belgiums and can't take you seriously. > Why? There is, until a possible WBFLC interpretation, nothing wrong with the DWS. So why pity the Belgians? And why in heaven's name can you not take someone seriously who has thought about this for a decade, written whole books about it, and whom you know to have (generally) a good knowledge of the bridge laws? What is so wrong with listening to me, rather than dismiss this off-hand? > > ton > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Sat Jan 19 21:55:48 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:55:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] lacuna; was RE: dWs/MS Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D0939F2@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> John wrote: > Come, come, Jeff. Most of what we discuss here _is_ esoteric. Most of > the time we _do_ know what we're doing as TDs. But now and then we spot Indeed, we do know what we're doing. (And even when we don't an English AC and the L&E agreed that we do our best!) > (to use Robin's phrase) a lacuna and robust discussion is how, eventually > (pace dWS), we do come to a conclusion. This is a _good_ thing. John Is there another Robin? Don't think it's my phrase - but I like the word. Richard Hills appears to be an early user of "lacuna in the laws" on BLML. Dave Flowers used the phrase on RGB in 2001. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From geller at nifty.com Mon Jan 21 12:26:42 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:26:42 +0900 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <47946A69.5040803@ulb.ac.be> References: <47946A69.5040803@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200801211126.AA12097@geller204.nifty.com> Alain Gottcheiner writes: >Well, if that's the answer, you're forgetting that "communicating >through answers given" is an infraction per se according to L73 (the UI >doesn't need to be used). Sorry, but this argument is, IMO, fallaciou. Let's look at the relevant part of L73: *********************************************************** B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners 1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them. 2. The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. *********************************************************** Now let's take the relevant excerpt: "Partners shall not communicate by ... alerts and explanations given or not given to the [opponents]." To me, the common-sense interpretation of the above is that information is incidentally also received by partner in the course of lawfully answering a question by the opponents there is no violation of this law (although if partner has received UI and is judged to have possibly used it there can be rectification under L16. OTH, IMO, only if if the primary purpose of the explanation was to give info to pard would there have been a violation of L73B1. But, this get's back to the point made by Hirsch Davis: if the laws were written more clearly any shadow of a doubt could have eliminated. As an experiment, let's consider simply deleting "or alerts and explanations given or not given to them" from the end of 73B1. What would go wrong? Nothing! Any DELIBERATE attempts to use " alerts and explanations given or not given to the oppts" to communicate with partner is already covered by 73B2. Whereas inadvertent UI is covered by L16 if pard uses it. Well, the question is, why does L73B1 contain the apparently superfluous phrase "or alerts and explanations given or not given to them." If I may be presumptuous, the offical DSC explanation is presumably that this phrase is a "belt and braces" clause (translated into everyday English, this means "well, we were too busy to think seriously about whether or not this was really needed and anyway if anyone vrings this up we'll just call them pettifoggers and blame the whole thing on Edgar anyway). I'm braced for receiving a response of this type, but seriously, why DO we need "or alerts and explanations given or not given to them." Is this really necessary? -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 21 13:26:17 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:26:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <200801211126.AA12097@geller204.nifty.com> References: <47946A69.5040803@ulb.ac.be> <200801211126.AA12097@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47948F69.8020101@skynet.be> Robert Geller wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner writes: >> Well, if that's the answer, you're forgetting that "communicating >> through answers given" is an infraction per se according to L73 (the UI >> doesn't need to be used). > > > Sorry, but this argument is, IMO, fallaciou. Let's look at > the relevant part of L73: > *********************************************************** > B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners > 1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in > which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, > questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and > explanations given or not given to them. > 2. The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange > information through prearranged methods of communication other > than those sanctioned by these Laws. > *********************************************************** > > Now let's take the relevant excerpt: > "Partners shall not communicate by ... alerts and > explanations given or not given to the [opponents]." > > To me, the common-sense interpretation of the above is > that information is incidentally also received by > partner in the course of lawfully answering a question > by the opponents there is no violation of this law > (although if partner has received UI and is judged to > have possibly used it there can be rectification under > L16. > > OTH, IMO, only if if the primary purpose of the explanation > was to give info to pard would there have been a violation > of L73B1. > Well, considering that there is an alternative (DWS), you could argue that the info is deliberately given. I'm being serious. It doesn't do to stop one gap (L20F5). We need a deliberate full statement by the WBFLC on this issue. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 21 13:25:51 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:25:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <200801211126.AA12097@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <001201c85c28$c38994c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Robert Geller .................. > I'm braced for receiving a response of this type, > but seriously, why DO we need "or alerts and > explanations given or not given to them." Is this > really necessary? IMHO yes. The alternative would be somewhere in the laws having an explicit statement to the effect that "information arising from alerts, questions asked or not asked and explanations given or not given is authorized to the opponents of the player causing such information but unauthorized to his partner". Simplification? I prefer it as it is. Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 21 13:38:41 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:38:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <4755DE691836F39E@mail-8-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-8.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <000c01c85c2a$989d8120$a3c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS > Goodness gracious, our new Calimero > +=+ Calimero? Do you mean the third century Bishop of Milan or the black chick with the sensible girl friend? ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 21 13:42:06 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:42:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <479370CC.7040309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001501c85c2b$0e855f70$a3c8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS >> > > That is not fair, Grattan. > > You cannot say that you were not aware of my > perceptions of what the laws say. You decided > not to change anything to those laws. If you had > presented law changes, I would have been able > to comment on them. To me, under the 2007 > laws as I read them, the DWS is still allowed. If > you decide to issue the interpretation you suggest > now, that is, to me, a law change. It is not fair of > you to say "sorry Herman, too late, for the next > 10 years you'll be banned from using DWS, you'll > have a new chance in 2017". > < +=+ Herman, I fail to see what is not fair. Most, perhaps all, of the DSC were aware of your view of the subject. What I was saying is that none of the authorities whose opinions we sought concerning what they would like to see in the 2007 Laws made any representation to the DSC supporting that view. No member of the DSC raised the subject for discussion. I do not say that we were not aware of your perceptions; what I say is that there was no inclination to consider them. I have quoted in this thread some of the kinder reactions among us on the subject. It is possible you have perceived (correctly) from these that among the members of the DSC your view of the 1997 law has no standing. We say simply that you are wrong - have been wrong all along. There is no sympathy for the suggestion that we should have altered (or should now alter) the law to your way of thinking and our priority lies in discussing the means to prevent your theories misleading Directors. We invited individuals such as yourself (and others on this list) to put any views they had on the laws to their NBOs; the NBOs are the members of the WBF and we paid attention to the opinions they sent to us. If the Belgian Federation did not submit your opinions to us they cannot have carried much weight with your Federation. And, like Ton, I am answerable to the WBF DSC and the WBFLC; in turn the WBF is answerable to its member NBOs, we have no responsibility or need to "prove" anything to an individual player as you are. We do seek to explain, but even in that we are discouraged by many of our colleagues who say we are wasting our efforts dealing with an opinion of no importance. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 21 14:11:35 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:11:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <200801211126.AA12097@geller204.nifty.com> References: <47946A69.5040803@ulb.ac.be> <200801211126.AA12097@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47949A07.2070100@ulb.ac.be> Robert Geller a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner writes: > >> Well, if that's the answer, you're forgetting that "communicating >> through answers given" is an infraction per se according to L73 (the UI >> doesn't need to be used). >> > > Now let's take the relevant excerpt: > "Partners shall not communicate by ... alerts and > explanations given or not given to the [opponents]." > > To me, the common-sense interpretation of the above is > that information is incidentally also received by > partner in the course of lawfully answering a question > by the opponents there is no violation of this law > (although if partner has received UI and is judged to > have possibly used it there can be rectification under > Perhaps it should be so. and you and I would like it to be so. But then, the word "communicate" should be changed, or better, your last paragraph should be explicitly added. "Common sens" interpretation of the Law shouldn't be used, only the Law itself. Best regards Alain From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Jan 21 14:29:50 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:29:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Groucho Message-ID: <47949E4E.1040500@aol.com> Anyone out there remember Groucho Marx's quiz show? The current secret wordin blml is acolyte. JE From geller at nifty.com Mon Jan 21 14:33:20 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:33:20 +0900 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <001201c85c28$c38994c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <001201c85c28$c38994c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <200801211333.AA12099@geller204.nifty.com> Sven Pran ????????: >> On Behalf Of Robert Geller >.................. >> I'm braced for receiving a response of this type, >> but seriously, why DO we need "or alerts and >> explanations given or not given to them." Is this >> really necessary? > >IMHO yes. > >The alternative would be somewhere in the laws having an explicit statement >to the effect that "information arising from alerts, questions asked or not >asked and explanations given or not given is authorized to the opponents of >the player causing such information but unauthorized to his partner". > >Simplification? > >I prefer it as it is. I think that "information arising from alerts, questions asked or not asked and explanations given or not given is authorized to the opponents of the player causing such information but unauthorized to his partner" must be treated differently from the other items mentioned in L73B1 ("the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents"). We have essentially three categories here. (1) "the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures" or wholly unnecessary and these should be eliminated; (2) "questions asked or not asked of the opponents" are lawful, but under the control of the asker and all efforts possible should be taken to avoid transmitting UI (for example, wwaiting till after the face-down OL whenever possible), (3) "lerts and explanations given or not given" which are triggered by questions asked by the opponenents (or alerts specified by the RA) and which must be answered by law with an accurate account of the agreements. It would be best to treat each separately rather than lumping them all together in L73B1. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From geller at nifty.com Mon Jan 21 14:35:20 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:35:20 +0900 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <47949A07.2070100@ulb.ac.be> References: <47949A07.2070100@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200801211335.AA12100@geller204.nifty.com> Alain Gottcheiner writes: >"Common sensw" interpretation of the Law shouldn't be used, only the Law >itself. I agree. The Laws should be edited so that to a much greater extent than now they speak for themselves. This is not easy, but efforts should be made. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 21 15:08:13 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:08:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001e01c85af4$0f30b6f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <001f01c85c38$6b31aa00$d9cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott I was in a session discussing some new developments for US government program officers who oversee contracts this week. One thing that the speaker said struck me as relevant to this group, and perhaps to the WBFLC. The speaker told of three new sets of contract regulations that are being forwarded, some of which are in conflict (and some of which are absurd), and told of things that were being done to resolve the conflicts prior to official implementations of the regulations. He then went on to say something important which I will try to paraphrase correctly: "...but we all know that what is said is irrelevant, we will have to wait for the written regulations. When they are issued, that is what we will have to do". Note that the people who were issuing the verbal reassurances are the same people that will be issuing the regulations. However, the regulations that will have to be followed by US government employees are going to be the ones that come out in writing. +=+ Hirsch, I found your remarks interesting. The key interpretations in the case of duplicate bridge are the ones used to train TDs. They are certainly not the comments your read on an unofficial message board such as this. The information needed for training TDs is made available to regulating authorities and they use it as they choose. I agree it can be a patchy procedure - there are those authorities who choose to 'tweak' the material to fit their own practices. Variations should tend to meld as the existence of material published via official WBF web sites becomes more widely known and more difficult to ignore. That is a motive for publishing any Appendix we produce, and a revised CoP as well, alongside the 2007 laws on the web. I realize that some subscribers here feel that we respond harshly to HDW. Part of the irritation lies in the fact that what we say has been dealt with in international TD seminars and there is a belief that surely Herman must have attended more than one of those where he would have had the opportunity to inform himself as to the correct application of the law. We feel that he sees himself in some way as above the law or in a position to shape its application, which he is not. Certainly he may properly argue as to what may be desirable in the laws, but he has no status in defining the law as it is. When we have gone a little further in our DSC discussions I will hope to make available an agreed (written!) product of our toil. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 21 15:15:06 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:15:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <20080120094625.2788A84@mach.vub.ac.be> <47946A69.5040803@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002001c85c38$6cfb6d80$d9cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS > Well, if that's the answer, you're forgetting that "communicating through answers given" is an infraction per se according to L73 (the UI doesn't need to be used). Whence MS exponennts can be chastised according to L72B1-B3 too. Of course, you're allowed to thnik this is less of an offence. But then why not write it in the Laws ? Best regards Alain PS : don't argue that communicating needs actual understanding of the message to exist, or you will need to overturn the whole of psychological science. +=+ That is not argued. What we say is that the information arrives incidentally to compliance with the duty to explain and not out of a wilful intent to pass it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 21 15:21:19 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:21:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Groucho References: <47949E4E.1040500@aol.com> Message-ID: <0e5501c85c38$e41207d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> You bet your life I remember it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 1:29 PM Subject: [blml] Groucho > Anyone out there remember Groucho Marx's quiz show? The current secret > wordin blml is acolyte. JE > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Gampas at aol.com Mon Jan 21 15:24:28 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:24:28 EST Subject: [blml] Unplayable Board Message-ID: Neither the old laws nor the new ones address another possibly unintended problem, of such little consequence that I raise it for academic interest only. A player has four penalty cards in four different suits. The TD arrives and the declarer prohibits the lead of all four suits. Those replying on IBLF tried law 59, but that fails: A player may play any otherwise legal card if he is unable to lead or play as required to comply with a penalty, whether because he holds no card of the required suit, or because he has "only" cards of "a suit" he is prohibited from leading, or because he is obliged to follow suit. Correcting "a suit" to "a suit or suits" would allow play to continue. As would deleting all the redundant words after "penalty" and replacing the comma with a full stop. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 21 15:58:52 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:58:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <002001c85c38$6cfb6d80$d9cb403e@Mildred> References: <20080120094625.2788A84@mach.vub.ac.be> <47946A69.5040803@ulb.ac.be> <002001c85c38$6cfb6d80$d9cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4794B32C.50301@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > +=+ That is not argued. What we say is that the information > arrives incidentally to compliance with the duty to explain and > not out of a wilful intent to pass it. > > Okay. Making this distinction isn't a bad idea at all (and would avoid the next 5,000 messages on the subject). Then it remains to be written that "when tinformation arrives incidentally to compliance with the duty to alert or explain, this law doesn't apply", because at present the Laws don't make this distinction. They just say you may not communicate through explanations. I'm still wondering why this wasn't written. Surely nobody could disagree that /What's worth the trouble to be said is worth the trouble to be said completely./ Note that there would still exist a fuzzy border. For example, there is a natural and nearly unavoidable tendency to explain a multi-function bid beginning with what we deem more probable ; this means the order of the meanings in the exlpanations will in a way create UI about our holding. Either you disallow this (and it creates an exception to exceptions, not the kind of things I'd like) or you allow this as per the sentence above, and here's unnecessary UI ! Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 21 16:07:45 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:07:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unplayable Board In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4794B541.1050505@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > Neither the old laws nor the new ones address another possibly unintended > problem, of such little consequence that I raise it for academic interest only. > A player has four penalty cards in four different suits. The TD arrives and > the declarer prohibits the lead of all four suits. > > Those replying on IBLF tried law 59, but that fails: > > A player may play any otherwise legal card if he is unable to lead or play > as required to comply with a penalty, whether because he holds no card of the > required suit, or because he has "only" cards of "a suit" he is prohibited > from leading, or because he is obliged to follow suit. > > Correcting "a suit" to "a suit or suits" would allow play to continue. As > would deleting all the redundant words after "penalty" and replacing the comma > with a full stop. > > Marginal indeed, but absolutely true. And there should also be said something about the (less unfrequent) case when both players have a MPC. ISTR that it was said on blml that declarer chooses whether L50D1 or L50D2 takes precedence, and that when you compel West to play the suit of his partner's PC, and he doesn't hold any card in that suit, he must lead his PC, but this last bit isn't what L59 literally says. Best regards Alain From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 21 16:59:07 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:59:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479453B8.8030307@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie> > I doubt if the full proceedings of the DCS will be made available, but > I urge Grattan to correct me and tell me how many time has been spent > officially at DWS. Herman, what makes you think that you are so important that your personal hobby-horse should be discussed by the DSC and considered as a change to the laws? There is a free bridge magazine that circulates in England. In almost every issue there is at least one letter to the editor describing how it would be "better for the game" if 2S making 3 was worth less than 3S just made, or maybe vice versa. There are obviously people who think that this is really important, and a fair number of them. I wonder how much time the DSC spent on this topic. Or on the similar one (from letters to the same magazine) that players who are getting bored of their opponents' relay auction should be permitted at any time to bid "STOP", at which point the last bid made is the final contract. It seems that the DSC would never get out of deliberations if they had to consider everyone's favourite law change. > > BTW, I count "because it is not lying to opponents" as a bad claim. How about "Because you have an obligation not to lie to your opponents"? If I prefer to ruff a heart when I have hearts in my hand,should not "Because you have an obligation to follow suit" be enough for me? > Don't be flippant. If you really believe that such a suggestion comes > even close to the DWS in value, you're not worthy of discussion. And if you really believe that the DWS comes even close to changing the score for overtricks in value, then... Seriously, why is the DWS more important or worthy of consideration than anything else that is against the Laws of Bridge? Stefanie Rohan London, England From john at asimere.com Mon Jan 21 17:12:19 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:12:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Unplayable Board References: Message-ID: <001801c85c48$65f42940$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 2:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Unplayable Board > Neither the old laws nor the new ones address another possibly unintended > problem, of such little consequence that I raise it for academic interest > only. > A player has four penalty cards in four different suits. The TD arrives > and > the declarer prohibits the lead of all four suits. > > Those replying on IBLF tried law 59, but that fails: > > A player may play any otherwise legal card if he is unable to lead or > play > as required to comply with a penalty, whether because he holds no card of > the > required suit, or because he has "only" cards of "a suit" he is prohibited > from leading, or because he is obliged to follow suit. I can be prohibited from leading spades which is "a suit". I can be prohibited from leading hearts which is "a suit". That I am prohibited from leading cards in spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs; each "a suit" doesn't invalidate L59. I only have cards of a prohibited suit; each separately (and not plurally) prohibited. Nope Paul. 8.2/10 for style; but 1.6 for technical merit. john > > Correcting "a suit" to "a suit or suits" would allow play to continue. As > would deleting all the redundant words after "penalty" and replacing the > comma > with a full stop. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Jan 21 17:14:57 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:14:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] lacuna; was RE: dWs/MS References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D0939F2@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <001d01c85c48$c3ecb5d0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:55 PM Subject: [blml] lacuna; was RE: dWs/MS > John wrote: >> Come, come, Jeff. Most of what we discuss here _is_ esoteric. Most of >> the time we _do_ know what we're doing as TDs. But now and then we spot > Indeed, we do know what we're doing. > (And even when we don't an English AC and the L&E agreed that we do our > best!) > >> (to use Robin's phrase) a lacuna and robust discussion is how, eventually >> (pace dWS), we do come to a conclusion. This is a _good_ thing. John > > Is there another Robin? Don't think it's my phrase - but I like the word. > > Richard Hills appears to be an early user of "lacuna in the laws" on BLML. I misattribute "lacuna in the Laws" to Robin. I might have guessed it was Richard. John > Dave Flowers used the phrase on RGB in 2001. > > Robin > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or > privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. > If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or > disclose such information. > > NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any > attachments are free from viruses. > > NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 > Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, > Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 21 17:24:53 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:24:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <20080120094625.2788A84@mach.vub.ac.be> <47946A69.5040803@ulb.ac.be><002001c85c38$6cfb6d80$d9cb403e@Mildred> <4794B32C.50301@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001a01c85c4a$2ae4c470$0aca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > +=+ That is not argued. What we say is that the information > arrives incidentally to compliance with the duty to explain and > not out of a wilful intent to pass it. > > Okay. Making this distinction isn't a bad idea at all (and would avoid the next 5,000 messages on the subject). Then it remains to be written that "when tinformation arrives incidentally to compliance with the duty to alert or explain, this law doesn't apply", because at present the Laws don't make this distinction. They just say you may not communicate through explanations. I'm still wondering why this wasn't written. Surely nobody could disagree that /What's worth the trouble to be said is worth the trouble to be said completely./ Note that there would still exist a fuzzy border. For example, there is a natural and nearly unavoidable tendency to explain a multi-function bid beginning with what we deem more probable ; this means the order of the meanings in the exlpanations will in a way create UI about our holding. Either you disallow this (and it creates an exception to exceptions, not the kind of things I'd like) or you allow this as per the sentence above, and here's unnecessary UI ! +=+ I am arguing my corner on what we should publish by way of clarification of the law. I do not know the outcome yet, so please be a little patient. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 21 17:41:21 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:41:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001f01c85c38$6b31aa00$d9cb403e@Mildred> References: <001e01c85af4$0f30b6f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <001f01c85c38$6b31aa00$d9cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4794CB31.5090400@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > I realize that some subscribers here feel that we respond > harshly to HDW. Part of the irritation lies in the fact that what > we say has been dealt with in international TD seminars and > there is a belief that surely Herman must have attended more > than one of those where he would have had the opportunity to > inform himself as to the correct application of the law. We feel > that he sees himself in some way as above the law or in a > position to shape its application, which he is not. Certainly he > may properly argue as to what may be desirable in the laws, > but he has no status in defining the law as it is. I have attended three of those from the EBL. With success and high honours. This topic has never been on the agenda. I've kept it off, so as not to disturb the flow of the event; I did have private conversations with other directors, in which we discussed this, much like we do on blml. To go saying that this matter is fully settled, Grattan, after we had a very nice one-hour-long conversation about it in Antalya, is upsetting. You may have made up your mind, but I don't see the WBFLC minute about it. And I would very much like to have my say to the other WBFLC members before you settle it. I am currently preparing a long document detailing the seven reasons why it has to be DWS. I hope you grant me the time to read it. > When we have gone a little further in our DSC discussions > I will hope to make available an agreed (written!) product of > our toil. I hope it will be well done, and I hope it will explain to me why you've gone a different route. Now, all I've gotten is Ton's and your remarks that it's this way becasue you say it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 21 17:51:08 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:51:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479453B8.8030307@skynet.be> <0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be> Hello Stefanie, I'm surprised you are still able to come up with fresh arguments, and I am very much willing to answer you. Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> I doubt if the full proceedings of the DCS will be made available, but >> I urge Grattan to correct me and tell me how many time has been spent >> officially at DWS. > > Herman, what makes you think that you are so important that your personal > hobby-horse should be discussed by the DSC and considered as a change to the > laws? > I have often wondered that. Surely I cannot be the only genius in the world. Recent developments, and the support of Konrad, Alain and Steven (and some others) have convinced me that I am not. It is also the type of reply I get, quite often, that makes me persist. The replies are very often like the one you write further on, and you'll see from my reply why it doesn't convince me. > There is a free bridge magazine that circulates in England. In almost every > issue there is at least one letter to the editor describing how it would be > "better for the game" if 2S making 3 was worth less than 3S just made, or > maybe vice versa. There are obviously people who think that this is really > important, and a fair number of them. > I happen to agree with that suggestion - but that's not important. > I wonder how much time the DSC spent on this topic. Or on the similar one > (from letters to the same magazine) that players who are getting bored of > their opponents' relay auction should be permitted at any time to bid > "STOP", at which point the last bid made is the final contract. > I don't need to say I don't support that suggestion. But the examples are badly chosen. These things change the way bridge is played. The DWS is _a_ way in which bridge is played today. According to me, it is a valid way of playing bridge. I submit to all the current regulations. In my opinion, what the WBFLC are suggesting doing now, outlawing DWS, would be a change of laws. So your analogy is not very good. But again, I agree, why should the WBF bother with little old me. Well, probably because they do credit DWS with a bit more sense than the STOP card idea. > It seems that the DSC would never get out of deliberations if they had to > consider everyone's favourite law change. >> BTW, I count "because it is not lying to opponents" as a bad claim. > > How about "Because you have an obligation not to lie to your opponents"? If > I prefer to ruff a heart when I have hearts in my hand,should not "Because > you have an obligation to follow suit" be enough for me? > Let me tell you why not: because I believe it is currently allowed. The reason you cite is not "because the laws say it's not allowed"; the reason you cite is "because the Bible says you should not lie". We've been here before. There are many lies out there, and "lying" as such cannot be a bridge offence. It has to be turned into a law. And that law can "tolerate lying". >> Don't be flippant. If you really believe that such a suggestion comes >> even close to the DWS in value, you're not worthy of discussion. > > And if you really believe that the DWS comes even close to changing the > score for overtricks in value, then... > > Seriously, why is the DWS more important or worthy of consideration than > anything else that is against the Laws of Bridge? > I don't say it is - the WBFLC do! > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 21 17:56:06 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:56:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <001501c85c2b$0e855f70$a3c8403e@Mildred> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <479370CC.7040309@skynet.be> <001501c85c2b$0e855f70$a3c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4794CEA6.6080406@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Judge not the play before the play be done" > [Sir John Davies 1569-1626] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 4:03 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake > through the DWS >> That is not fair, Grattan. >> >> You cannot say that you were not aware of my >> perceptions of what the laws say. You decided >> not to change anything to those laws. If you had >> presented law changes, I would have been able >> to comment on them. To me, under the 2007 >> laws as I read them, the DWS is still allowed. If >> you decide to issue the interpretation you suggest >> now, that is, to me, a law change. It is not fair of >> you to say "sorry Herman, too late, for the next >> 10 years you'll be banned from using DWS, you'll >> have a new chance in 2017". >> < > +=+ Herman, > I fail to see what is not fair. Most, perhaps all, of > the DSC were aware of your view of the subject. > What I was saying is that none of the authorities whose > opinions we sought concerning what they would like to > see in the 2007 Laws made any representation to the > DSC supporting that view. No member of the DSC > raised the subject for discussion. I do not say that we > were not aware of your perceptions; what I say is that > there was no inclination to consider them. I have quoted > in this thread some of the kinder reactions among us on > the subject. It is possible you have perceived (correctly) > from these that among the members of the DSC your > view of the 1997 law has no standing. We say simply > that you are wrong - have been wrong all along. There > is no sympathy for the suggestion that we should have > altered (or should now alter) the law to your way of > thinking and our priority lies in discussing the means > to prevent your theories misleading Directors. Yet you knew I thought I was acting within the laws, and you chose not to change the letter of the laws in order to make it clear. > We invited individuals such as yourself (and others > on this list) to put any views they had on the laws to > their NBOs; the NBOs are the members of the WBF > and we paid attention to the opinions they sent to us. > If the Belgian Federation did not submit your opinions > to us they cannot have carried much weight with your > Federation. No, I could easily have convinced them to send my recommendations. but I did not think a law change was needed for people to be able to act as per DWS. I will still act in this way. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Mon Jan 21 18:27:21 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:27:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Groucho References: <47949E4E.1040500@aol.com> <0e5501c85c38$e41207d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <002301c85c52$e13268b0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Jeff wins $100!!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Groucho > You bet your life I remember it. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Easterson" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 1:29 PM > Subject: [blml] Groucho > > >> Anyone out there remember Groucho Marx's quiz show? The current secret >> wordin blml is acolyte. JE >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 21 18:35:22 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:35:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0e9e01c85c54$002cbf80$0100a8c0@stefanie> > And that is why I ask the question again: > What is so wrong with accepting DWS principles? > After all, the DWS minimizes UI, that must be good. > The DWS leaves MI uncorrected, but that non-correction was the WBF's > wish just prior to the asking of the question, so why should it change > when a question is asked? This last sentence is very difficult to understand, but I interpret it as meaning that a state of ignorance about the opponents' methods is acceptable before one asks a question about them, and so it seems that the same state of ignorance should be acceptable after one asks and is answered? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 21 18:42:22 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:42:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options References: <200801111634.m0BGYJxf005802@cfa.harvard.edu><478C1A05.8080407@nhcc.net> <011801c85b08$b0b88d90$1bcb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <0ed201c85c54$fa53e6f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > I was asking whether > the ACBL's treatment of 1997 Law 12C2 was > to add 'had the irregularity not occurred' after > 'the most unfavourable result that was at all probable' > (as they have decided to do in the 2007 laws) ? > I don't understand this. Doesn't this mean that a player who takes advantage of UI can at worst break even? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 21 18:45:26 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:45:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Story (I refuse to write "strory") with a conclusion and truth References: <47924B83.5030008@aol.com> <47932B0E.9060602@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0ee201c85c55$681325c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > The question is whether saying only the second is "lying". > And whether "lying" (in its biblical sense) is permitted by bridge > laws and/or acceptable at the bridge table. > I sincerely doubt that "lying" in its Biblical sense is acceptable at the bridge table, though I am certain there is nothing against it in the Bridge Laws! > Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 21 20:03:52 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:03:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001e01c85af4$0f30b6f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><001f01c85c38$6b31aa00$d9cb403e@Mildred> <4794CB31.5090400@skynet.be> Message-ID: <106901c85c60$5d784cc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > I hope it will be well done, and I hope it will explain to me why > you've gone a different route. Now, all I've gotten is Ton's and your > remarks that it's this way becasue you say it. > As they are part of the group with the authority to say that, why should they feel obliged to offer an explanation? Stefanie Rohan London, England From mustikka at charter.net Mon Jan 21 21:39:06 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:39:06 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361> HDW wrote in response to Stephanie Rohan: > > Let me tell you why not: because I believe it is currently allowed. > The reason you cite is not "because the laws say it's not allowed"; > the reason you cite is "because the Bible says you should not lie". > > We've been here before. There are many lies out there, and "lying" as > such cannot be a bridge offence. It has to be turned into a law. And > that law can "tolerate lying". The Bible or any other religious document has nothing to do with the laws of bridge. Ethical standards that include being truthful in one's communications exist on their own, outside various religious beliefs. Raija From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jan 22 00:30:56 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:30:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <4794CEA6.6080406@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman: Yet you knew I thought I was acting within the laws, and you chose not to change the letter of the laws in order to make it clear. ton: This is rubbish, you know for years that you are acting outside the laws. I have told you that several times. It is your good right not to listen, but whether it is your good right to torture the world with your stubborness is another question. I don't like it. ton From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Jan 22 02:36:10 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:36:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <479370CC.7040309@skynet.be><001501c85c2b$0e855f70$a3c8403e@Mildred> <4794CEA6.6080406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005001c85c97$2acaccd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > No, I could easily have convinced them to send my recommendations. but > I did not think a law change was needed for people to be able to act > as per DWS. You admitted many times that you felt that it was illegal, with the justification that traditional practice was also illegal. This misconception, by the way, is soon to be put to rest. > I will still act in this way. > Is the intention to break the Laws of Duplicate Bridge grounds for exclusion from events, or even banning from the NBO? Stefanie Rohan London, England From Gampas at aol.com Mon Jan 21 15:22:13 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:22:13 EST Subject: [blml] Unplayable board Message-ID: Neither the old laws nor the new ones address another possibly unintended problem, of such little consequence that I raise it for academic interest only. A player has four penalty cards in four different suits. The TD arrives and the declarer prohibits the lead of all four suits. Those replying on IBLF tried law 59, but that fails: A player may play any otherwise legal card if he is unable to lead or play as required to comply with a penalty, whether because he holds no card of the required suit, or because he has "only" cards of "a suit" he is prohibited from leading, or because he is obliged to follow suit. Correcting "a suit" to "a suit or suits" would allow play to continue. As would deleting all the redundant words after "penalty" and replacing the comma with a full stop. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080121/d1e26ef8/attachment.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 22 09:53:10 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:53:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] what's the limit of "failed to protect" ? Message-ID: <4795AEF6.2020906@ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, What's the current official position -and yours- in a case where : 1) NS explained differently on both sides of the screen 2) consequently, EW bid according to different defensive systems, and both explained their agreements as they are, given the explanations about their opponents' bid 3) this eventually backfires on NS And is it the same when the difference in 1) is the fact that one player alerted and the other didn't ? Does the 'should have protected thmselves' provision apply here ? Thank you for your opinion. Alain From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 22 10:20:46 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:20:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] what's the limit of "failed to protect" ? In-Reply-To: <4795AEF6.2020906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601c85cd8$1250ddc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > What's the current official position -and yours- in a case where : > > 1) NS explained differently on both sides of the screen > 2) consequently, EW bid according to different defensive systems, and > both explained their agreements as they are, given the explanations > about their opponents' bid > 3) this eventually backfires on NS > > And is it the same when the difference in 1) is the fact that one player > alerted and the other didn't ? > > Does the 'should have protected thmselves' provision apply here ? > > Thank you for your opinion. Offering my opinion: EW is not at all to blame: They have called and explained properly according to their agreements under the circumstances caused by NS. Any damage, whether to EW or to NS, is caused by NS giving incorrect information on at least one side of the screen (missing alert is also incorrect information!) and NS is not entitled to any redress for damage to their side resulting from their own irregularity. I just do not understand in what way (or to whom) 'should have protected themselves' is applicable here? Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 22 10:43:59 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:43:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <106901c85c60$5d784cc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <001e01c85af4$0f30b6f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><001f01c85c38$6b31aa00$d9cb403e@Mildred> <4794CB31.5090400@skynet.be> <106901c85c60$5d784cc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4795BADF.7030907@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> I hope it will be well done, and I hope it will explain to me why >> you've gone a different route. Now, all I've gotten is Ton's and your >> remarks that it's this way becasue you say it. >> > As they are part of the group with the authority to say that, why should > they feel obliged to offer an explanation? > Because there's me saying that they are wrong. I am writing a list of seven reasons why DWS is better for the game of bridge. That is not something silly. The WBF need to read this and tell me and the world why they would be doing something else. Simply saying "Herman is wrong" should not be enough. And yes, that is because I am who I am. I think I have earned a little respect in other fields. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 22 10:47:42 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:47:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be> <002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be> raija wrote: > HDW wrote in response to Stephanie Rohan: >> Let me tell you why not: because I believe it is currently allowed. >> The reason you cite is not "because the laws say it's not allowed"; >> the reason you cite is "because the Bible says you should not lie". >> >> We've been here before. There are many lies out there, and "lying" as >> such cannot be a bridge offence. It has to be turned into a law. And >> that law can "tolerate lying". > > > The Bible or any other religious document has nothing to do with the laws of > bridge. Ethical standards that include being truthful in one's > communications exist on their own, outside various religious beliefs. > Yes Raija, but it doesn't matter whether you find your ethical obligations in the Bible, the Quran, the Torah or the Communist Manifesto, none of these has a place in the game of bridge. Lying is a part of any game, and you cannot create extra rules simply on the basis of forbidding lying. That would mean forbidding falsecarding as well, and psyching, and other deliberate ploys. > Raija > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 22 10:55:00 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:55:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <0e9e01c85c54$002cbf80$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <0e9e01c85c54$002cbf80$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4795BD74.4060607@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> And that is why I ask the question again: >> What is so wrong with accepting DWS principles? >> After all, the DWS minimizes UI, that must be good. >> The DWS leaves MI uncorrected, but that non-correction was the WBF's >> wish just prior to the asking of the question, so why should it change >> when a question is asked? > > This last sentence is very difficult to understand, but I interpret it as > meaning that a state of ignorance about the opponents' methods is acceptable > before one asks a question about them, and so it seems that the same state > of ignorance should be acceptable after one asks and is answered? > No Stefanie, you misunderstand. I have expressed myself badly, probably. What I mean is that the first misexplanation continues to exist, and that the WBF are very happy about that. In fact, they forbid the one person who could clear up this misexplanation from doing so. This situation is unchanged when a second question is asked and is replied to in DWS manner. DWS creates a second MI, but that is a technical MI, since DWS does describe the hand perfectly. It is harmless MI. So, under DWS, the situation after the second question is the same as before that question, with only the addition of a bit of harmless MI. OTOH, the MS wished to see the situation totally reversed. When the second question is asked, they throw their own wish out of the window, they demand that the MI is corrected, and UI is given. And all that for the sake of not giving a bit of harmless MI. It's too strange for words that the powers that be don't notice their own inconsistency! > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 22 10:56:22 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:56:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Story (I refuse to write "strory") with a conclusion and truth In-Reply-To: <0ee201c85c55$681325c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47924B83.5030008@aol.com> <47932B0E.9060602@skynet.be> <0ee201c85c55$681325c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4795BDC6.7060202@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> The question is whether saying only the second is "lying". >> And whether "lying" (in its biblical sense) is permitted by bridge >> laws and/or acceptable at the bridge table. >> > I sincerely doubt that "lying" in its Biblical sense is acceptable at the > bridge table, though I am certain there is nothing against it in the Bridge > Laws! Well, if there's nothing in the bridge laws stopping it, why should it not be acceptable? I am not a religuous person, so perhaps there is a nuance about lying in the biblical sense that I miss? > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 22 11:01:38 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:01:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] what's the limit of "failed to protect" ? References: <000601c85cd8$1250ddc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <003d01c85cdd$cbbfc690$62d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] what's the limit of "failed to protect" ? >> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner >> What's the current official position -and yours- in a case where : >> >> 1) NS explained differently on both sides of the screen >> 2) consequently, EW bid according to different defensive systems, and >> both explained their agreements as they are, given the explanations >> about their opponents' bid >> 3) this eventually backfires on NS >> >> And is it the same when the difference in 1) is the fact that one player >> alerted and the other didn't ? >> >> Does the 'should have protected thmselves' provision apply here ? >> >> Thank you for your opinion. > > Offering my opinion: > > EW is not at all to blame: They have called and explained properly > according > to their agreements under the circumstances caused by NS. > > Any damage, whether to EW or to NS, is caused by NS giving incorrect > information on at least one side of the screen (missing alert is also > incorrect information!) and NS is not entitled to any redress for damage > to > their side resulting from their own irregularity. > > I just do not understand in what way (or to whom) 'should have protected > themselves' is applicable here? > > Regards Sven > +=+ I would expect only expert players to be expected to protect themselves - or at least players of sufficient expertise to identify when something is obviously wrong. And, of course, bridge judgement has to be used in deciding that the player had good evidence that something was wrong. When this is clearly the case and the player fails to satisfy the Director that he would damage his side by exploring the question the 'failed to protect himself' provision kicks in. If I thought a stronger player were contriving to obtain an advantage from a weaker opponent my sympathy would be with the weaker opponent. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Jan 22 11:53:31 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:53:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?DWS_-_internal_inconsistencies_in_lawbook?= In-Reply-To: <4795BADF.7030907@skynet.be> References: <001e01c85af4$0f30b6f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><001f01c85c38$6b31aa00$d9cb403e@Mildred> <4794CB31.5090400@skynet.be> <106901c85c60$5d784cc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4795BADF.7030907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1JHGl1-1OiSEi0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Herman, I did enjoy your contributions on blml and personally on EBL seminars/events over a long time, and I did accept your sometimes "controverse" opinions as basis for discussions ... ... but now I believe you're getting too big for your boots ... From: Herman De Wael > Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > As they are part of the group with the authority to say that, why > > should they feel obliged to offer an explanation? > > Because there's me saying that they are wrong. ...see above... > I am writing a list of seven reasons why DWS is better > for the game of bridge. That is not something silly. Feel free to, they won't throw it away without reading ... I guess > The WBF need to read this and tell me and the world > why they would be doing something else. No, they need not (tell you) > Simply saying "Herman is wrong" should not be enough. Of course it is enough for an official statement from the WBF LC or DSC. Perhaps someone will tell you their considerations in a private talk sometimes. But you can't claim that. > And yes, that is because I am who I am. ...see above... > I think I have earned a little respect in other fields. Sorry, but at the moment - I believe - you are jeopardizing a lot of your earned respect. Peter From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 22 12:25:14 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:25:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] what's the limit of "failed to protect" ? In-Reply-To: <003d01c85cdd$cbbfc690$62d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000f01c85ce9$75b68390$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk ............ > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:20 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] what's the limit of "failed to protect" ? > > > >> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > >> What's the current official position -and yours- in a case where : > >> > >> 1) NS explained differently on both sides of the screen > >> 2) consequently, EW bid according to different defensive systems, and > >> both explained their agreements as they are, given the explanations > >> about their opponents' bid > >> 3) this eventually backfires on NS > >> > >> And is it the same when the difference in 1) is the fact that one > player > >> alerted and the other didn't ? > >> > >> Does the 'should have protected thmselves' provision apply here ? > >> > >> Thank you for your opinion. > > > > Offering my opinion: > > > > EW is not at all to blame: They have called and explained properly > > according > > to their agreements under the circumstances caused by NS. > > > > Any damage, whether to EW or to NS, is caused by NS giving incorrect > > information on at least one side of the screen (missing alert is also > > incorrect information!) and NS is not entitled to any redress for damage > > to > > their side resulting from their own irregularity. > > > > I just do not understand in what way (or to whom) 'should have protected > > themselves' is applicable here? > > > > Regards Sven > > > +=+ I would expect only expert players to be expected to protect > themselves - or at least players of sufficient expertise to identify > when something is obviously wrong. And, of course, bridge > judgement has to be used in deciding that the player had good > evidence that something was wrong. When this is clearly the > case and the player fails to satisfy the Director that he would > damage his side by exploring the question the 'failed to protect > himself' provision kicks in. If I thought a stronger player were > contriving to obtain an advantage from a weaker opponent my > sympathy would be with the weaker opponent. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Agreed. And from the description of the situation I fail to see how EW could have any reason to suspect that "something is obviously wrong". Neither could NS until realize that they have given incorrect information? So who could in this case be accused of failure to protect himself? Regards Sven From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jan 22 12:57:05 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:57:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4795BADF.7030907@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman: I think I have earned a little respect in other fields. ton: Ok, a little, but that is gone fast. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 22 15:07:01 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:07:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4755E1EE18BD52E7@mail-9-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-9.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <002101c85d00$d7f8a940$60cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Herman: > > I think I have earned a little respect in other fields. > > > ton: > Ok, a little, but that is gone fast. > +=+ Herman does have respect in fields outside of bridge. He is respected also as a player of some ability. It is in relation to bridge law that Herman has self-destructed his credibility by his dogmatic refusal to accept that the law is the law when he has been told repeatedly what the law is by those with authority in the subject. It is a sad fact that, among the EBL Laws Committee members for example, the regard for his opinions in matters of bridge law is just now at a very low ebb. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 22 15:30:16 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:30:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <4791E42D.4000003@skynet.be> References: <000d01c859bf$98018080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47909779.5050704@skynet.be> <044b01c859f7$2f62fdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4791E42D.4000003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <20406546-C455-459F-B535-D771C0579629@starpower.net> On Jan 19, 2008, at 6:51 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I have forgotten what this argument is about, but my partner knows I > have given the "wrong" explanation because he knows I do dws > principles. He knows my explanation will conform to his previous one. > It bears no relation to what the actual system should be. I have not > given him information as to whether I believe his explanation was > right or wrong. [snip] > The situation is even better. Suppose my partner does not remember our > system. He guesses. He next makes a call, under the same guess. I know > what that call means, but that is UI to me. I should continue to > interpret his call under what I thought our system was. Under DWS, I > shall explain his call consistently with his explanation. He knows > this is correct, as to his hand, but he still has no idea of what our > system really is. All this is independent of what our system is, of > what I think our system is, and of how certain I am this is right. [snip] > No, neither player realizes he has given misinformation. The first > misexplainer does not know, and will not learn, whether or not his > explanation is right. The second explainer (=the first bidder) also > does not need to know whether the system he is explaining is the > correct one (in fact, how could he know that for certain - he's not > allowed to look it up). But only by explaining consistently can he > keep the first misexplainer from knowing whether the first explanation > suits his hand. So we could come to a point where the DWSists provide mutually consistent false explanations of their auction that bear no relationship whatsoever to the methods either partner is actually using or what they hold in their hands, meanwhile giving their opponents no hint that anything has gone amiss. And this could happen with "neither player realiz[ing] he has given misinformation", so that even an actively ethical DWSist partnership will do nothing to correct the (otherwise undetectable) MI until the post-mortem. ?? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 22 15:50:51 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:50:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002101c85d00$d7f8a940$60cd403e@Mildred> References: <4755E1EE18BD52E7@mail-9-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-9.uk.tiscali.com) <002101c85d00$d7f8a940$60cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <479602CB.2070205@ntlworld.com> [Herman] I think I have earned a little respect in other fields. [ton] Ok, a little, but that is gone fast. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Herman does have respect in fields outside of bridge. He is respected also as a player of some ability. It is in relation to bridge law that Herman has self-destructed his credibility by his dogmatic refusal to accept that the law is the law when he has been told repeatedly what the law is by those with authority in the subject. It is a sad fact that, among the EBL Laws Committee members for example, the regard for his opinions in matters of bridge law is just now at a very low ebb. [nige1] Few agree with Herman; also, Herman should not have set himself up for this kind of character assassination; but public denigration by WBFLC members is despicable. The law book is an authoritative source of bridge law for most players. A small inner circle is also privy to official minutes and so on. Intentions of individual committee members don't have the force of law, no matter how often they're re-iterated. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Jan 22 16:06:31 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:06:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com> [HdW] After all, the DWS minimizes UI, that must be good. [DALB] What is good about it? It does not matter how much UI you create, as long as your partner plays ethically. What the dWS does is compound confusion for the opponents, and that must be bad. South opens 1D, West passes, North bids 1S and East bids 1NT. Systemically this shows hearts and clubs, but West does not alert (so East knows West thinks 1NT is natural). South passes and West bids 2C. Per the dWS, East alerts this as Stayman, thus adding to the mistaken impression that 1NT was natural. North, who would have acted if 1NT had been hearts and clubs, now passes, and so does East. West is now aware (legally, because East has passed 2C) that East does not have a strong no trump. South is left to guess whether East has psyched, or has hearts and clubs all the time, or... In the meantime, the auction has already been sabotaged beyond recall, and the only gainers are the offending side. That is not good for bridge. Not good at all. Per the MS, East does not alert 2C. North, who finds this state of affairs somewhat unusual, asks West what 1NT was and hears "Natural". He asks East what 2C was and hears "preference". Now, the auction can continue with North-South knowing what is happening - moreover, North-South have not been deprived of the chance to extract a penalty, because West must continue to bid as though 1NT were natural and East must continue to bid as if it showed hearts and clubs. On the actual hand, North would have doubled 2C, East would have passed and West would not have been allowed to give preference to hearts because East's bidding (overcalling 1NT and then passing 2C doubled) would have denied hearts and showed long clubs. That was the decision to which the AC eventually came, but it was not obvious, and it took a great deal of time and trouble. The Director had simply ruled average plus to North-South, admitting afterwards that giving an appropriate adjustment was too difficult for him. And this was a qualified EBU director. What would have happened at the local club? Whatever it was would not have been good for bridge. Not good at all. As I have said above, the creation of UI simply does not matter, as long as it is correctly ignored. The creation of MI does matter - there is no such thing as "harmless MI", whereas all UI is harmless (or if it does harm, the harm is easily remedied). That is why the dWS is a load of rotten Brussels sprouts: it is based on the premise that UI is harmful and MI harmless, whereas the exact opposite is the case. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 22 16:09:50 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:09:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <001501c85c2b$0e855f70$a3c8403e@Mildred> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <479370CC.7040309@skynet.be> <001501c85c2b$0e855f70$a3c8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <15FFD2AB-2EBC-41AB-90E9-4D6A398BFE32@starpower.net> On Jan 21, 2008, at 7:42 AM, wrote: > We invited individuals such as yourself (and others > on this list) to put any views they had on the laws to > their NBOs; the NBOs are the members of the WBF > and we paid attention to the opinions they sent to us. > If the Belgian Federation did not submit your opinions > to us they cannot have carried much weight with your > Federation. This argument seems a bit disingenuous. I'd be willing to be that neither the Belgian Federation nor any other passed on to the WBF as much as one single unsolicited suggestion from an ordinary player with no official connection. I'd be delighted to have Grattan or someone else with WBF connections prove me wrong. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Jan 22 16:09:57 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:09:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman's bible posting Message-ID: <47960745.9090208@aol.com> "Lying is a part of the game...." Could someone please clarify this for me? The implication seems to be that lying is legal. Examples? Or must I insert a (forgotten?) phrase once again? Ciao, JE From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 22 16:21:06 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:21:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <200801211335.AA12100@geller204.nifty.com> References: <47949A07.2070100@ulb.ac.be> <200801211335.AA12100@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <1E4D37DB-21DD-4354-A3DC-4397DED774E7@starpower.net> On Jan 21, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner writes: >> "Common sensw" interpretation of the Law shouldn't be used, only >> the Law >> itself. > > I agree. > > The Laws should be edited so that to a much greater > extent than now they speak for themselves. This is > not easy, but efforts should be made. Sorry guys, but in real life it's all too common that one can take an English sentence, parse it down to the last word and comma, and discover that its meaning is genuinely ambiguous. While we could, admittedly, do a much better job in writing our laws to say what they mean, we're living in a dream world if we think we can do so well as to leave absolutely nothing in need of interpretation. There will always be some need to choose between alternative interpretations of some bits of language, and I take very strong exception to the notion that common sense has no place in that process. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From geller at nifty.com Tue Jan 22 16:28:44 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:28:44 +0900 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <1E4D37DB-21DD-4354-A3DC-4397DED774E7@starpower.net> References: <1E4D37DB-21DD-4354-A3DC-4397DED774E7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <200801221528.AA12128@geller204.nifty.com> No matter how much you polish there always will be SOME ambiguity, but let's face it, the 2007 laws leave a lot of room for improvment. Just open up to any page at random and spend about 15 mins editing and you'll easily see this for yourself. -Bob Eric Landau writes: >On Jan 21, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > >> Alain Gottcheiner writes: >>> "Common sensw" interpretation of the Law shouldn't be used, only >>> the Law >>> itself. >> >> I agree. >> >> The Laws should be edited so that to a much greater >> extent than now they speak for themselves. This is >> not easy, but efforts should be made. > >Sorry guys, but in real life it's all too common that one can take an >English sentence, parse it down to the last word and comma, and >discover that its meaning is genuinely ambiguous. While we could, >admittedly, do a much better job in writing our laws to say what they >mean, we're living in a dream world if we think we can do so well as >to leave absolutely nothing in need of interpretation. There will >always be some need to choose between alternative interpretations of >some bits of language, and I take very strong exception to the notion >that common sense has no place in that process. > > >Eric Landau >1107 Dale Drive >Silver Spring MD 20910 >ehaa at starpower.net > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 22 16:31:32 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:31:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002101c85d00$d7f8a940$60cd403e@Mildred> References: <4755E1EE18BD52E7@mail-9-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-9.uk.tiscali.com) <002101c85d00$d7f8a940$60cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47960C53.4050107@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Judge not the play before the play be done" > [Sir John Davies 1569-1626] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ton" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:57 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in > lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Herman: >> >> I think I have earned a little respect in other fields. >> >> >> ton: >> Ok, a little, but that is gone fast. >> > +=+ Herman does have respect in fields outside of > bridge. He is respected also as a player of some ability. > It is in relation to bridge law that Herman has self-destructed > his credibility by his dogmatic refusal to accept that the law Dogmatic? Who's being dogmatic here? I write whole books on the subject, but the powers that be dismiss all that with a simple - "we wrote the law so we ought to know how it goes". Besides, I'm way beyond the current laws at the moment. I'm talking about how the laws would best be. I think the word dogmatic refers to people who are seeing only one position, believing it beyond much reason and insight. But let's put this to rest for the moment. I'm preparing a full dossier which, I hope, will be seen with a bit less "dogma" than I'm getting from Grattan and Ton at the moment. > is the law when he has been told repeatedly what the law is > by those with authority in the subject. It is a sad fact that, > among the EBL Laws Committee members for example, > the regard for his opinions in matters of bridge law is just > now at a very low ebb. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > That is indead a sad fact. I find the discussion stimulating, and am willing to accept counterargument and even reasoned conclusion. I am not seeing any of that from the EBL or WBF at the moment. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From geller at nifty.com Tue Jan 22 16:36:37 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:36:37 +0900 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <200801221528.AA12128@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200801221528.AA12128@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <200801221536.AA12130@geller204.nifty.com> Let me just add that I'm not talking about ambiguity that lends support to DWs or anything like that. Just ordinary garden variety poor writing (which, among other problems, makes it a big pain to translate the Laws into other languages). -Bob Robert Geller writes: >No matter how much you polish there always will be SOME >ambiguity, but let's face it, the 2007 laws leave a lot of room >for improvment. Just open up to any page at random and spend >about 15 mins editing and you'll easily see this for yourself. > >-Bob > >Eric Landau writes: >>On Jan 21, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Robert Geller wrote: >> >>> Alain Gottcheiner writes: >>>> "Common sensw" interpretation of the Law shouldn't be used, only >>>> the Law >>>> itself. >>> >>> I agree. >>> >>> The Laws should be edited so that to a much greater >>> extent than now they speak for themselves. This is >>> not easy, but efforts should be made. >> >>Sorry guys, but in real life it's all too common that one can take an >>English sentence, parse it down to the last word and comma, and >>discover that its meaning is genuinely ambiguous. While we could, >>admittedly, do a much better job in writing our laws to say what they >>mean, we're living in a dream world if we think we can do so well as >>to leave absolutely nothing in need of interpretation. There will >>always be some need to choose between alternative interpretations of >>some bits of language, and I take very strong exception to the notion >>that common sense has no place in that process. >> >> >>Eric Landau >>1107 Dale Drive >>Silver Spring MD 20910 >>ehaa at starpower.net >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml at amsterdamned.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >----------------------------------------------------- >Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 22 16:38:34 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:38:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <20406546-C455-459F-B535-D771C0579629@starpower.net> References: <000d01c859bf$98018080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47909779.5050704@skynet.be> <044b01c859f7$2f62fdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4791E42D.4000003@skynet.be> <20406546-C455-459F-B535-D771C0579629@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47960DFA.4010807@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 19, 2008, at 6:51 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I have forgotten what this argument is about, but my partner knows I >> have given the "wrong" explanation because he knows I do dws >> principles. He knows my explanation will conform to his previous one. >> It bears no relation to what the actual system should be. I have not >> given him information as to whether I believe his explanation was >> right or wrong. > > [snip] > >> The situation is even better. Suppose my partner does not remember our >> system. He guesses. He next makes a call, under the same guess. I know >> what that call means, but that is UI to me. I should continue to >> interpret his call under what I thought our system was. Under DWS, I >> shall explain his call consistently with his explanation. He knows >> this is correct, as to his hand, but he still has no idea of what our >> system really is. All this is independent of what our system is, of >> what I think our system is, and of how certain I am this is right. > > [snip] > >> No, neither player realizes he has given misinformation. The first >> misexplainer does not know, and will not learn, whether or not his >> explanation is right. The second explainer (=the first bidder) also >> does not need to know whether the system he is explaining is the >> correct one (in fact, how could he know that for certain - he's not >> allowed to look it up). But only by explaining consistently can he >> keep the first misexplainer from knowing whether the first explanation >> suits his hand. > > So we could come to a point where the DWSists provide mutually > consistent false explanations of their auction that bear no > relationship whatsoever to the methods either partner is actually > using or what they hold in their hands, meanwhile giving their > opponents no hint that anything has gone amiss. And this could > happen with "neither player realiz[ing] he has given misinformation", > so that even an actively ethical DWSist partnership will do nothing > to correct the (otherwise undetectable) MI until the post-mortem. ?? > No, of course not! The explanations will be consistent with one system, and it will be the system from the one who first started the explanations. In fact, that player will not even realize that there is a problem (that's after all the aim of the second player's explanations). As to "giving their opponents no hint that anything has gone amiss". Please tell me where in the lawbook it says that opponents are entitled to know that something has gone amiss? It is precisely this piece of information that I am witholding from opponents. It's something they are not entitled to, so I don't have to tell them that. And in case you believe they are entitled to it, please answer me the following: if the opponents are entitled to it, then why does the WBF tell the players not to reveal it at first, but only after a second question? Why should an active opponent, who does not ask a second question because he believes he already needs the answer, be witheld the information that "something has gone amiss", while a lazy opponent, who asks questions left right and centre, gets this added bonus. If it were the intention of the WBF to make "something has gone amiss" entitled information, then they should have written L20F5 completely differently, insisting that the wrong explanation be corrected as soon as possible. In fact, I made that suggestion to Grattan in Antalya. He said he would take note of it. Yet we see L75D3 unchanged back as L20F5. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 22 16:46:00 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:46:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] what's the limit of "failed to protect" ? In-Reply-To: <4795AEF6.2020906@ulb.ac.be> References: <4795AEF6.2020906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <834AFCB0-5280-4D6D-9CA1-3D3E108292CF@starpower.net> On Jan 22, 2008, at 3:53 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > What's the current official position -and yours- in a case where : > > 1) NS explained differently on both sides of the screen > 2) consequently, EW bid according to different defensive systems, and > both explained their agreements as they are, given the explanations > about their opponents' bid > 3) this eventually backfires on NS > > And is it the same when the difference in 1) is the fact that one > player > alerted and the other didn't ? > > Does the 'should have protected thmselves' provision apply here ? I am shocked that Alain would write such a thing! Anyone who believes that such a question can be answered without knowing the details of what calls were made and what explanations were offered cannot possibly understand the principle behind the obligation of players to "protect themselves" when appropriate. FWIW, Alain has given us no reason to think it might apply. > Thank you for your opinion. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Jan 22 16:47:08 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:47:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Story (I refuse to write "strory") with a conclusion and truth References: <47924B83.5030008@aol.com> <47932B0E.9060602@skynet.be><0ee201c85c55$681325c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4795BDC6.7060202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <021e01c85d0e$0beaed50$0100a8c0@stefanie> In the Bible, the verb "to lie" is generally followed by "with"... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Story (I refuse to write "strory") with a conclusion and truth > Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> The question is whether saying only the second is "lying". >>> And whether "lying" (in its biblical sense) is permitted by bridge >>> laws and/or acceptable at the bridge table. >>> >> I sincerely doubt that "lying" in its Biblical sense is acceptable at the >> bridge table, though I am certain there is nothing against it in the >> Bridge >> Laws! > > Well, if there's nothing in the bridge laws stopping it, why should it > not be acceptable? > I am not a religuous person, so perhaps there is a nuance about lying > in the biblical sense that I miss? > >> Stefanie Rohan >> London, England >> > > > -- > 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 adam at irvine.com Tue Jan 22 16:57:16 2008 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:57:16 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:47:42 +0100." <4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <200801221549.HAA04760@mailhub.irvine.com> Herman wrote: > Yes Raija, but it doesn't matter whether you find your ethical > obligations in the Bible, the Quran, the Torah or the Communist > Manifesto, none of these has a place in the game of bridge. Lying is a > part of any game, and you cannot create extra rules simply on the > basis of forbidding lying. That would mean forbidding falsecarding as > well, and psyching, and other deliberate ploys. Could someone please explain how lying is a part of checkers? :) (OK, perhaps you meant "lying is a part of most games" or "many games".) -- Adam From mustikka at charter.net Tue Jan 22 20:05:19 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:05:19 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361> <4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > raija wrote: >> HDW wrote in response to Stephanie Rohan: >>> Let me tell you why not: because I believe it is currently allowed. >>> The reason you cite is not "because the laws say it's not allowed"; >>> the reason you cite is "because the Bible says you should not lie". >>> >>> We've been here before. There are many lies out there, and "lying" as >>> such cannot be a bridge offence. It has to be turned into a law. And >>> that law can "tolerate lying". >> >> >> The Bible or any other religious document has nothing to do with the laws >> of >> bridge. Ethical standards that include being truthful in one's >> communications exist on their own, outside various religious beliefs. >> > > Yes Raija, but it doesn't matter whether you find your ethical > obligations in the Bible, the Quran, the Torah or the Communist > Manifesto, none of these has a place in the game of bridge. Lying is a > part of any game, and you cannot create extra rules simply on the > basis of forbidding lying. That would mean forbidding falsecarding as > well, and psyching, and other deliberate ploys. I should have expected you will twist my point somehow. From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jan 22 23:09:13 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:09:13 -0600 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com> <0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479453B8.8030307@skynet.be> <0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be> <002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361> <4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be> <000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 22, 2008 1:05 PM, raija wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:47 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > > > > raija wrote: > >> Ethical standards that include being truthful in one's > >> communications exist on their own, outside various religious beliefs. > >> > > > > Yes Raija, but it doesn't matter whether you find your ethical > > obligations in the Bible, the Quran, the Torah or the Communist > > Manifesto, none of these has a place in the game of bridge. Lying is a > > part of any game, and you cannot create extra rules simply on the > > basis of forbidding lying. That would mean forbidding falsecarding as > > well, and psyching, and other deliberate ploys. > > > I should have expected you will twist my point somehow. > He did not twist your point at all. He said "yes." I think Herman makes an excellent point, especially given that so many BLMLers have stated over and over that "I will never lie!" when playing bridge. Jerry Fusselman From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jan 22 17:39:02 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:39:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com> Message-ID: <47961C26.6080800@t-online.de> David Burn schrieb: > [HdW] > > After all, the DWS minimizes UI, that must be good. > > [DALB] > > What is good about it? It does not matter how much UI you create, as long as > your partner plays ethically. What the dWS does is compound confusion for > the opponents, and that must be bad. > > > Snipped > As I have said above, the creation of UI simply does not matter, as long as > it is correctly ignored. The creation of MI does matter - there is no such > thing as "harmless MI", whereas all UI is harmless (or if it does harm, the > harm is easily remedied). "Harmless" is a matter of viewpoint, David. While I agree with you, Herman thinks that the L16 restriction and adjustments for use of UI do much more harm to his score than any L12 adjustment because of MI ever would. That is probably true, but who cares? He fails to realize that being seen lying about agreements is much worse for Bridge because it undermines trust. Using UI is easier forgiven, for he who is without sin may cast the first stone, so those stones stay untouched. Being seen succumbing to human nature (or even just misjudging what is suggested and what not), and then accepting the adjustment with grace, apologizing to all at the table, is much easier to forgive than lying on purpose. Forgetting the system is forgiven, too, because every Bridge player has done so himself, while lying is rarely forgiven. "I did so to describe my partner's hand" won't help much. A free translation of a German proverb: "Lie once, and people will not believe you, even if you tell the truth now". Probably based on a fable by Aesop. > That is why the dWS is a load of rotten Brussels > sprouts: it is based on the premise that UI is harmful and MI harmless, > whereas the exact opposite is the case. > I couldn`t agree more. Best regards Matthias > David Burn > London, England > > > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 22 17:28:14 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:28:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <47960DFA.4010807@skynet.be> References: <000d01c859bf$98018080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47909779.5050704@skynet.be> <044b01c859f7$2f62fdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4791E42D.4000003@skynet.be> <20406546-C455-459F-B535-D771C0579629@starpower.net> <47960DFA.4010807@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jan 22, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Jan 19, 2008, at 6:51 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> I have forgotten what this argument is about, but my partner knows I >>> have given the "wrong" explanation because he knows I do dws >>> principles. He knows my explanation will conform to his previous >>> one. >>> It bears no relation to what the actual system should be. I have not >>> given him information as to whether I believe his explanation was >>> right or wrong. >> >> [snip] >> >>> The situation is even better. Suppose my partner does not >>> remember our >>> system. He guesses. He next makes a call, under the same guess. I >>> know >>> what that call means, but that is UI to me. I should continue to >>> interpret his call under what I thought our system was. Under DWS, I >>> shall explain his call consistently with his explanation. He knows >>> this is correct, as to his hand, but he still has no idea of what >>> our >>> system really is. All this is independent of what our system is, of >>> what I think our system is, and of how certain I am this is right. >> >> [snip] >> >>> No, neither player realizes he has given misinformation. The first >>> misexplainer does not know, and will not learn, whether or not his >>> explanation is right. The second explainer (=the first bidder) also >>> does not need to know whether the system he is explaining is the >>> correct one (in fact, how could he know that for certain - he's not >>> allowed to look it up). But only by explaining consistently can he >>> keep the first misexplainer from knowing whether the first >>> explanation >>> suits his hand. >> >> So we could come to a point where the DWSists provide mutually >> consistent false explanations of their auction that bear no >> relationship whatsoever to the methods either partner is actually >> using or what they hold in their hands, meanwhile giving their >> opponents no hint that anything has gone amiss. And this could >> happen with "neither player realiz[ing] he has given misinformation", >> so that even an actively ethical DWSist partnership will do nothing >> to correct the (otherwise undetectable) MI until the post-mortem. ?? >> > No, of course not! > The explanations will be consistent with one system, and it will be > the system from the one who first started the explanations. In fact, > that player will not even realize that there is a problem (that's > after all the aim of the second player's explanations). > > As to "giving their opponents no hint that anything has gone amiss". > Please tell me where in the lawbook it says that opponents are > entitled to know that something has gone amiss? > It is precisely this piece of information that I am witholding from > opponents. It's something they are not entitled to, so I don't have to > tell them that. > > And in case you believe they are entitled to it, please answer me the > following: if the opponents are entitled to it, then why does the WBF > tell the players not to reveal it at first, but only after a second > question? Why should an active opponent, who does not ask a second > question because he believes he already needs the answer, be witheld > the information that "something has gone amiss", while a lazy > opponent, who asks questions left right and centre, gets this added > bonus. > > If it were the intention of the WBF to make "something has gone amiss" > entitled information, then they should have written L20F5 completely > differently, insisting that the wrong explanation be corrected as soon > as possible. Let's recap. What the DWS does is allow an auction which has gone amiss to continue without the indication that it has done so that would be given were the DWS not in use. That suppresses the UI- conveying communication to partner, which would subject him to UI constraints, to the benefit of the DWSists, along with the communication of potentially useful knowledge to the opponents, also to the benefit of the DWSists. To gain these benefits, all the DWSists need do is ignore any constraints that might be imposed by the obligation to avoid giving MI. So if that justifies the DWS, why require the DWSist to know what has gone amiss? That is clearly a flaw in the DWS. He may be uncertain and thus not know what his obligations are. Moreover, as Herman admits, he is in a position to get away with cheating by refusing to acknowledge his own confidence in the correctness of that knowledge. If we start with the premises of the DWS, though, we can avoid these problems and still accomplish its objectives. All a partnership needs to do is agree on a very simple system they can't possibly forget, and use that system exclusively as the basis of giving explanantions of their bidding to their opponents. It need bear no relationship whatsoever to the system that they are actually playing. They cannot give UI to their partners, as their partners know the explanations to be meaningless noise. They cannot tip their opponents to any bidding misunderstanding they are having. They are giving MI to their opponents, of course, but no more so than in Herman's version of the DWS, and remain obligated to correct it at the appropriate time. If it is acceptable to lie about your agreements to conceal your misunderstandings, you might as well go with the most effective lie! Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jan 22 23:33:12 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:33:12 -0600 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <47961C26.6080800@t-online.de> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com> <47961C26.6080800@t-online.de> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> Matthias Berghaus schrieb: > David Burn schrieb: > > > That is why the dWS is a load of rotten Brussels > > sprouts: it is based on the premise that UI is harmful and MI harmless, > > whereas the exact opposite is the case. > > > > I couldn`t agree more. > > Best regards > Matthias > But if it is so clear to both of you that UI is so benign compared to MI, why not clear up the MI at once? If UI is so harmful as both of you say; and if MI so harmless as both of you say, why not replace the beginning of Law 20F5a, which is "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made." with "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation must immediately correct the error, and must make it quite clear to the opponents that a mistake has been made." Why should the opponents suffer such harmful MI at all, if it can be cleared up so easily at the benign cost of a little UI? To be clear, I am not asking what the laws are, I am asking what is best for the game, which is the subject here. Jerry Fusselman From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Jan 22 23:39:25 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:39:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] R.I.P.? Message-ID: <4796709D.7020905@aol.com> I miss Ed Reppert. Hope he hasn't really resigned from blml. JE From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Jan 22 17:12:36 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:12:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47960C53.4050107@skynet.be> References: <4755E1EE18BD52E7@mail-9-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-9.uk.tiscali.com) <002101c85d00$d7f8a940$60cd403e@Mildred> <47960C53.4050107@skynet.be> Message-ID: <479615F4.8010906@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ******************************* >> "Judge not the play before the play be done" >> [Sir John Davies 1569-1626] >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> +=+ Herman does have respect in fields outside of >> bridge. He is respected also as a player of some ability. >> It is in relation to bridge law that Herman has self-destructed >> his credibility by his dogmatic refusal to accept that the law >> > > Dogmatic? > Who's being dogmatic here? > Well, you are. You adhere to the dogma that the WBF, especially the LC and DSC has to listen to you (or to me, for that matter). They don't, because it is not how the WBF is set up. The NBOs and the Zones arethe ones to talk to the WBF. I am not even sure whether any of us is indeed a member of the WBF. What I am sure of is that I am not a member of the German Bridge Federation. No player in Germany is. I am a member of a club, and that club is a member of DBV, but I, the individual sitting at this keyboard, am not a member. So there are several things where my federation does not have to listen to me. Oh, they do, usually, but in principle I have to go through my club to do certain things, except where the federation lets me do it on an individual basis, or asks my opinion. > I write whole books on the subject, but the powers that be dismiss all > that with a simple - "we wrote the law so we ought to know how it goes". > Well, who else shoud know? I do not think that there has been a case in human history (except in egend, maybe) where some person or individual wrote a law or regulation and then asked someone to interpret it for them. Feel free to write that book, but they do not have to read it. People like Ton and Grattan probably will, but not because they have to. > Besides, I'm way beyond the current laws at the moment. I'm talking > about how the laws would best be. > > I think the word dogmatic refers to people who are seeing only one > position, believing it beyond much reason and insight. > So do I. > But let's put this to rest for the moment. I'm preparing a full > dossier which, I hope, will be seen with a bit less "dogma" than I'm > getting from Grattan and Ton at the moment. > > >> is the law when he has been told repeatedly what the law is >> by those with authority in the subject. It is a sad fact that, >> among the EBL Laws Committee members for example, >> the regard for his opinions in matters of bridge law is just >> now at a very low ebb. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> > > That is indead a sad fact. I find the discussion stimulating, and am > willing to accept counterargument and even reasoned conclusion. I am > not seeing any of that from the EBL or WBF at the moment. > > That is because (IMO) you do not "accept" the reason behind it. You cannot see what you refuse to see. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 22 20:26:25 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:26:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists References: <000d01c859bf$98018080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47909779.5050704@skynet.be> <044b01c859f7$2f62fdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4791E42D.4000003@skynet.be><20406546-C455-459F-B535-D771C0579629@starpower.net> <47960DFA.4010807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00f501c85d2d$0e12e550$bac8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When both players are dWSists >> > In fact, I made that suggestion to Grattan in Antalya. He said > he would take note of it. Yet we see L75D3 unchanged back > as L20F5. > +=+ Let us be clear that in Antalya I listened pleasantly enough to Herman's ideas. However, I did not suggest that I favoured them, nor that I would carry them to the DSC. There we had extensive comments from NBOs to consider, and nowhere did they include anything that would lead us into this subject. We had publicized our intention to open our ears to the remarks of NBOs and Zones and that any individual wishing to comment should address their NBO. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 22 19:06:03 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:06:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4755E1EE18BD52E7@mail-9-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (addedby postmaster@mail-9.uk.tiscali.com)<002101c85d00$d7f8a940$60cd403e@Mildred> <479602CB.2070205@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <00f301c85d2d$08563cc0$bac8403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > The law book is an authoritative source of bridge law > for most players. A small inner circle is also privy to > official minutes and so on. < +=+ The 'small inner circle' would include the officers of NBOs who receive reports and minutes; additionally, WBFLC minutes are available on the web, together with related documents.. +=+ < < Intentions of individual committee members don't have < the force of law, no matter how often they're re-iterated. > +=+ Individual committee members normally indicate when they are expressing personal opinions and when they are presenting positions adopted by committees. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jrmayne at mindspring.com Tue Jan 22 17:22:31 2008 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:22:31 -0800 (GMT-08:00) Subject: [blml] Bible Message-ID: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: Adam Beneschan > >Herman wrote: > >> Yes Raija, but it doesn't matter whether you find your ethical >> obligations in the Bible, the Quran, the Torah or the Communist >> Manifesto, none of these has a place in the game of bridge. Lying is a >> part of any game, and you cannot create extra rules simply on the >> basis of forbidding lying. That would mean forbidding falsecarding as >> well, and psyching, and other deliberate ploys. > >Could someone please explain how lying is a part of checkers? :) > >(OK, perhaps you meant "lying is a part of most games" or "many >games".) And falsecarding is wholly different than lying; falsecarding is simply playing a card. Now, lying is expressly permitted in some games (negotiation games, like Diplomacy, for instance). Heck, *stealing* is permitted in some games (Cosmic Encounter has a power where you can steal from the bank if no one catches you). But in those games where it's not permitted, it's often enough forbidden. In my fantasy baseball league, I can't lie about the injury status of my players who I'm trying to throw away, though I can misdirect - even lie - about my draft plans. But in those cases in which misstating the truth is acceptable - in every one of them - the person hearing the statement is not expected to take the statement at face value. We know that the others will try to deceive us to their advantage. If I draw a ton of money in Junta to disperse to my ruling faction (aka, the other players) I may well announce that the hidden bills are in fact a paucity of currency, and thus salaries will be tragicly low for my valued ruling party. No one believes this. They will all try to kill me (in game) for my penury. In this bridge game, we are specifically trying to get the person to believe the lie, and most of us expect that the hearer should take the statement at face value without looking for reasons to disbelieve it. It's a different thing. Lying is not a game ethic generally. --JRM > > -- Adam > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 23 00:41:01 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:41:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c85d50$3f938b20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman ................... > But if it is so clear to both of you that UI is so benign compared to > MI, why not clear up the MI at once? If UI is so harmful as both of > you say; and if MI so harmless as both of you say, why not replace the > beginning of Law 20F5a, which is > > "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not > correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner > that a mistake has been made." > > with > > "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation must immediately > correct the error, and must make it quite clear to the opponents that > a mistake has been made." > > Why should the opponents suffer such harmful MI at all, if it can be > cleared up so easily at the benign cost of a little UI? > > To be clear, I am not asking what the laws are, I am asking what is > best for the game, which is the subject here. At an early time of Contract Bridge Ely Culbertson had forgotten his own rules for a particular situation during the auction. At the table he produced one of his books (I believe it was the "Gold book") and looked up the pages where that particular situation was described and his system for dealing with it. His argument was that as he had himself dictated to the Bridge world how that situation should be handled by players playing the Culbertson system (which nearly everybody did at that time) he should of course be entitled to verify his own rules in a book he himself had written! Is this "good for the game of bridge"? 2007 Law 40C3(a) states: "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." I trust that this law is there for a very good reason: The specified principle is considered "best for the game of Bridge". We do not allow Culbertson or any other player to look up his notes in order to "remember" his systemic agreements. Regardless of all this, answers to questions from opponents must be correct and in good faith. If such answers could be the trigger that wakes up a player who had forgotten his agreements it is just too bad for him; he is no longer permitted to recall his correct agreements. Possible damage to opponents is of course subsequently "corrected" by the director. And I join those who disgust people that commit deliberate lies. Such people have in my opinion lost all their dignity and honour. From what I have seen about DWS ....... I am not going to say any more. Regards Sven From mustikka at charter.net Wed Jan 23 00:50:55 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:50:55 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361> <4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be><000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361> <2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000701c85d51$a1aa5d10$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > On Jan 22, 2008 1:05 PM, raija wrote: >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:47 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Bible >> >> >> > raija wrote: >> >> Ethical standards that include being truthful in one's >> >> communications exist on their own, outside various religious beliefs. >> >> >> > >> > Yes Raija, but it doesn't matter whether you find your ethical >> > obligations in the Bible, the Quran, the Torah or the Communist >> > Manifesto, none of these has a place in the game of bridge. Lying is a >> > part of any game, and you cannot create extra rules simply on the >> > basis of forbidding lying. That would mean forbidding falsecarding as >> > well, and psyching, and other deliberate ploys. >> >> >> I should have expected you will twist my point somehow. >> > > He did not twist your point at all. He said "yes." I think Herman > makes an excellent point, especially given that so many BLMLers have > stated over and over that "I will never lie!" when playing bridge. > > Jerry Fusselman I don't know about others, but what I have said is "I will not lie about our partnership agreement" From mustikka at charter.net Wed Jan 23 00:56:08 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:56:08 -0800 Subject: [blml] R.I.P.? References: <4796709D.7020905@aol.com> Message-ID: <001b01c85d52$5c2c07b0$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:39 PM Subject: [blml] R.I.P.? >I miss Ed Reppert. Hope he hasn't really resigned from blml. JE > Second that. Ed, hope you will find the time and interest to comment again. Raija From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 23 01:21:57 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:21:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] R.I.P.? In-Reply-To: <4796709D.7020905@aol.com> Message-ID: <000101c85d55$f77ce560$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > I miss Ed Reppert. Hope he hasn't really resigned from blml. JE His last entry indicates that that is exactly what he has done, and for a reason he probably shares with at least one other highly respected previous contributor to blml. I too miss Ed. Regards Sven From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Wed Jan 23 01:27:08 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:27:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Herman's bible posting References: <47960745.9090208@aol.com> Message-ID: <000c01c85d56$b0853670$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:09 AM Subject: [blml] Herman's bible posting > "Lying is a part of the game...." Could someone please clarify this for > me? The implication seems to be that lying is legal. Examples? Or must > I insert a (forgotten?) phrase once again? Ciao, JE > You are allowed to psych (in theory anyway). You are allowed to false card. These deceptions are part of the game, Deception through calls or plays is explicitly allowed in L73E, with the appropriate caveat. Other forms of deception are not allowed, per L73D2. Also, the requirement to disclose in L40B6a precludes lying about partnership agreements. Hirsch From mustikka at charter.net Wed Jan 23 01:38:05 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:38:05 -0800 Subject: [blml] R.I.P.? References: <000101c85d55$f77ce560$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <000701c85d58$3826a0e0$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] R.I.P.? >> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson >> I miss Ed Reppert. Hope he hasn't really resigned from blml. JE > > His last entry indicates that that is exactly what he has done, and for a > reason he probably shares with at least one other highly respected > previous > contributor to blml. > > I too miss Ed. > > Regards Sven I am sure your are right about the reason, Sven. From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jan 23 01:47:47 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:47:47 -0600 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <000001c85d50$3f938b20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> <000001c85d50$3f938b20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801221647n3613d122m6608cb6b396d15f@mail.gmail.com> Sven: > > At an early time of Contract Bridge Ely Culbertson had forgotten his own > rules for a particular situation during the auction. At the table he > produced one of his books (I believe it was the "Gold book") and looked up > the pages where that particular situation was described and his system for > dealing with it. > > His argument was that as he had himself dictated to the Bridge world how > that situation should be handled by players playing the Culbertson system > (which nearly everybody did at that time) he should of course be entitled to > verify his own rules in a book he himself had written! > > Is this "good for the game of bridge"? > > 2007 Law 40C3(a) states: "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a > player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to > his memory, calculation or technique." > > I trust that this law is there for a very good reason: The specified > principle is considered "best for the game of Bridge". We do not allow > Culbertson or any other player to look up his notes in order to "remember" > his systemic agreements. > Did Sven quote me by mistake? My question was this: Why not clear up the MI partner caused at once, if you know for sure that it is indeed MI? In the case we were discussing, the partner of the misexplainer knows it is a misexplanation. Remember, the Dave Burn quote was "[DWS] is based on the premise that UI is harmful and MI harmless, whereas the exact opposite is the case." That is, Dave Burn asserts that UI is harmless and MI is harmful. And Matthias couldn't agree more. The case Sven brings up, where neither player knows the agreement, was not our topic. I am still interested in the answer to my original question. I feel it is a difficult question for Dave and Matthias to answer. Sven is discussing a different case entirely: It is the interesting case where I am not sure whether it is me or partner that is right. It seems to me that DWS and MS require me to follow the exact same behavior, provided I think that my partner is the one more likely to be right. I have asked whether this "DWS=MS when partner is more likely to be right" hypothesis is correct about five times in five different ways, and I don't recall any responses from the MS side. (Well, there was one response by an MS-er when Herman was discussing this case. Richard said something about a straw man, but I could not see what he meant.) I am still interested in a comment on my hypothesis. Jerry Fusselman From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 23 01:49:22 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:49:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: <200801091545.m09FjFWu000838@cfa.harvard.edu><4786CE85.8050807@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <02c001c85d59$cba7e670$0100a8c0@stefanie> Eric Landau: > If the position is that the "required" pass of 3S is a sure zero, and > the player will be deemed to have taken advantage of UI no matter > what else he bids, why make him call? Why not just score up the sure > zero and go on to the next hand? How can anything be a "sure" zero? Has no one here ever bid to an excellent slam to find that even game wasn't making? Has no one ever won matchpoints playing in a partscore when game makes, because some pairs have got too high? > > Of course, that's unrealistic. No player, holding a marginal game- > acceptance over a limit raise, will ever suspect, much less know, > that he has a better expectation of a non-zero in 7S than in 3S. If he feels that 3S is a "sure zero", then he might as well try something else, and that seems a perfectly "logical" thing to do. > ISTM that this "sort of ethical" player has attempted to do the right > thing by deliberately shooting himself in the foot, and we are > penalizing him for having missed a vital organ. Is "sort of ethical" good enough? When you are constrained by UI, you are required to take your medicine, not drink a draught of poison. I have always thought that "logical alternative" was meant to include, not exclude; ie, a call can be a possible call (LA) or not. Therefore if, say, Pass is deemed an LA, a player may be forced to make that call. I have not thought that "logical alternative" was meant to offer a player the chance to choose an "illogical alternative". What I mean to say, though I am saying it poorly, is that a player may be forced to accept an LA but that does not give him the right to try an ILA. I am with Grattan in thinking that a call that the player actually chose cannot be deemed "not an LA". Unless he closed his eyes and pulled a card at random out of the bidding box, he had some reason for what he did. Even if the reason were some kind of misguided "bending over backwards", there was still reasoning behind the action. Stefanie Rohan London, England From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 23 02:36:15 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:36:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <02c001c85d59$cba7e670$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000001c85d60$58aebf70$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan ................ > How can anything be a "sure" zero? Has no one here ever bid to an > excellent > slam to find that even game wasn't making? Has no one ever won matchpoints > playing in a partscore when game makes, because some pairs have got too > high? One of my funniest moments as a Director was when the absolutely weakest pair we had in our club met one of the strongest pairs in a round with 2 boards and won the prize for the highest score in that round. When you find that together with your partner you hold some 28HCP and a 4-4 major suit fit you end up in a game contract. At the 20 tables in the field everybody did except this pair. And as the cards lay there was absolutely nothing declarer could do to make more than 9 tricks and nothing the defense could do to avoid taking 4! Two such boards and the round prize was theirs! Regards Sven From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 23 02:40:59 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:40:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie><479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie><4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be><000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com> <000701c85d51$a1aa5d10$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <037b01c85d61$0190b210$0100a8c0@stefanie> Jerry Fusselman >> He did not twist your point at all. He said "yes." I think Herman >> makes an excellent point, especially given that so many BLMLers have >> stated over and over that "I will never lie!" when playing bridge. >> raija >> > > I don't know about others, but what I have said is "I will not lie about > our > partnership agreement" > Same here. And this is because I am playing a game in which doing so is against the rules. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 23 03:16:26 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:16:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] what's the limit of "failed to protect" ? References: <000601c85cd8$1250ddc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <003d01c85cdd$cbbfc690$62d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <041301c85d65$f55b2390$0100a8c0@stefanie> > +=+ I would expect only expert players to be expected to protect > themselves - or at least players of sufficient expertise to identify > when something is obviously wrong. And, of course, bridge > judgement has to be used in deciding that the player had good > evidence that something was wrong. When this is clearly the > case and the player fails to satisfy the Director that he would > damage his side by exploring the question the 'failed to protect > himself' provision kicks in. If I thought a stronger player were > contriving to obtain an advantage from a weaker opponent my > sympathy would be with the weaker opponent. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I agree with this. An example would be where a player on one side of the screen forgets to announce a transfer in a bridge-playing culture where transfers are almost universally played. A strong player might decide to bid and play as if the bid had been natural, and if the result is a worse score for his side, attempt to improve the result in an appeals committee. This can be a very good tactic, because the appeals committee will defend the hand expertly for the player. If the player in question is strong and well aware of his local bridge-playing culture, I think that deliberately "failing to protect himself" would be trying to take advantage. Stefanie Rohan London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 23 04:58:47 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:58:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com> <47961C26.6080800@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> [JF] But if it is so clear to both of you that UI is so benign compared to MI, why not clear up the MI at once? [DALB] You've lost me. The MS position *does* clear up the MI at once. West alerts 4NT as Blackwood (MI) and bids 5D; East explains this as minor-suit preference (GI, an acronym for "genuine information", although the American soldiery might correctly claim that they are never given any of that). Now North-South both know what 4NT really was, which is their entitlement in Law. So does West, of course, but since he's not allowed to know (or, what is the same thing, to act on his new-found knowledge) this does not matter. Similarly, East knows that West has one ace, not which minor West prefers, but since East is not allowed to know, this does not matter either. Maybe East-West will know their methods next time, and how can that be bad for the game? The dWS position lets the MI go uncorrected. East alerts 5D as "one ace", thus confirming the notion that 4NT was Blackwood, which it was not. This fubars the whole thing. Herman has claimed that North-South are not entitled to know that East-West are having a misunderstanding. It is true that North-South are not explicitly entitled to this knowledge, but neither are they expressly forbidden to acquire it. Under the dWS, North-South will know at North's turn to act what West has got, but not what East has got, nor will they know what the East-West system actually is. Under the MS, North-South will know at North's turn to act what West has got, what East has got, and what the East-West system actually is. Now, which of those positions is "better for bridge"? David Burn London, England From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 23 05:08:34 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:08:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4796BDC2.9010707@ntlworld.com> [John Maine] And falsecarding is wholly different than lying; falsecarding is simply playing a card. Now, lying is expressly permitted in some games (negotiation games, like Diplomacy, for instance). Heck, *stealing* is permitted in some games (Cosmic Encounter has a power where you can steal from the bank if no one catches you). But in those games where it's not permitted, it's often enough forbidden. In my fantasy baseball league, I can't lie about the injury status of my players who I'm trying to throw away, though I can misdirect - even lie - about my draft plans. But in those cases in which misstating the truth is acceptable - in every one of them - the person hearing the statement is not expected to take the statement at face value. We know that the others will try to deceive us to their advantage. If I draw a ton of money in Junta to disperse to my ruling faction (aka, the other players) I may well announce that the hidden bills are in fact a paucity of currency, and thus salaries will be tragicly low for my valued ruling party. No one believes this. They will all try to kill me (in game) for my penury. In this bridge game, we are specifically trying to get the person to believe the lie, and most of us expect that the hearer should take the statement at face value without looking for reasons to disbelieve it. It's a different thing. Lying is not a game ethic generally. [nigel] Herman's protocol may be illegal or undesirable but whether or not it is "lying" seems to be a red-herring. When Herman and his partner seem to have a different understanding, he trusts what seems to be his partner's recollection rather than his own. I disagree with Raija, John and Stefanie that this is morally reprehensible. We all tell such lies at bridge: in the auction, we make contractual commitments, which we are unlikely to deliver; in the play we false-card to fool partner into some unusual play. These "lies" are sanctioned by the rules of the game, in the same way as Herman believes his to be. Were Herman's protocol law, the squeamish could easily avoid any nuance of lying with an appropriate explanation. e.g. "By his call, I think partner means ...." From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Wed Jan 23 05:37:26 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:37:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4796BDC2.9010707@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000501c85d79$a7b1c310$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > > [nigel] > Herman's protocol may be illegal or undesirable but whether or not it > is "lying" seems to be a red-herring. > True. The question is what is permitted by Law. > When Herman and his partner seem to have a different understanding, he > trusts what seems to be his partner's recollection rather than his > own. I disagree with Raija, John and Stefanie that this is morally > reprehensible. No, Herman trusts his own recollection better than his partner's. Should his partner have correctly remembered system, and Herman be in error, the whole logic of Herman's position falls apart. He is giving MI when in fact his partner is fully aware of the partnership agreements. Of course, once he starts doing this, Herman's partner will now be aware that Herman has forgotten system... > > We all tell such lies at bridge: in the auction, we make contractual > commitments, which we are unlikely to deliver; in the play we > false-card to fool partner into some unusual play. These "lies" are > sanctioned by the rules of the game, in the same way as Herman > believes his to be. > We are allowed to try and deceive the opponents through legal calls and plays. Those methods are incorporated into the Laws. Other methods of deception are prohibited. > Were Herman's protocol law, the squeamish could easily avoid any > nuance of lying with an appropriate explanation. e.g. "By his call, I > think partner means ...." > No again. If you don't know the meaning of partner's call, point your opponents at the system card. If it isn't there, call the TD and let him sort it out. Your opponents are entitled to full knowledge of your system and special partnership agreements, whether derived from discussion or experience. It is not required that they know anything about your hand, and you are fully entitled to conceal what is in your hand, provided it is done through legal calls and plays, and that your partner knows nothing more than the opponents about the systemic meaning of your calls and plays. What is so difficult about this? Hirsch From mustikka at charter.net Wed Jan 23 05:54:09 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:54:09 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4796BDC2.9010707@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000901c85d7b$fdcefae0$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > [John Maine] > And falsecarding is wholly different than lying; falsecarding is > simply playing a card. Now, lying is expressly permitted in some games > (negotiation games, like Diplomacy, for instance). Heck, *stealing* is > permitted in some games (Cosmic Encounter has a power where you can > steal from the bank if no one catches you). > > But in those games where it's not permitted, it's often enough > forbidden. In my fantasy baseball league, I can't lie about the injury > status of my players who I'm trying to throw away, though I can > misdirect - even lie - about my draft plans. > > But in those cases in which misstating the truth is acceptable - in > every one of them - the person hearing the statement is not expected > to take the statement at face value. We know that the others will try > to deceive us to their advantage. > > If I draw a ton of money in Junta to disperse to my ruling faction > (aka, the other players) I may well announce that the hidden bills are > in fact a paucity of currency, and thus salaries will be tragicly low > for my valued ruling party. No one believes this. They will all try to > kill me (in game) for my penury. > > In this bridge game, we are specifically trying to get the person to > believe the lie, and most of us expect that the hearer should take the > statement at face value without looking for reasons to disbelieve it. > > It's a different thing. Lying is not a game ethic generally. > > [nigel] > Herman's protocol may be illegal or undesirable but whether or not it > is "lying" seems to be a red-herring. [raija] Herman said just today or was it yesterday - that lying is part of the game and that he prefers DWS which requires one to lie about partnership agreement. [I don't agree but that is not the point. The WBFLC says it is illegal, but that is not the point either]. I don't know what you mean by red herring. > When Herman and his partner seem to have a different understanding, he > trusts what seems to be his partner's recollection rather than his > own. I disagree with Raija, John and Stefanie that this is morally > reprehensible. Herman has not discussed what Herman would do when he does not know or is unsure or seem to have a different understanding of what his partnership agreement is. [I really don't want to know....]. In all the discussions around this, he knew what his partnership agreement was. From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jan 23 06:11:38 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:11:38 -0600 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000901c85d7b$fdcefae0$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361> References: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4796BDC2.9010707@ntlworld.com> <000901c85d7b$fdcefae0$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801222111m5e6a2ffi8526891d8dd0fff8@mail.gmail.com> raija wrote: > > Herman has not discussed what Herman would do when he does not know or is > unsure or seem to have a different understanding of what his partnership > agreement is. [I really don't want to know....]. In all the discussions > around this, he knew what his partnership agreement was. > Actually, Herman has recently discussed this. As I mentioned a few hours ago, it is the voices of MS that have not. Herman says if pard is wrong, you describe what partner thinks is right. If partner is right, you describe what partner thinks is right. If you don't know for sure who is right, you still describe what partner thinks is right. MS is vague on this question---I still am not sure what MS believers say; the person who is not vague on this is Herman. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jan 23 06:18:22 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:18:22 -0600 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000501c85d79$a7b1c310$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4796BDC2.9010707@ntlworld.com> <000501c85d79$a7b1c310$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801222118w21888b89jf58a16b173adf7be@mail.gmail.com> Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > No, Herman trusts his own recollection better than his partner's. Should > his partner have correctly remembered system, and Herman be in error, the > whole logic of Herman's position falls apart. He is giving MI when in fact > his partner is fully aware of the partnership agreements. Of course, once he > starts doing this, Herman's partner will now be aware that Herman has > forgotten system... > You have this perfectly backwards, as I responded to raija a few minutes ago. It is far easier to tell if partner has forgotten system when playing MS. In MS, he must describe the system. If he is right, he has not forgotten, if is wrong, he has forgotten. In DWS, he must describe partner's understanding, whether pard is right or wrong. There is no way for partner to learn which player is right. A key point, generally agreed, is that DWS gives more MI and less UI. If you don't agree with that, well, I don't know what to say. Did you followed DALB's recent contribution on MI and UI? He clearly agrees with this point, but he gives the blanket statement that MI is worse that UI. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jan 23 06:30:52 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:30:52 -0600 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com> <47961C26.6080800@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> <000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> > [JF] > > But if it is so clear to both of you that UI is so benign compared to MI, > why not clear up the MI at once? > > [DALB] > > You've lost me. The MS position *does* clear up the MI at once. West alerts > 4NT as Blackwood (MI) and bids 5D; East explains this as minor-suit > preference (GI, an acronym for "genuine information", although the American > soldiery might correctly claim that they are never given any of that). Now > North-South both know what 4NT really was, which is their entitlement in > Law. [JF] You don't see why MS does not clear up the MI at once? I will mention the two main reasons: The first is that North has no way of knowing that 4NT is not Blackwood until later. The second is that South might not ask any questions. By "at once," I mean before North calls and before South asks any questions. Please permit me to rephrase slightly: If it is so clear to both of you that UI is so benign compared to MI, why not clear up the MI at once, before either opponent has taken any action that might be misled by the MI? Again, please understand, I realize that there is currently a law against it. I am asking you to explain why that law is there---i.e., how do you reconcile that law with your assertion that UI is so benign compared to MI? (Note that it will be a while before West can take any action, so if West is going to find out soon anyway, why not let North in on the situation before he acts?) Jerry Fusselman From geller at nifty.com Wed Jan 23 06:41:10 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:41:10 +0900 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200801230541.AA12141@geller204.nifty.com> Jerry Fusselman writes: >Again, please understand, I realize that there is currently a law >against it. I am asking you to explain why that law is there---i.e., >how do you reconcile that law with your assertion that UI is so benign >compared to MI? (Note that it will be a while before West can take >any action, so if West is going to find out soon anyway, why not let >North in on the situation before he acts?) The whole idea is that under the current laws as well as all previous versions (AFAIK) the opponents are entitled ONLY to a description of your system, not the actual hand. Period (full stop in the UK). Unfortunately Herman sometimes argues (as does Jerry above) that changing this to allow MI would be better (I disagree, but this is not an intellectually bankrupt position, just wrong IMO but let's let that drop), but most of the time Herman seems to be arguing that his "DWs" is permissible UNDER the current Laws, which is (IMO) absurd. If we could stop such absurdity then maybe once in a while we could consider proposals for changes to the current laws. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jan 23 06:48:46 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:48:46 -0600 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <200801230541.AA12141@geller204.nifty.com> References: <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> <200801230541.AA12141@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801222148y69936adeu11a03ada3f7315e0@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 22, 2008 11:41 PM, Robert Geller wrote: > Jerry Fusselman writes: > > >Again, please understand, I realize that there is currently a law > >against it. I am asking you to explain why that law is there---i.e., > >how do you reconcile that law with your assertion that UI is so benign > >compared to MI? (Note that it will be a while before West can take > >any action, so if West is going to find out soon anyway, why not let > >North in on the situation before he acts?) > > The whole idea is that under the current laws as well as all > previous versions (AFAIK) the opponents are entitled ONLY > to a description of your system, not the actual hand. Period (full stop in the UK). > > Unfortunately Herman sometimes argues (as does Jerry above) that changing > this to allow MI would be better (I disagree, but this is not an intellectually > bankrupt position, just wrong IMO but let's let that drop), but most of the > time Herman seems to be arguing that his "DWs" is permissible UNDER the > current Laws, which is (IMO) absurd. What? In the paragraph you quote, I argued nothing. My first sentence you must agree with, and my next two sentences are questions. I am asking David and Matthias two questions; I have no idea what their answer could be. Can anyone answer the question? Jerry Fusselman From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Wed Jan 23 07:06:52 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:06:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net><4796BDC2.9010707@ntlworld.com> <000501c85d79$a7b1c310$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <2b1e598b0801222118w21888b89jf58a16b173adf7be@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000b01c85d86$26af6990$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > In MS, he must describe the system. This one sentence is the error in your logic. Under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, he must describe the system. If he does anything else, then the game he is playing is no longer bridge. "MS" is somewhat of a misnomer. It describes those of us who try to play the game according to its Laws, even those that we might have some disagreement with. Ideally, that should be all of us. Hirsch From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 23 07:52:17 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:52:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com> <47961C26.6080800@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> <000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000501c85d8c$7e9d1ed0$7bd75c70$@com> [JF] You don't see why MS does not clear up the MI at once? I will mention the two main reasons: The first is that North has no way of knowing that 4NT is not Blackwood until later. [DALB] You've lost me again. At North's turn to call (in whatever auction) North is entitled to elicit from East the systemic meaning of every call made so far by West, and from West the systemic meaning of every call made so far by East. So says Law 20F1 [2007 code] and so say I. Not only, therefore, does North not have "no way of knowing that 4NT is not Blackwood", that knowledge is his legal right (the legal fiction is that North has a complete copy of East-West's methods available to him). Per the MS, *before North acts*, North will ascertain from East that 4NT was minors (because East will explain 5D as preference) and from West that West thought 4NT was Blackwood (because he explained it as such). I really do not understand what you are saying above. I think you may be basing some of what you say on alerting regulations; but here, we assume that every call is alertable and that a player will ask questions about every call whether alerted or not. I hope so, because the only conclusion I can otherwise draw is that you have completely lost your marbles. Not that I blame you for this; the dWS would drive (and has driven) everyone insane (apart from Herman, who was insane from the outset). [JF] The second is that South might not ask any questions. [DALB] So what? Per the dWS, North will not know that 4NT is systemically not Blackwood (indeed, this knowledge will deliberately be hidden from him by the dWS lunatic sitting East). This is in direct contravention of L20F1, and also in direct contravention of ornery common sense, and a Bad Thing for the game of bridge. Per the MS, North will know that 4NT is systemically not Blackwood. This is not only North's legal entitlement, but a Good Thing for the game of bridge. [JF] Please permit me to rephrase slightly: If it is so clear to both of you that UI is so benign compared to MI, why not clear up the MI at once, before either opponent has taken any action that might be misled by the MI? [DALB] That is what we in the MS do. That is not what the dWS does. The MS clears up MI. The dWS does not. Take a short break, Jerry. Read the examples again, slowly and carefully. And read what Herman says, which is that the dWS proposes to perpetuate MI in order not to give UI. The MS clears up MI because MI is harmful while UI is not. The dWS does not clear up MI, and that is what's wrong with it. That's why the MS leads to better bridge. So when you ask me "why not clear up MI?" you are preaching to the choir. Why not, indeed? David Burn London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 23 09:34:24 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:34:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <479615F4.8010906@t-online.de> References: <4755E1EE18BD52E7@mail-9-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-9.uk.tiscali.com) <002101c85d00$d7f8a940$60cd403e@Mildred> <47960C53.4050107@skynet.be> <479615F4.8010906@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4796FC10.3090506@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > That is because (IMO) you do not "accept" the reason behind it. You > cannot see what you refuse to see. > And how is that different from my opponents? From you? Do you think I don't believe you to be blind? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 23 09:40:20 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:40:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <037b01c85d61$0190b210$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie><479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie><4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be><000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com> <000701c85d51$a1aa5d10$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361> <037b01c85d61$0190b210$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4796FD74.9070300@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > Jerry Fusselman > >>> He did not twist your point at all. He said "yes." I think Herman >>> makes an excellent point, especially given that so many BLMLers have >>> stated over and over that "I will never lie!" when playing bridge. >>> > raija >> I don't know about others, but what I have said is "I will not lie about >> our >> partnership agreement" >> > Same here. And this is because I am playing a game in which doing so is > against the rules. But that's not the point! I also know it's against the rules. But I believe it's not the strongest law. Raija was saying that it was the strongest law, because "lying is bad". I'm not criticising that, I'm only criticising that Raija takes outside influence (whether it be biblical or other) as proof that this is so. That's simply not true. The laws of bridge will ultimately have to decide whether it's better to "lie to your opponents" or to "say something unauthorized to your partner". "not giving UI" is not one of the ten commandments, but it is forbidden in bridge law. It's not possible to use outside rules to prove which law is strongest. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From geller at nifty.com Wed Jan 23 09:44:57 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:44:57 +0900 Subject: [blml] question about L31B Message-ID: <200801230844.AA12144@geller204.nifty.com> Could someone please tell me whether or not my understanding of L31B is correct? Thanks. The relevant part is as follows: *************************************************** LAW 31 - BID OUT OF ROTATION When a player has bid out of rotation, has passed artificially or has passed partner?s artificial call (see Law 30C), and the call is cancelled the option in Law 29A not having been exercised, the following provisions apply: B. Partner?s or LHO?s Turn When the offender has bid at his partner?s turn to call, or at his LHO?s turn to call, if the offender has not previously called**, offender?s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side). The lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply. **Later calls at LHO?s turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 applies. ******************************************************* There are two cases in 31B: (a) at pard's turn to call (b) at LHO's turn to call. My understanding of 31B is that in case "a" (pard's turn to call) offender's partner must pass regardless of whether or not the offender has previously called, but that in case "b" (LHO's turn to call) offender's partner must always pass if the offender has not previously called, but if the offender has previously called then L25 applies (treat as a change of call). Is this correct? If my understanding is correct then may I suggest that the comma before "if the offender has not previously called" should be deleted so that L31B would read as follows: ********************************************************* B. Partner?s or LHO?s Turn When the offender has bid at his partner?s turn to call, or at his LHO?s turn to call if the offender has not previously called**, offender?s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side). The lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply. **Later calls at LHO?s turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 applies. ********************************************************* IMO the above is less ambiguous and easier to translate. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 23 09:51:29 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:51:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com> <47961C26.6080800@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> <000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> Message-ID: <47970011.6030903@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [JF] > > But if it is so clear to both of you that UI is so benign compared to MI, > why not clear up the MI at once? > > [DALB] > > You've lost me. The MS position *does* clear up the MI at once. No David, it doesn't! L20F5 explicitely tells the North player to stay quiet. That is not "at once" And when no question is asked, he shall remain quiet, and the MI shall stand until the end of the auction! West alerts > 4NT as Blackwood (MI) and bids 5D; East explains this as minor-suit > preference (GI, an acronym for "genuine information", although the American > soldiery might correctly claim that they are never given any of that). Now > North-South both know what 4NT really was, which is their entitlement in > Law. So does West, of course, but since he's not allowed to know (or, what > is the same thing, to act on his new-found knowledge) this does not matter. > Similarly, East knows that West has one ace, not which minor West prefers, > but since East is not allowed to know, this does not matter either. Maybe > East-West will know their methods next time, and how can that be bad for the > game? > But East will not explain this as Minor-Suit preference when North does not ask him! > The dWS position lets the MI go uncorrected. East alerts 5D as "one ace", > thus confirming the notion that 4NT was Blackwood, which it was not. This > fubars the whole thing. Herman has claimed that North-South are not entitled > to know that East-West are having a misunderstanding. It is true that > North-South are not explicitly entitled to this knowledge, but neither are > they expressly forbidden to acquire it. > David, the Lawbook lets the MI go uncorrected. If NS don't ask any questions about the meaning of 5Di, they will still be under the impression that 4NT is Blackwood. THAT is gross MI, and you're quite happy to allow it, in fact, the laws require it! In comparison with the info that 4NT is Blackwood, the "misexplanation" that 5Di shows one ace is totally unimportant. Especially since West actually has one ace! Omitting telling opponents that 5Di shows diamond preference is totally harmless! > Under the dWS, North-South will know at North's turn to act what West has > got, but not what East has got, nor will they know what the East-West system > actually is. Under the MS, North-South will know at North's turn to act what > West has got, what East has got, and what the East-West system actually is. > Now, which of those positions is "better for bridge"? > But David, such is the situation under the law! When NS don't ask about 5Di, they are in the situation you describe. And the WBF are happy with that. Changing that situation to one in which NS are better off may well be "better for NS", but it is "much worse for EW". Now tell me which is better for bridge? Jerry asked a very pertinent question. If you believe it is better for bridge to correct the MI immediately, then why not write that into the laws? As it stands, the "better for bridge" does not arrive when North (in your example) checks the system card for the Blackwood responses. > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 23 09:53:21 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:53:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <000501c85d8c$7e9d1ed0$7bd75c70$@com> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com> <47961C26.6080800@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> <000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> <000501c85d8c$7e9d1ed0$7bd75c70$@com> Message-ID: <47970081.2080905@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > [JF] > > The second is that South might not ask any questions. > > [DALB] > > So what? Per the dWS, North will not know that 4NT is systemically not > Blackwood (indeed, this knowledge will deliberately be hidden from him by > the dWS lunatic sitting East). NOOOOOOOO!!!!?!!!!!!!! It will also be deliberately hidden by DALB sitting there, conforming to L20F5. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 23 10:02:53 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:02:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <00f501c85d2d$0e12e550$bac8403e@Mildred> References: <000d01c859bf$98018080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47909779.5050704@skynet.be> <044b01c859f7$2f62fdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4791E42D.4000003@skynet.be><20406546-C455-459F-B535-D771C0579629@starpower.net> <47960DFA.4010807@skynet.be> <00f501c85d2d$0e12e550$bac8403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <479702BD.4030909@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Judge not the play before the play be done" > [Sir John Davies 1569-1626] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:38 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] When both players are dWSists > > >> In fact, I made that suggestion to Grattan in Antalya. He said >> he would take note of it. Yet we see L75D3 unchanged back >> as L20F5. >> > +=+ Let us be clear that in Antalya I listened pleasantly enough > to Herman's ideas. However, I did not suggest that I favoured > them, nor that I would carry them to the DSC. There we had > extensive comments from NBOs to consider, and nowhere did > they include anything that would lead us into this subject. We > had publicized our intention to open our ears to the remarks of > NBOs and Zones and that any individual wishing to comment > should address their NBO. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan, I did not mean that you agreed with me, or that you should have brought it to the LC. What I meant was that you cannot claim now that did not know of DWS, that you cannot say that I thought it was legal then, and that you cannot say that by not changing anything to L20F5 you reaffirmed something which I did not agree with. It was my belief, then and now, that the DWS actions are "acceptable". You cannot claim that you did not know that. You did not change the law, so you cannot now say that the new laws make any difference to my beliefs. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 23 10:05:33 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:05:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Story (I refuse to write "strory") with a conclusion and truth In-Reply-To: <021e01c85d0e$0beaed50$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47924B83.5030008@aol.com> <47932B0E.9060602@skynet.be><0ee201c85c55$681325c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4795BDC6.7060202@skynet.be> <021e01c85d0e$0beaed50$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4797035D.2090501@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > In the Bible, the verb "to lie" is generally followed by "with"... > Yes, and "to know" also has a different meaning. Unauthorized Information must be very bad indeed! So it may be wise not to use biblical arguments when discussing bridge laws. ;) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 23 10:10:49 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:10:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000501c85d79$a7b1c310$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4796BDC2.9010707@ntlworld.com> <000501c85d79$a7b1c310$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <47970499.8070400@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > > We are allowed to try and deceive the opponents through legal calls and > plays. Those methods are incorporated into the Laws. Other methods of > deception are prohibited. > Exactly Hirsh. The point is that some lying is permitted, other lying is not. It's the bridge laws that tell us which is which. So if you believe that I'm lying, you should use bridge laws logic to find out whether it's allowed. What Raija and Stefanie were trying, is saying that my lying is not allowed because it "is lying". Such arguments are invalid. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Jan 23 10:43:51 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:43:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?question_about_L31B?= In-Reply-To: <200801230844.AA12144@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200801230844.AA12144@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <1JHc99-0fZgSO0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> Yes, Bob, your understanding is correct. But you/we/they can't/won't erase the comma in the original WBF version of the Laws. Of course you are free* to translate this law into Japanese in a way that this "problem" does not exist any longer in Japan. * according to some statement of Grattan earlier these days > Could someone please tell me whether or not my understanding of L31B > is correct? ?Thanks. > > The relevant part is as follows: > *************************************************** > LAW 31 - BID OUT OF ROTATION > When a player has bid out of rotation, has passed artificially or has > passed partner$B!G(Bs artificial call (see Law 30C), and the call is > cancelled the option in Law 29A not having been exercised, the > following provisions apply: > > B. Partner$B!G(Bs or LHO$B!G(Bs Turn > When the offender has bid at his partner$B!G(Bs turn to call, or at > his LHO$B!G(Bs turn to call, if the offender has not previously > called**, offender$B!G(Bs partner must pass whenever it is his turn > to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side). The > lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply. > **Later calls at LHO$B!G(Bs turn to call are treated as changes of > call, and Law 25 applies. > ******************************************************* > > There are two cases in 31B: > (a) at pard's turn to call > (b) at LHO's turn to call. > > My understanding of 31B is that in case "a" (pard's turn to call) > offender's partner must pass regardless of whether or not the offender > has previously called, but that in case "b" (LHO's turn to call) > offender's partner must always pass if the offender has not previously > called, but if the offender has previously called then L25 applies > (treat as a change of call). ?Is this correct? > > If my understanding is correct then may I suggest that the comma > before ?"if the offender has not previously called" should be deleted > so that L31B would read as follows: > ********************************************************* > B. Partner$B!G(Bs or LHO$B!G(Bs Turn > When the offender has bid at his partner$B!G(Bs turn to call, or at > his LHO$B!G(Bs turn to call if the offender has not previously > called**, offender$B!G(Bs partner must pass whenever it is his turn > to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side). The > lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply. > **Later calls at LHO$B!G(Bs turn to call are treated as changes of > call, and Law 25 applies. > ********************************************************* > IMO the above is less ambiguous and easier to translate. > > -Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, ? ? Tokyo, Japan ? ? ? ?geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 23 11:58:17 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:58:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <4796FD74.9070300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c85dae$dcd9c0d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................. > I also know it's against the rules. But I believe it's not the > strongest law. > Raija was saying that it was the strongest law, because "lying is bad". > I'm not criticising that, I'm only criticising that Raija takes > outside influence (whether it be biblical or other) as proof that this > is so. That's simply not true. The laws of bridge will ultimately have > to decide whether it's better to "lie to your opponents" or to "say > something unauthorized to your partner". > > "not giving UI" is not one of the ten commandments, but it is > forbidden in bridge law. It's not possible to use outside rules to > prove which law is strongest. Pardon me but this is maybe (again) the kernel of Herman's mistake: Bridge laws do _not_ forbid giving UI (to partner); they forbid partner to make use of UI. (Laws 16 and in particular 73C) I know Herman bases his mistake on Law 20F5a but that law is not about giving UI; it is about alerting partner (together with alerting opponents) that he has given an incorrect explanation. So when a player gives an explanation to opponents and this explanation appears to be in conflict with a previous explanation given by partner, that partner has technically not violated Law 20F5a. The inference that partner "must" have given an incorrect explanation is for opponents to draw at their own risk. All they can safely infer at the moment is that there probably are some uncertainties within the partnership about agreements. In this way there is a major difference between saying: "Partner's bid is preference for diamonds" and saying "My 4NT bid was not Blackwood, it was seeking a minor preference"; only the latter is technically forbidden by Law 20F5a. Opponents can relax with the assurance that they are protected by the laws from any damage caused by possible misinformation (provided they do not take any "wild or gambling" action). If allowing a player to alert his partner that he has given an incorrect explanation to opponents should ever be considered "good for the game" I expect that so should also be allowing a player to consult his own system description at any time during the auction (and play). Both options will serve the purpose of securing auctions against going wild. Sven From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 23 12:33:47 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:33:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists References: <000d01c859bf$98018080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47909779.5050704@skynet.be> <044b01c859f7$2f62fdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4791E42D.4000003@skynet.be><20406546-C455-459F-B535-D771C0579629@starpower.net> <47960DFA.4010807@skynet.be><00f501c85d2d$0e12e550$bac8403e@Mildred> <479702BD.4030909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <051501c85db3$d2063350$0100a8c0@stefanie> > > It was my belief, then and now, that the DWS actions are "acceptable". > You cannot claim that you did not know that. You did not change the > law, so you cannot now say that the new laws make any difference to my > beliefs. > But if the WBFLC issue an official interpretation, will you believe it? Will you then accept that normal practices are legal and the DWS is not? Will you still play DWS? Stefanie Rohan London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 23 12:55:28 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:55:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <02c001c85d59$cba7e670$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <200801091545.m09FjFWu000838@cfa.harvard.edu><4786CE85.8050807@nhcc.net> <02c001c85d59$cba7e670$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47972B30.8080207@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > How can anything be a "sure" zero? Has no one here ever bid to an excellent > slam to find that even game wasn't making? Has no one ever won matchpoints > playing in a partscore when game makes, because some pairs have got too > high? > > If he feels that 3S is a "sure zero", then he might as well try something > else, and that seems a perfectly "logical" thing to do. > > But you admit that it can't be ...and see below. >> ISTM that this "sort of ethical" player has attempted to do the right >> thing by deliberately shooting himself in the foot, and we are >> penalizing him for having missed a vital organ. >> > I have always thought that "logical alternative" was meant to include, not > exclude; ie, a call can be a possible call (LA) or not. Therefore if, say, > Pass is deemed an LA, a player may be forced to make that call. > > That's not what TFLB says. It says you aren't allowed to make a LA that was suggested.It doesn't say you're compelled to do such-and-such. BTW, 7S looks like being more ethical than passing. If 4S was absolutely obvious, you wouldn't be disallowed to bid it (no LA). Therefore, bidding and making 3S will score "something" : - 10 to 30 % when 4S wins (because some other pairs will be in 3S, and some in more exotic contracts) - 75 to 95 % in the 20-30 % of cases when 4S will fail. The average score in 3S will be considerably higher than the average score in 7S. (somewhere between 15 and 30 %) How can we think 7S was made with the intention of profit ? Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 23 13:21:49 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:21:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000001c85dae$dcd9c0d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c85dae$dcd9c0d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4797315D.5080903@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ................. >> I also know it's against the rules. But I believe it's not the >> strongest law. >> Raija was saying that it was the strongest law, because "lying is bad". >> I'm not criticising that, I'm only criticising that Raija takes >> outside influence (whether it be biblical or other) as proof that this >> is so. That's simply not true. The laws of bridge will ultimately have >> to decide whether it's better to "lie to your opponents" or to "say >> something unauthorized to your partner". >> >> "not giving UI" is not one of the ten commandments, but it is >> forbidden in bridge law. It's not possible to use outside rules to >> prove which law is strongest. > > Pardon me but this is maybe (again) the kernel of Herman's mistake: > If at last you understand the kernel then maybe we can see if it is a mistake or not. > Bridge laws do _not_ forbid giving UI (to partner); they forbid partner to > make use of UI. (Laws 16 and in particular 73C) > > I know Herman bases his mistake on Law 20F5a but that law is not about > giving UI; it is about alerting partner (together with alerting opponents) > that he has given an incorrect explanation. > Which is precisely what this kind of UI is about. > So when a player gives an explanation to opponents and this explanation > appears to be in conflict with a previous explanation given by partner, that > partner has technically not violated Law 20F5a. The inference that partner > "must" have given an incorrect explanation is for opponents to draw at their > own risk. All they can safely infer at the moment is that there probably are > some uncertainties within the partnership about agreements. > Please Sven, do you really believe this? 4NT - Blackwood - 5Di - Diamond preference Can it be clearer? And even if it is sometimes less clean than this example, does not L20F5 include "in any manner"? And even if it is sometimes less clean than this example, what do you do with this example, where it is clear? Or other examples, where it is even clearer? Surely you can see that your argument is intenable? > In this way there is a major difference between saying: "Partner's bid is > preference for diamonds" and saying "My 4NT bid was not Blackwood, it was > seeking a minor preference"; only the latter is technically forbidden by Law > 20F5a. > Not if you notice the words "in any manner". I can imagine that you don't want to use DWS, but the arguments you are using are too easily dismissable, sorry. > Opponents can relax with the assurance that they are protected by the laws > from any damage caused by possible misinformation (provided they do not take > any "wild or gambling" action). > But that is not the point. The point is that I don't want to give that UI! > If allowing a player to alert his partner that he has given an incorrect > explanation to opponents should ever be considered "good for the game" I > expect that so should also be allowing a player to consult his own system > description at any time during the auction (and play). Both options will > serve the purpose of securing auctions against going wild. > But don't you see that this is precisely what you are doing? "Alerting partner that he has given an incorrect explanation". > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 23 13:26:03 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:26:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <051501c85db3$d2063350$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000d01c859bf$98018080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47909779.5050704@skynet.be> <044b01c859f7$2f62fdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4791E42D.4000003@skynet.be><20406546-C455-459F-B535-D771C0579629@starpower.net> <47960DFA.4010807@skynet.be><00f501c85d2d$0e12e550$bac8403e@Mildred> <479702BD.4030909@skynet.be> <051501c85db3$d2063350$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4797325B.3050708@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> It was my belief, then and now, that the DWS actions are "acceptable". >> You cannot claim that you did not know that. You did not change the >> law, so you cannot now say that the new laws make any difference to my >> beliefs. >> > But if the WBFLC issue an official interpretation, will you believe it? > Will you then accept that normal practices are legal and the DWS is not? > Will you still play DWS? > That is a very difficult question. Firstly, I would like to have it happen that the WBF really listen to my case. So far, we only have Grattan's word for it that more than he and Ton have been reading my posts. And I still haven't been able to put my seven arguments to you guys, let alone the WBF. Secondly, I would hope it does not come that far, and that the WBF see sense. Thirdly, I wold hope that the WBF, if it persists, takes on board all the advice I give on how to make this workable. If, for instance, they do not do anything about what I call the "mind reading problem", then I will use that device to continue acting like I do now. Fourthly, I will follow the laws as they are pronounced. I hope that clears up a few things. I am not advocating breaking any laws, I am advocating writing laws that are workable and good for the game. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 23 13:32:40 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:32:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists References: <000d01c859bf$98018080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47909779.5050704@skynet.be> <044b01c859f7$2f62fdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4791E42D.4000003@skynet.be><20406546-C455-459F-B535-D771C0579629@starpower.net> <47960DFA.4010807@skynet.be><00f501c85d2d$0e12e550$bac8403e@Mildred> <479702BD.4030909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004701c85dbc$4b9d6460$f5cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:38 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] When both players are dWSists >> > > Grattan, I did not mean that you agreed with me, or that > you should have brought it to the LC. > What I meant was that you cannot claim now that did not > know of DWS, that you cannot say that I thought it was > legal then, and that you cannot say that by not changing > anything to L20F5 you reaffirmed something which I did > not agree with. > > It was my belief, then and now, that the DWS actions are > "acceptable". You cannot claim that you did not know that. > You did not change the law, so you cannot now say that > the new laws make any difference to my beliefs. > +=+ Herman: 1. I was never in doubt as to what you believed. 2. I have not argued that the new laws make any difference to your beliefs. 3. I did not discuss whether we reaffirmed something you did not agree with. However, it is true that not a single moment was given to the thought of what you agree with. The question did not arise. 4. We have retained the effect of the law as it was previously in this area. That has nothing to do with your beliefs or your agreement with it. 5. You were told how to interpret the 1997 Law. If you did not accept the authoritative instruction given to you in the matter you had at least three opportunities to raise a question with the staff on the international TD courses you attended. 6. Directors generally will be told how to interpret the 2007 laws. You may disagree with the instructions that will be issued if you choose; however, as a participant subject to the by-laws and constitution of the WBF via the regulations of the events in which you wish to participate, you will conform to them. The alternative is to detach yourself from bridge organized under the auspices of the WBF and its adherent bodies. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 23 13:55:11 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:55:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists References: <000d01c859bf$98018080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47909779.5050704@skynet.be> <044b01c859f7$2f62fdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4791E42D.4000003@skynet.be><20406546-C455-459F-B535-D771C0579629@starpower.net> <47960DFA.4010807@skynet.be><00f501c85d2d$0e12e550$bac8403e@Mildred> <479702BD.4030909@skynet.be><051501c85db3$d2063350$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4797325B.3050708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006101c85dbf$487dcd80$f5cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When both players are dWSists > > Firstly, I would like to have it happen that the WBF really listen > to my case. So far, we only have Grattan's word for it that more > than he and Ton have been reading my posts. And I still haven't > been able to put my seven arguments to you guys, let alone the > WBF. > > Secondly, I would hope it does not come that far, and that the > WBF see sense. > +=+ Four of the eight members of the DSC regularly read blml. All eight have read transcripts of your arguments in the recent posts. They have also seen the key comments of the small band of brethren on blml who favour your beliefs. I can tell you they are quite unmoved. The first place for you to go with your 'seven arguments' is your NBO. It is the NBO as the member of the WBF that should forward them to the WBF. Without NBO support your voice is the voice of one crying in the wilderness. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From schoderb at msn.com Wed Jan 23 14:03:51 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:03:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists References: <000d01c859bf$98018080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47909779.5050704@skynet.be> <044b01c859f7$2f62fdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4791E42D.4000003@skynet.be><20406546-C455-459F-B535-D771C0579629@starpower.net> <47960DFA.4010807@skynet.be><00f501c85d2d$0e12e550$bac8403e@Mildred> <479702BD.4030909@skynet.be><051501c85db3$d2063350$0100a8c0@stefanie><4797325B.3050708@skynet.be> <006101c85dbf$487dcd80$f5cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Amen to both of Gratttan's messages to Herman de Wael. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 7:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When both players are dWSists Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] ******************************* "Judge not the play before the play be done" [Sir John Davies 1569-1626] +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When both players are dWSists > > Firstly, I would like to have it happen that the WBF really listen > to my case. So far, we only have Grattan's word for it that more > than he and Ton have been reading my posts. And I still haven't > been able to put my seven arguments to you guys, let alone the > WBF. > > Secondly, I would hope it does not come that far, and that the > WBF see sense. > +=+ Four of the eight members of the DSC regularly read blml. All eight have read transcripts of your arguments in the recent posts. They have also seen the key comments of the small band of brethren on blml who favour your beliefs. I can tell you they are quite unmoved. The first place for you to go with your 'seven arguments' is your NBO. It is the NBO as the member of the WBF that should forward them to the WBF. Without NBO support your voice is the voice of one crying in the wilderness. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080123/fd16e32e/attachment-0001.htm From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 23 14:55:22 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:55:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <4797315D.5080903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c85dc7$9a63dc90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > > So when a player gives an explanation to opponents and this > > explanation appears to be in conflict with a previous explanation > > given by partner, that partner has technically not violated > > Law 20F5a. The inference that partner "must" have given an > > incorrect explanation is for opponents to draw at their own risk. > > All they can safely infer at the moment is that there probably > > are some uncertainties within the partnership about agreements. > > > > Please Sven, do you really believe this? Sure, not only do I "believe" - I know (for what it is worth). > 4NT - Blackwood - 5Di - Diamond preference > Can it be clearer? Opponents do not "know" the actual agreements in force; all they know for sure is what they have been told and that there (probably) is some mix-up. But at least they know what each of the opponents "believes" is their agreement, information that DWS illegally hides from them. Finally they know that they will be protected by laws against any damage to their side caused by this situation (except such damage, if any, that will be considered "self inflected"). The director must establish (when summoned) whether the actual agreement is Blackwood, request for a minor preference, or maybe even a third alternative. Now where do you think this leaves DWS? > And even if it is sometimes less clean than this example, does not > L20F5 include "in any manner"? And on L20F5 you have made up your "divine" opinion in a way that does not deserve any further comments. Sven From john at asimere.com Wed Jan 23 15:37:19 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:37:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] question about L31B References: <200801230844.AA12144@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <003901c85dcd$75021a10$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:44 AM Subject: [blml] question about L31B > Could someone please tell me whether or not my understanding of L31B > is correct? Thanks. I agree with your interpretation of the Law. My own parsing of the sentence in question with or without the comma does not change its meaning for me. Again, we must imagine what's going on. 1) I haven't yet called and then make a COOT. OK, stuff partner if it's his or LHO's turn to bid; makes sense. 2) I have called before and call again at pard's turn to go. same stuffed partner. Makes sense. 3) I have called previously and then at LHO's go i have another shot. Obvious I'm in L25 territory now. It's a 2x2 matrix of have previous;y called; haven't previously called vs pard's turn; LHO's turn with 3 outcomes "stuff pard" and 1 outcome "Go to Law 25" cheers john > > The relevant part is as follows: > *************************************************** > LAW 31 - BID OUT OF ROTATION > When a player has bid out of rotation, has passed artificially or has > passed partner$B!G(Bs artificial call (see Law 30C), and the call is > cancelled the option in Law 29A not having been exercised, the following > provisions apply: > > B. Partner$B!G(Bs or LHO$B!G(Bs Turn > When the offender has bid at his partner$B!G(Bs turn to call, or at his LHO$B!G(Bs > turn to call, if the offender has not previously called**, offender$B!G(Bs > partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the > pass damages the non-offending side). The lead restrictions of Law 26 > may apply. > **Later calls at LHO$B!G(Bs turn to call are treated as changes of call, and > Law 25 applies. > ******************************************************* > > There are two cases in 31B: > (a) at pard's turn to call > (b) at LHO's turn to call. > > My understanding of 31B is that in case "a" (pard's turn to call) > offender's > partner must pass regardless of whether or not the offender has previously > called, but that in case "b" (LHO's turn to call) offender's partner must > always pass if the offender has not previously called, but if the offender > has previously called then L25 applies (treat as a change of call). Is > this > correct? > > If my understanding is correct then may I suggest that the comma > before "if the offender has not previously called" should be deleted > so that L31B would read as follows: > ********************************************************* > B. Partner$B!G(Bs or LHO$B!G(Bs Turn > When the offender has bid at his partner$B!G(Bs turn to call, or at his LHO$B!G(Bs > turn to call if the offender has not previously called**, offender$B!G(Bs > partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the > pass damages the non-offending side). The lead restrictions of Law 26 > may apply. > **Later calls at LHO$B!G(Bs turn to call are treated as changes of call, and > Law 25 applies. > ********************************************************* > IMO the above is less ambiguous and easier to translate. > > -Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From geller at nifty.com Wed Jan 23 16:14:52 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:14:52 +0900 Subject: [blml] =question about L31B In-Reply-To: <1JHc99-0fZgSO0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> References: <1JHc99-0fZgSO0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <200801231514.AA12148@geller204.nifty.com> Peter Eidt writes: >Yes, Bob, your understanding is correct. But you/we/they >can't/won't erase the comma in the original WBF version >of the Laws. Of course you are free* to translate this >law into Japanese in a way that this "problem" does not >exist any longer in Japan. > >* according to some statement of Grattan earlier these days I really can't understand this attitude on the part of the WBFLC. Obviously they can't change the Laws every time someone finds a typo, but I don't see why they can't accumulate an official errata list and update it every month or so. The update interval could be greatly lengthened a year or so from now, by which time most of the errors will presumably have been found. Of course it would have been better to have done a much more thorough job before releasing the laws..... -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Jan 23 17:38:53 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:38:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?=3Dquestion_about_L31B?= In-Reply-To: <200801231514.AA12148@geller204.nifty.com> References: <1JHc99-0fZgSO0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> <200801231514.AA12148@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <1JHico-1HFevQ0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> From: Robert Geller > Peter Eidt writes: > > Yes, Bob, your understanding is correct. But you/we/they > > can't/won't erase the comma in the original WBF version > > of the Laws. Of course you are free* to translate this > > law into Japanese in a way that this "problem" does not > > exist any longer in Japan. > > > > * according to some statement of Grattan earlier these days > > I really can't understand this attitude on the part of the WBFLC. > Obviously they can't change the Laws every time someone finds a typo, > but I don't see why they can't accumulate an official errata list and > update it every month or so. ? The update interval could be greatly > lengthened a year or so from now, by which time most of the errors > will presumably have been found. >From the WBF LC Minute, 24.08.1998 at Lille "1. Constitutional Position The Committee took note of its constitutional position as set out in the By-Laws of the WBF, which read: Laws Committee. The President shall appoint a Laws Committee and shall designate the Chairman of such Committee. The Committee shall consist of not less than seven members representing at least three Zones. The function and duty of this Committee shall be to consider and take account of all matters relating to the international laws of bridge. The Committee shall make whatever changes in the laws it deems appropriate, subject to approval by the Executive. The Committee shall interpret the laws; shall periodically review the laws; and at least once each decade shall make a comprehensive study and updating of the entire laws structure. The Laws Committee shall fix its own rules of procedure and shall act as provided by such rules or by direction of the Executive. The Committee made observation that interim interpretations of Law are made by Zonal Organisations. Where significant conflicts are identified the Committee will consider its view at its next Meeting." The meetings are IMO only during World Championships. And the decisions have to be approved by the Executive to become lawful. > Of course it would have been better to have done a much more thorough > job before releasing the laws..... From john at asimere.com Wed Jan 23 19:13:35 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:13:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] =question about L31B References: <1JHc99-0fZgSO0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> <200801231514.AA12148@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <001e01c85deb$ab7701a0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] =question about L31B > Peter Eidt writes: >>Yes, Bob, your understanding is correct. But you/we/they >>can't/won't erase the comma in the original WBF version >>of the Laws. Of course you are free* to translate this >>law into Japanese in a way that this "problem" does not >>exist any longer in Japan. >> >>* according to some statement of Grattan earlier these days > > I really can't understand this attitude on the part of the WBFLC. > Obviously they can't change the Laws every time someone finds a typo, > but I don't see why they can't accumulate an official errata list and > update > it every month or so. The update interval could be greatly lengthened > a year or so from now, by which time most of the errors will presumably > have been found. > > Of course it would have been better to have done a much more thorough > job before releasing the laws..... The problem is that a drafting committee doesn't parse Laws in the same way as a translating group does. I was taught long ago that you should never put a comma in a legal document. It has stood me in good stead all my life. 2 examples: I was scrapping with my ex-wife's barrister and really winding the cow up The trick is to feed them mega negative feedback and they curl up and die. She kept asking stupid questions which I'd already answered in a sworn document. The document contained hundreds of staccato sentences. After a while I asked the judge did she have any problems understanding what I'd written and sworn. She said not. So I then asked the judge did she think there was some defective gene in barristers that stopped them from understanding "600 word punctuationless English - Madam not a single 'whereas' or comma in sight". I got the bollocking I deserved from the judge but it stopped the crap from the other side in one sentence. I once wrote an agreement between myself as a supplier and my large corporation customer. The corporation employed the guy I was doing the work for. The agreement had about 30 clauses. None of these clauses had more than 22 syllables. It exactly defined what we both wanted and he was very happy with it. So was I. He passed it to the legal department for checking. It came back as a total piece of junk. It wasn't even what we wanted. I wrote across it in blackboard marker "WHAT WAS F***ING WRONG WITH THE VERSION I WROTE IN ENGLISH?" and sent it back. I got a letter from the guy I was doing the work for a couple of days later saying that the legal department had accepted my version without change. They said it was a model of clarity. Even an English judge would have had difficulty reading alternative meanings into it. Commas are anathema to clarity. See! No commas! Easy-peasy! At the TD exams in Europe the non-English speaking TDs bind the English version facing the translation they use. This is a very good idea. I suggested I should do the same for English! My translation would contain no commas and no sentence longer than 22 syllables. Ah well I never did win many friends with my tactful approach. cheers John > > -Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From geller at nifty.com Thu Jan 24 00:09:26 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:09:26 +0900 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?=3Dquestion_about_L31B?= In-Reply-To: <1JHico-1HFevQ0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> References: <1JHico-1HFevQ0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <200801232309.AA12149@geller204.nifty.com> Peter Eidt writes: >The function and duty of this >Committee shall be to consider and take account of all matters >relating to the international laws of bridge. So, if the WBFLC wanted to, they are fully empowered to maintain and publish an official errata list for the Laws. Too bad they have no interest in doing so. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 24 00:12:49 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:12:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4796BDC2.9010707@ntlworld.com><000501c85d79$a7b1c310$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <47970499.8070400@skynet.be> Message-ID: <060501c85e15$78f75b60$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> We are allowed to try and deceive the opponents through legal calls and >> plays. Those methods are incorporated into the Laws. Other methods of >> deception are prohibited. >> > > Exactly Hirsh. The point is that some lying is permitted, other lying > is not. It's the bridge laws that tell us which is which. Deception through calls and plays is not the same as deception when you are asked for your partnership methods. In the bidding, any sufficient bid is permitted by the laws. as well as doubles or redoubles where appropriate. In the play, when on lead you are permitted to play any card in your hand. When you are not on lead you are required to follow suit, and when you cannot you must ruff or discard. This sums up what is legal. There are constraints as to concealed agreements, but in general it seems to me meaningless to discuss whether a call or particularly a play is "lying" or "telling the truth". It is simply a legal action taken in a game. I guess you could call eg a revoke or an insufficient bid a "lie". > So if you > believe that I'm lying, you should use bridge laws logic to find out > whether it's allowed. >What Raija and Stefanie were trying, is saying > that my lying is not allowed because it "is lying". Such arguments are > invalid. What are you talking about? Lying is not allowed because it is "lying"? Does this even mean anything? Lying about partnership agreements is wrong because the Laws of Bridge stipulate teling the truth. Lying in other circumstances, such as in the course of conducting one's personal life may be right, wrong or neutral, but in any case it is the business of no one but the people involved. Stefanie Rohan London, England P.S. Sorry, Herman, if I managed to confuse you and other non-native speakers of English when I made a comment on "lying" in the Biblical sense. I am no Biblical scholar, but I know of one passage in the Old Testament in which lying means telling an untruth. When the discussion is about lying with one's manservant or with one's maidservant, or drugging one's father and taking it in turns with one's sister to go in and lie with him, the word means something very different. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 24 00:36:45 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:36:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4796BDC2.9010707@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <063301c85e18$d0bb21d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Guthrie: > When Herman and his partner seem to have a different understanding, he > trusts what seems to be his partner's recollection rather than his > own. I disagree with Raija, John and Stefanie that this is morally > reprehensible. "Morally reprehensible" is putting it a bit strongly. It's not as if anyone is going to die based on what happens at the bridge table. But bridge is a game, and there is not a lot worse you can do in a game than deliberately break the rules. A game is, after all, only the sum of its rules, and it becomes a meaningless activity if everyone is not playing the same rules. Naturally, there is a moral element to being willing to do anything, including cheating, in order to win at a game. And this can be a quite serious matter when there are at stake prizes like money and international representation. I'm not sure if someone who cheats at bridge is necessarily a bad person. But I know that I wouldn't play with them and would probably not socialise with them. > > We all tell such lies at bridge: in the auction, we make contractual > commitments, which we are unlikely to deliver; in the play we > false-card to fool partner into some unusual play. I have mentioned in another post, and others have also pointed out, that those things are not "lies". But even if they were, they are, as you say: > sanctioned by the rules of the game, in the same way as Herman > believes his to be. OK. But Herman is wrong, and the WBFLC is soon going to make this clear even to him. > > Were Herman's protocol law, the squeamish could easily avoid any > nuance of lying with an appropriate explanation. e.g. "By his call, I > think partner means ...." What does it matter whether you call it "lying" or not? If it is not accurately explaining the partnership's agreements, it is against the Laws of Contract Bridge. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 24 01:03:04 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:03:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: <200801091545.m09FjFWu000838@cfa.harvard.edu><4786CE85.8050807@nhcc.net> <02c001c85d59$cba7e670$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47972B30.8080207@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <06b801c85e1c$7decdf30$0100a8c0@stefanie> > If he feels that 3S is a "sure zero", then he might as well try something > else, and that seems a perfectly "logical" thing to do. AG: But you admit that it can't be ...and see below. SR: I admit nothing of the sort. AG: That's not what TFLB says. It says you aren't allowed to make a LA that was suggested.It doesn't say you're compelled to do such-and-such. SR: I was having trouble expressing myself. What I was trying to say was that a player may be forced afterwards, by a director or AC, to have made a different call. AG: BTW, 7S looks like being more ethical than passing. If 4S was absolutely obvious, you wouldn't be disallowed to bid it (no LA). Therefore, bidding and making 3S will score "something" : - 10 to 30 % when 4S wins (because some other pairs will be in 3S, and some in more exotic contracts) - 75 to 95 % in the 20-30 % of cases when 4S will fail. The average score in 3S will be considerably higher than the average score in 7S. (somewhere between 15 and 30 %) SR: One is not expected to attempt to score a zero because one's partner has transmitted UI. Anyway, if 7S is more "ethical" than passing, wouldn't 7D be more ethical still? AG: How can we think 7S was made with the intention of profit ? SR: If the player is serious about not wanting to profit, he should bid 7D. Stefanie Rohan London, England From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 24 01:08:21 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:08:21 -0600 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <000501c85d8c$7e9d1ed0$7bd75c70$@com> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com> <47961C26.6080800@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> <000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> <000501c85d8c$7e9d1ed0$7bd75c70$@com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801231608q17f13cc1j7846a81e0cced621@mail.gmail.com> David, it is possible that Herman has clarified my question sufficiently. If so, I want to hear your answer. If not, I invite you to read on. I am only going to focus on that one key question that I have asked eight times in this thread. "At once" means at the earliest possible moment, before any action is taken. > [JF] > > You don't see why MS does not clear up the MI at once? I will mention the > two main reasons: The first is that North has no way of knowing that 4NT is > not Blackwood until later. > This paragraph of mine would have been clearer for David's example had I interposed North and South above. I apologize for my mistake. Here is David's example (where all East and West calls are alertable to avoid some side issues) : 1. East bids 4NT, alerted and explained by West as Blackwood (MI) 2. North passes. Note that North had uncorrected MI before he called. 3. East bids 5D, and it is alerted by West. In the perfect MS scenario, West will explain this as minor-suit preference, which we are assuming is correct for their system. But in the perfect MS scenario, West explains this only if asked. If not asked, he remains silent and the MI remains in full force. [DALB] > > That is why the dWS is a load of rotten Brussels > > sprouts: it is based on the premise that UI is harmful and MI harmless, > > whereas the exact opposite is the case. > > [Matthias] > I couldn`t agree more. > [JF] > > Please permit me to rephrase slightly: If it is so clear to both of you > that UI is so benign compared to MI, why not clear up the MI at once, before > either opponent has taken any action that might be misled by the MI? > > [DALB] > > That is what we in the MS do. That is not what the dWS does. The MS clears > up MI. The dWS does not. > I know that DWS causes less UI and more MI than MS does. Yesterday, that is exactly what I wrote in response to Hirsch: [JF] > A key point, generally agreed, is that DWS gives more MI and less UI. But in this thread I was only asking about your position, because it sounded so strange. You claim that MS clears up the MI at once, but perhaps you now see that that is simply false. (We agree that MS clears up MI faster than DWS does, so that's not my question.) In #2 above, South has MI---it is not cleared up before his call. And if no questions are asked by North or South, the MI will continue throughout the auction. Thus, MS does not clear up the MI at once. You said, and Matthias said that he couldn't agree more, that UI is harmless and MI is harmful. My question was, Do you want to clear up the MI *at once*, even before South calls and whether or not North or South ask questions? Logically, you should, because you assert that UI is harmless and MI is harmful. Like I asked originally, [Jerry] > But if it is so clear to both of you that UI is so benign compared to > MI, why not clear up the MI at once? If UI is so harmful as both of > you say; and if MI so harmless as both of you say, why not replace the > beginning of Law 20F5a, which is > > "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not > correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner > that a mistake has been made." > > with > > "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation must immediately > correct the error, and must make it quite clear to the opponents that > a mistake has been made." > > Why should the opponents suffer such harmful MI at all, if it can be > cleared up so easily at the benign cost of a little UI? > > To be clear, I am not asking what the laws are, I am asking what is > best for the game, which is the subject here. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 24 01:12:55 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:12:55 -0600 Subject: [blml] Good or bad bridge citizenship Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801231612j6a0a865ej22119b51ca327b5f@mail.gmail.com> A question: You are the NOS, and you are quite sure that you have been damaged, but subsequently, you goof up the hand and expect to be ruled to not be playing bridge. The director, or committee, who sees all four hands, would have played it better. Also assume that you are having a really bad round. You consider calling the director at this time, but the result would likely be only to adjustment the OS's score, and besides, you are not going to scratch. Is calling the director in this case good, bad, or neutral bridge citizenship? Also, is not calling the director for these reasons (i.e., it won't help you win anything) good, bad, or neutral bridge citizenship? Jerry Fusselman From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jan 24 01:14:50 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:14:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options. In-Reply-To: <200801171520.m0HFKpND017824@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801171520.m0HFKpND017824@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4797D87A.6090903@nhcc.net> > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > I reach a slam and take 12 tricks. Why will you award me -50? Because my > opponents defended poorly? The justification would be that once you commit an infraction, you no longer benefit from opponents' bad play. > Once we allow for things to have happened differently than they did, other > than the illegal call itself, where do we stop? I'm not saying the above is the only possible ruling. I'm not even advocating any particular position. Reasonable people can (and do!) disagree on what basis for ruling is best for the game. However, L12C1 (2007; 12C2 in 1997) certainly contemplates that the OS ruling can include results even with the infraction leaves it to each RA to decide what it wants to do. I personally would prefer to see worldwide uniformity on this matter, but it isn't the most important area for agreement. Grattan Endicott I was asking whether > the ACBL's treatment of 1997 Law 12C2 was > to add 'had the irregularity not occurred' after > 'the most unfavourable result that was at all probable' > (as they have decided to do in the 2007 laws) Sorry; I misunderstood. I don't recall any previous official ACBL pronouncement on the subject, but such things are not always widely dessiminated. I also don't recall any appeal where the adjustment hinged on this issue, though there must have been some. Adam or Marvin (or indeed any of several other people) may remember something. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jan 24 01:18:56 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:18:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] irrelevant In-Reply-To: <200801182232.m0IMWfaq000127@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801182232.m0IMWfaq000127@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4797D970.5060000@nhcc.net> > From: Ed Reppert > http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/acolyte - in particular, the second > meaning. I think the literal meaning of 'acolyte' is the liturgical one. When used in its figurative sense of "follower," the word 'acolyte' connotes subordination, lack of free choice of action, and lesser importance. I'm not aware of any connotation that the actions of an acolyte are in any way undesirable. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 24 01:19:44 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:19:44 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com> Not sure what word is commonly used for this, but I will use "explainable" to refer to an agreement you want to explain before the opening lead if your side is declarer, but you do not bother to alert it during the auction. In the ACBL, a pass when a support double was possible is not alertable, but it is probably explainable if you play the pass as showing fewer than three of partner's suit. (If someone knows a good term for this, please say so.) Anyway, suppose this auction: West North East South 1C Pass 1H Pass 1NT Pass 2C Pass 3NT 2C was a relay to diamonds with either just diamonds or some invitational hand. 3NT does not exist in this situation, because 2D is the only option. Because it does not exist, is it alertable? Is it explainable after the auction but before opening lead if E-W declare? Jerry Fusselman From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jan 24 01:21:16 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:21:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <200801182232.m0IMWDRc029995@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801182232.m0IMWDRc029995@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4797D9FC.4090306@nhcc.net> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Indeed. We need two conditions to make a LA : > 1 - a substantial part of the player's peers woud think about bidding 7S. > 2 - at least a small nomber might well do it. Would players who would never consider 7S be peers? From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 24 01:25:15 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:25:15 -0600 Subject: [blml] =question about L31B In-Reply-To: <200801232309.AA12149@geller204.nifty.com> References: <1JHico-1HFevQ0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> <200801232309.AA12149@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801231625n6c6833bey7b3ae508bdf2c017@mail.gmail.com> Robert Geller wrote: > > So, if the WBFLC wanted to, they are fully empowered to maintain and publish > an official errata list for the Laws. Too bad they have no interest in doing so. > Yes, too bad. Jerry Fusselman From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jan 24 01:39:04 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:39:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <200801222230.m0MMUkmt014660@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801222230.m0MMUkmt014660@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4797DE28.5000305@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau Leaving aside the "get away with cheating," which I think was refuted long ago, we have something new: > All a partnership needs to do is agree on a very simple system they > can't possibly forget, and use that system exclusively as the basis > of giving explanantions of their bidding to their opponents. It need > bear no relationship whatsoever to the system that they are actually > playing. They cannot give UI to their partners... Everyone including Herman agrees that MI is an infraction and that L72B1 applies to it. The dWS argues that _after MI is already given_, any action one takes violates this law. I'm surprised that hasn't become clear by now. Further, the procedure Eric suggests would be silly in score terms. The partnership would receive an unfavorable MI adjustment on every deal in which the opponents might have been in the auction, and only in the rare cases where the partnership would have had a misunderstanding -- and not all of those -- would there be any benefit whatsoever. > So we could come to a point where the DWSists provide mutually > consistent false explanations of their auction that bear no > relationship whatsoever to the methods either partner is actually > using or what they hold in their hands, I'm surprised Eric can write something like this after all the discussion. The dWS explanations correspond to the methods one of the partnership is playing, though not the methods he is supposed to be playing. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 24 01:47:48 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:47:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie> > 3NT does not exist in this situation, because 2D > is the only option. Because it does not exist, is it alertable? Is > it explainable after the auction but before opening lead if E-W > declare? "No agreement", if asked, would be sufficient. Stefanie Rohan London, England From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jan 24 01:55:55 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:55:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <200801222258.m0MMwcE6023604@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801222258.m0MMwcE6023604@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4797E21B.9010208@nhcc.net> > From: "David Burn" > What the dWS does is compound confusion for > the opponents, and that must be bad. Even if the opponents are never going to be in the auction? > South opens 1D, West passes, North bids 1S and East bids 1NT. Systemically > this shows hearts and clubs, but West does not alert (so East knows West > thinks 1NT is natural). South passes and West bids 2C. Per the dWS, East > alerts this as Stayman,... In > the meantime, the auction has already been sabotaged beyond recall I'm surprised you use this as an example against the dWS. As you say, once the initial MI is given (wrong explanation of 1NT), the auction is "sabotaged beyond recall," and an adjusted score is almost inevitable. If you want to have a table result, the only thing you can do is reverse L20F5a so that East would _immediately_ correct West's explanation. Do you think that would be a good change in the Laws? > Per the MS, East does not alert 2C. ... > That was the decision to which the AC eventually came, I thought the usual basis for an adjusted score was that the opponents knew the true agreement, West did not, and West's misunderstanding the agreement was UI to East. The idea that UI is also imputed to West (in addition to his actual misunderstanding) is a new one on me, though it does seem a logical consequence of the MS. If the MS becomes official, you will see more of these sorts of cases. There won't be MI, but there will be UI to both players, and either one can potentially misjudge the LAs or "suggested over another." > From: Robert Geller > Now let's take the relevant excerpt [from L73B1]: > "Partners shall not communicate by ... alerts and > explanations given or not given to the [opponents]." ... > why does L73B1 contain the apparently > superfluous phrase "or alerts and > explanations given or not given to them." Opponents ask about 4NT, and a player says "Keycard, 1430 responses." Do you really think the last part is or should be legal? It requires no prearrangement; in fact, an unfamiliar partnership is the type most likely to employ it. From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 24 02:16:14 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:16:14 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? In-Reply-To: <06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com> <06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com> [Jerry] > > 3NT does not exist in this situation, because 2D > > is the only option. Because it does not exist, is it alertable? Is > > it explainable after the auction but before opening lead if E-W > > declare? [Stefanie Rohan] "No agreement", if asked, would be sufficient. [Jerry] Thanks, Stefanie. Is your answer fully consistent with MS? Suppose my partner (the 3NT bidder) is brilliant and never seems to forget anything. Maybe I should try to imagine what he might have. ... He probably wants 3NT no matter what I have. For 3NT to make any sense, I suspect that he has a good fit for diamonds, no interest in the majors, and he would accept any game invitation. (For this reasoning to make any sense, suppose that we play a weak NT, so dealer should have a strong NT.) But I am only guessing that he is strong with great diamonds, for this is not our agreement. But I think it is a good guess. Do you still suggest that I say nothing unless asked, and if asked only say "No agreement"? Jerry Fusselman From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 24 02:17:44 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:17:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com><06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <071401c85e26$ec1ed170$0100a8c0@stefanie> > [Jerry] > >> > 3NT does not exist in this situation, because 2D >> > is the only option. Because it does not exist, is it alertable? Is >> > it explainable after the auction but before opening lead if E-W >> > declare? > > [Stefanie Rohan] > > "No agreement", if asked, would be sufficient. > > [Jerry] > > Thanks, Stefanie. Is your answer fully consistent with MS? > > Suppose my partner (the 3NT bidder) is brilliant and never seems to > forget anything. Maybe I should try to imagine what he might have. > ... He probably wants 3NT no matter what I have. For 3NT to make any > sense, I suspect that he has a good fit for diamonds, no interest in > the majors, and he would accept any game invitation. (For this > reasoning to make any sense, suppose that we play a weak NT, so dealer > should have a strong NT.) But I am only guessing that he is strong > with great diamonds, for this is not our agreement. But I think it is > a good guess. Do you still suggest that I say nothing unless asked, > and if asked only say "No agreement"? > You can, if you wish, say "a hand which wants to play in 3NT". From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 24 04:20:59 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 03:20:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] irrelevant In-Reply-To: <4797D970.5060000@nhcc.net> References: <200801182232.m0IMWfaq000127@cfa.harvard.edu> <4797D970.5060000@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000001c85e38$246afcf0$6d40f6d0$@com> [SW] I think the literal meaning of 'acolyte' is the liturgical one. [DALB] The clever men at Oxford have this to say about "acolyte", which comes from the Greek akolouthos (following, attending upon): 1. Eccl. An inferior officer in the church who attended the priests and deacons, and performed subordinate duties, as lighting and bearing candles, etc. 2. In other senses: a. An attendant or junior assistant in any ceremony or operation; a novice. They vouchsafe no figurative uses of the term, which is perhaps surprising. In my own experience, the use of the term "acolyte" to describe a follower of a particular individual is usually more deprecating of the individual than the follower; that is, the individual is characterized by a lordly and superior manner. It would not be correct, in my view, to use the term "acolyte" to refer to the followers of a particular school of thought. David Burn London, England From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Thu Jan 24 04:50:47 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:50:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists References: <200801222230.m0MMUkmt014660@cfa.harvard.edu> <4797DE28.5000305@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000f01c85e3c$4e124cd0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] When both players are dWSists >> From: Eric Landau > > Leaving aside the "get away with cheating," which I think was refuted > long ago, we have something new: > >> All a partnership needs to do is agree on a very simple system they >> can't possibly forget, and use that system exclusively as the basis >> of giving explanantions of their bidding to their opponents. It need >> bear no relationship whatsoever to the system that they are actually >> playing. They cannot give UI to their partners... > > Everyone including Herman agrees that MI is an infraction and that L72B1 > applies to it. The dWS argues that _after MI is already given_, any > action one takes violates this law. I'm surprised that hasn't become > clear by now. > > Further, the procedure Eric suggests would be silly in score terms. The > partnership would receive an unfavorable MI adjustment on every deal in > which the opponents might have been in the auction, and only in the rare > cases where the partnership would have had a misunderstanding -- and not > all of those -- would there be any benefit whatsoever. > >> So we could come to a point where the DWSists provide mutually >> consistent false explanations of their auction that bear no >> relationship whatsoever to the methods either partner is actually >> using or what they hold in their hands, > > I'm surprised Eric can write something like this after all the > discussion. The dWS explanations correspond to the methods one of the > partnership is playing, though not the methods he is supposed to be > playing. > The problem is that the Laws do not require disclosure of the methods one of the players is playing. The Laws do require disclosure of the systemic agreements of the partnership. As long as you're citing Laws, don't forget 72A, 72B3, 73C, 73D2, 40B6a, and 20F4. 20F5a cannot be used as an excuse for the myriad of violations listed. If dWs is calling on 72B1, the dWs player has no choice after his partner gives MI but to concede the hand and move on. Alternatively, my somewhat facetious suggestion of written explanations would allow dWs adherents to play without ever giving their partner the UI that triggers dWs. The apparent conflict would cease to exist. It would be a logistical nightmare, but if a dWs adherent is serious about staying within the Laws, that is the only option present to him that allows no Laws to be broken. However, it must be played all of the time, so that the preventive measure needed to block both the UI and MI would be effective. I can't think of another way that the dWs adherent can ethically play the game, though. If an option exists that would allow him to stay within all Laws, logistics should be no barrier...(just don't ask me to to do it). However, as has been pointed out, performing an action required by Law is not a violation of anything. Full and accurate disclosure at the proper time is required by Law. Disclosure produces UI. L16 tells partner his options. But dWs would have a player take UI received from partner, and use it as the basis for giving deliberate MI. David Burns' suggested penalty seems a bit lenient to me. Hirsch From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Thu Jan 24 05:01:42 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:01:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com><06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002201c85e3d$d49cc900$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? > [Jerry] > >> > 3NT does not exist in this situation, because 2D >> > is the only option. Because it does not exist, is it alertable? Is >> > it explainable after the auction but before opening lead if E-W >> > declare? > > [Stefanie Rohan] > > "No agreement", if asked, would be sufficient. > > [Jerry] > > Thanks, Stefanie. Is your answer fully consistent with MS? > > Suppose my partner (the 3NT bidder) is brilliant and never seems to > forget anything. Maybe I should try to imagine what he might have. > ... He probably wants 3NT no matter what I have. For 3NT to make any > sense, I suspect that he has a good fit for diamonds, no interest in > the majors, and he would accept any game invitation. (For this > reasoning to make any sense, suppose that we play a weak NT, so dealer > should have a strong NT.) But I am only guessing that he is strong > with great diamonds, for this is not our agreement. But I think it is > a good guess. Do you still suggest that I say nothing unless asked, > and if asked only say "No agreement"? > > Jerry Fusselman > You only have to explain partnership agreements. As long as the opponents know the meaning of your call, then there is no reason to speculate on what partner might or might not have (assuming that partner has truly broken systemic agreements). The possibility of MI is a good reason not to perform that kind of speculation. Stephanie's suggested explanation is exactly right. If partner has a pattern of doing this with particular hand types, that behavior can become an implicit agreement which you are obligated to disclose. Hirsch From geller at nifty.com Thu Jan 24 05:47:38 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:47:38 +0900 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <4797E21B.9010208@nhcc.net> References: <4797E21B.9010208@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <200801240447.AA12150@geller204.nifty.com> Steve Willner ????????: >> From: Robert Geller >> Now let's take the relevant excerpt [from L73B1]: >> "Partners shall not communicate by ... alerts and >> explanations given or not given to the [opponents]." >... >> why does L73B1 contain the apparently >> superfluous phrase "or alerts and >> explanations given or not given to them." > >Opponents ask about 4NT, and a player says "Keycard, 1430 responses." >Do you really think the last part is or should be legal? It requires no >prearrangement; in fact, an unfamiliar partnership is the type most >likely to employ it. IMO, "RKCB" or the equivalent is sufficient and no more should be said. But this is not a matter of law, since L40 leaves this to the RA. Also, in my experience, I've never found any need to ask such a question till the auction is over. I can't imagine a case where it would benefit us to ask the oppts during the auction. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Jan 24 06:08:39 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:08:39 +1300 Subject: [blml] Good or bad bridge citizenship In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801231612j6a0a865ej22119b51ca327b5f@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0801231612j6a0a865ej22119b51ca327b5f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560801232108g5ee966edpe27d7799c62adf16@mail.gmail.com> On 24/01/2008, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > A question: > > You are the NOS, and you are quite sure that you have been damaged, > but subsequently, you goof up the hand and expect to be ruled to not > be playing bridge. The director, or committee, who sees all four > hands, would have played it better. Also assume that you are having a > really bad round. > > You consider calling the director at this time, but the result would > likely be only to adjustment the OS's score, and besides, you are not > going to scratch. Is calling the director in this case good, bad, or > neutral bridge citizenship? neutral > > Also, is not calling the director for these reasons (i.e., it won't > help you win anything) good, bad, or neutral bridge citizenship? bad Wayne From adam at tameware.com Thu Jan 24 07:19:45 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:19:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] WBFLC consultation In-Reply-To: <4793912D.60902@ntlworld.com> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <4793912D.60902@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: At 6:21 PM +0000 1/20/08, Guthrie wrote: >[Grattan Endicott] >Whether one thing or the other is better for the game was something to >be considered when we were rewriting the laws in the period 2002 - >2007. There was no suggestion that we reconsider this aspect of the >laws from any NBO or Zone, nor from any member of the DSC, when they >were consulted early in proceedings for their views on the laws. >Again the question did not arise when the drafts (as they were in >November) were shown to NBOs and Zones for their final comments. >The position now is that we are past the stage of 'what is good for >the game'. We are looking at 'what do these laws mean? How do they >operate?'. > >[Nige1] > >Is the consultation process effective? Few players seem to have been >aware that the 2007 edition of the laws was imminent. Did any NBO or >Zone ask members for suggestions? If an ordinary BLMLer was consulted, >please would he let us know how? In January '06 I started a "Which Laws would you change, and why?" thread with this message: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2006-January/027338.html Among other things I asked >Which Laws do you think are most ambiguous, overcomplicated, >inconsistent, subject to misinterpretation, or just plain bad, and >how can they be improved? As to the procedure whereby the 2008 laws were introduced, it seems unfortunate to me that there was no period for public comment. I do not understand how secrecy would tend to improve the laws. -- Adam Wildavsky adam at tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 24 09:37:07 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:37:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000201c85dc7$9a63dc90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000201c85dc7$9a63dc90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47984E33.6040204@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .............. >>> So when a player gives an explanation to opponents and this >>> explanation appears to be in conflict with a previous explanation >>> given by partner, that partner has technically not violated >>> Law 20F5a. The inference that partner "must" have given an >>> incorrect explanation is for opponents to draw at their own risk. >>> All they can safely infer at the moment is that there probably >>> are some uncertainties within the partnership about agreements. >>> >> Please Sven, do you really believe this? > > Sure, not only do I "believe" - I know (for what it is worth). > No comment. >> 4NT - Blackwood - 5Di - Diamond preference >> Can it be clearer? > > Opponents do not "know" the actual agreements in force; all they know for > sure is what they have been told and that there (probably) is some mix-up. > But at the same time the 5Di bidder hears that 4NT was not Blackwood. If that does not indicate to him that "a mistake has been made" then I don't know what does. > But at least they know what each of the opponents "believes" is their > agreement, information that DWS illegally hides from them. > And there you are wrong. As you have often said, it does not matter what you believe, all they are entitled to is the real system. The real system cannot be both, so at least one of the beliefs cannot be "illegally" hidden from them. > Finally they know that they will be protected by laws against any damage to > their side caused by this situation (except such damage, if any, that will > be considered "self inflected"). > Exactly like they know that they will be protected from any damage to their side by any information that the DWS witholds from them. This situation is symmetrical, Sven! > The director must establish (when summoned) whether the actual agreement is > Blackwood, request for a minor preference, or maybe even a third > alternative. > Indeed he must, and when he has determined he will correct the damage for all the things that the opponents have withheld. All you have stated here are the MI laws. We know those, they don't help your argument that MI is stronger than UI. > Now where do you think this leaves DWS? > Exactly where it was before. >> And even if it is sometimes less clean than this example, does not >> L20F5 include "in any manner"? > > And on L20F5 you have made up your "divine" opinion in a way that does not > deserve any further comments. > But Sven, don't you see that this is precisely as you are doing? You have made up your divine opinion. What I am doing is putting these two opinions next to one another and try to find which is the better one. You won't do any such thing. You believe, in the face of quite some evidence, that MI is King, and you refuse to read arguments to the contrary. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 24 09:40:39 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:40:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <004701c85dbc$4b9d6460$f5cd403e@Mildred> References: <000d01c859bf$98018080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47909779.5050704@skynet.be> <044b01c859f7$2f62fdf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4791E42D.4000003@skynet.be><20406546-C455-459F-B535-D771C0579629@starpower.net> <47960DFA.4010807@skynet.be><00f501c85d2d$0e12e550$bac8403e@Mildred> <479702BD.4030909@skynet.be> <004701c85dbc$4b9d6460$f5cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47984F07.3090305@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > 5. You were told how to interpret the 1997 Law. When? > If you did > not accept the authoritative instruction given to you in the > matter you had at least three opportunities to raise a question > with the staff on the international TD courses you attended. The matter never came up - it was not up to me to raise it, I think. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 24 09:50:15 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:50:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <060501c85e15$78f75b60$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4796BDC2.9010707@ntlworld.com><000501c85d79$a7b1c310$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <47970499.8070400@skynet.be> <060501c85e15$78f75b60$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47985147.3050206@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> We are allowed to try and deceive the opponents through legal calls and >>> plays. Those methods are incorporated into the Laws. Other methods of >>> deception are prohibited. >>> >> Exactly Hirsh. The point is that some lying is permitted, other lying >> is not. It's the bridge laws that tell us which is which. > > Deception through calls and plays is not the same as deception when you are > asked for your partnership methods. In the bidding, any sufficient bid is > permitted by the laws. as well as doubles or redoubles where appropriate. > Yes Stefanie, but deception is lying nevertheless. You cannot use a meta-law that says "lying is not permitted" for a game in which some lying is permitted. You need to go through the laws of that game itself in order to find out what lying is permitted and what not. In Raija's argumentation, he uses outside rules inside the game - that simply is not permitted! > In the play, when on lead you are permitted to play any card in your hand. > When you are not on lead you are required to follow suit, and when you > cannot you must ruff or discard. > > This sums up what is legal. There are constraints as to concealed > agreements, but in general it seems to me meaningless to discuss whether a > call or particularly a play is "lying" or "telling the truth". It is simply > a legal action taken in a game. I guess you could call eg a revoke or an > insufficient bid a "lie". > >> So if you >> believe that I'm lying, you should use bridge laws logic to find out >> whether it's allowed. >> What Raija and Stefanie were trying, is saying >> that my lying is not allowed because it "is lying". Such arguments are >> invalid. > > What are you talking about? Lying is not allowed because it is "lying"? > Does this even mean anything? > Well Stefanie, that is what Raija and you are arguing - that the DWS is not allowed because it is lying. Since various forms of lying are permitted in the game, you cannot condemn my actions on the basis of "it's lying" alone. > Lying about partnership agreements is wrong because the Laws of Bridge > stipulate teling the truth. > Yes, but that is not what we are talking about! Of course it is wrong, but there are worse wrongs! Raija tries to use "biblical" arguments to prove that this wrong is the worst wrong - that argumentation is false. Please note that I am here only criticizing your methodology. I am not saying that I'm right, only that your argumentation as to how you wish to prove me wrong is faulty. > Lying in other circumstances, such as in the course of conducting one's > personal life may be right, wrong or neutral, but in any case it is the > business of no one but the people involved. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > P.S. Sorry, Herman, if I managed to confuse you and other non-native > speakers of English when I made a comment on "lying" in the Biblical sense. > I am no Biblical scholar, but I know of one passage in the Old Testament in > which lying means telling an untruth. When the discussion is about lying > with one's manservant or with one's maidservant, or drugging one's father > and taking it in turns with one's sister to go in and lie with him, the word > means something very different. > Thanks - and I apologize to all the believers out there who may have been shocked by my references to biblical passages. No-one actually used the Bible to prove any points, but when they use outside rules to claim higher force, it was as if they were using religious arguments. Not that those would not have merit, but they don't apply within what is, after all, only a game. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 24 10:37:40 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:37:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <06b801c85e1c$7decdf30$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <200801091545.m09FjFWu000838@cfa.harvard.edu><4786CE85.8050807@nhcc.net> <02c001c85d59$cba7e670$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47972B30.8080207@ulb.ac.be> <06b801c85e1c$7decdf30$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47985C64.8040907@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : >> If he feels that 3S is a "sure zero", then he might as well try something >> else, and that seems a perfectly "logical" thing to do. >> > > AG: > > But you admit that it can't be. > > SR: > > I admit nothing of the sort. > > Stefanie Rohan, 23/01 : How can anything be a "sure" zero? Has no one here ever bid to an excellent slam to find that even game wasn't making? Has no one ever won matchpoints playing in a partscore when game makes, because some pairs have got too high? > AG: > > That's not what TFLB says. It says you aren't allowed to make a LA that > was suggested.It doesn't say you're compelled to do such-and-such. > > SR: > > I was having trouble expressing myself. What I was trying to say was that a > player may be forced afterwards, by a director or AC, to have made a > different call. > > Once again, I don't understand. The TD can say your call was made inder influence, he may try and see what would have happened if you had made a non-influenced call ; he can't compel you to "have made another call". BTW, only a time agent could ;-). > SR: > > One is not expected to attempt to score a zero because one's partner has > transmitted UI. > > Anyway, if 7S is more "ethical" than passing, wouldn't 7D be more ethical > still? > > Indeed, but it would cause chaos at the table, which contravenes several items of properties. But the matter is not "is 7S playing bridge ?" We all know it isn't. The matter is "Is 7S a LA ?" To test LAbility, we have an official procedure : ask the player's peers. Just do it and you'll see. Best regards Alain Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 24 10:42:45 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:42:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Good or bad bridge citizenship In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801231612j6a0a865ej22119b51ca327b5f@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0801231612j6a0a865ej22119b51ca327b5f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47985D95.6040100@ulb.ac.be> Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > You are the NOS, and you are quite sure that you have been damaged, > but subsequently, you goof up the hand and expect to be ruled to not > be playing bridge. The director, or committee, who sees all four > hands, would have played it better. Also assume that you are having a > really bad round. > > You consider calling the director at this time, but the result would > likely be only to adjustment the OS's score, and besides, you are not > going to scratch. Is calling the director in this case good, bad, or > neutral bridge citizenship? > > Also, is not calling the director for these reasons (i.e., it won't > help you win anything) good, bad, or neutral bridge citizenship? > It seems quite obvious to me that you should call. I would cite L9 if needed. And that's why ACs shouldn't be too severe on NOS (in particular, they shouldn't say too lightly that somebody tried to overcome one's bad result). Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 24 10:52:35 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:52:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47985FE3.10607@ulb.ac.be> Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > Not sure what word is commonly used for this, but I will use > "explainable" to refer to an agreement you want to explain before the > opening lead if your side is declarer, but you do not bother to alert > it during the auction. In the ACBL, a pass when a support double was > possible is not alertable, but it is probably explainable if you play > the pass as showing fewer than three of partner's suit. (If someone > knows a good term for this, please say so.) > > Anyway, suppose this auction: > > West North East South > 1C Pass 1H Pass > 1NT Pass 2C Pass > 3NT > > 2C was a relay to diamonds with either just diamonds or some > invitational hand. 3NT does not exist in this situation, because 2D > is the only option. Because it does not exist, is it alertable? Nope. Only calls that have, *by agreement*, a possibly unexpected meaning shall be alerted. If the bid has no meaning, it has a fortiori no agreed unexpected meaning, has it ? BTW , there could be an explanation : for example, West has found an Ace back. But that's bridge logic, not agreement. If they want to know, they will first ask about 2C (presumably alerted), and then they'll know something happened. I can see, however, "impossible" bids that have meaning, and it should then be said. For example : 1NT 3S 4S 4NT 5NT (5NT = 2 aces and a void, impossible given the opening, but still should be explained so. If they don't see the contradiction, you don't have to teach them) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 24 11:01:29 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:01:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <4797D9FC.4090306@nhcc.net> References: <200801182232.m0IMWDRc029995@cfa.harvard.edu> <4797D9FC.4090306@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <479861F9.4060803@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : >> From: Alain Gottcheiner >> Indeed. We need two conditions to make a LA : >> 1 - a substantial part of the player's peers woud think about bidding 7S. >> 2 - at least a small nomber might well do it. >> > > Would players who would never consider 7S be peers? > > Good point. If we restrict "peers" to players who would in all circumstances do and think alike, we're all peerless. I'd say "peers" are players of the same expertise level and experience, playhing the same methods. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 24 11:01:29 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:01:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <4797D9FC.4090306@nhcc.net> References: <200801182232.m0IMWDRc029995@cfa.harvard.edu> <4797D9FC.4090306@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <479861F9.4060803@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : >> From: Alain Gottcheiner >> Indeed. We need two conditions to make a LA : >> 1 - a substantial part of the player's peers woud think about bidding 7S. >> 2 - at least a small nomber might well do it. >> > > Would players who would never consider 7S be peers? > > Good point. If we restrict "peers" to players who would in all circumstances do and think alike, we're all peerless. I'd say "peers" are players of the same expertise level and experience, playhing the same methods. Best regards Alain From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Jan 24 11:23:53 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:23:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Regulating Authority and bridge vacation Message-ID: <1JHzFR-0dtBs80@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Another entry for Bob's WBFLC errata list: 2007 Law 80 A: "1. The Regulating Authority under these laws is (a) for its own world tournaments and events the World Bridge Federation. (b) the respective Zonal Authority for tournaments and events held under its auspices. (c) for any other tournament or event the National Bridge Organization in whose territory the tournament takes place. [...]" What about a vacation that 100 German players spend in Antalya ? I'm sure, it was not the intent of the lawmakers to let the Germans play under the - unknown - regulations of the Turkish Bridge Federation, but I fear that's what the Law says. (?) From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 24 11:46:57 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:46:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <47984E33.6040204@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > .............. > >> 4NT - Blackwood - 5Di - Diamond preference > >> Can it be clearer? > > > > Opponents do not "know" the actual agreements in force; all they > > know for sure is what they have been told and that there > > (probably) is some mix-up. > > > > But at least they know what each of the opponents "believes" is their > > agreement, information that DWS illegally hides from them. > > > > And there you are wrong. As you have often said, it does not matter > what you believe, all they are entitled to is the real system. The > real system cannot be both, so at least one of the beliefs cannot be > "illegally" hidden from them. Indeed it can. Remember that it is not illegal to give an incorrect explanation accidentally because you believe that your explanation is correct but it is illegal to change your actions according to UI received from your partner. If your explanation would have been correct but you instead give an explanation that fits the conflicting explanation given by your partner then you have intentionally violated Law 20F1 by concealing the correct explanation from opponents. If instead your explanation would have been incorrect and you instead give an explanation (possibly the correct one) after hearing your partner's explanation then you have intentionally violated Law 16B1 by selecting your response to an alternative suggested by the UI you received from your partner's explanation. In either way you have violated Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." And "hiding" behind Law 20F5 is no excuse for violating Law 72B1; the words "must not" in the latter give this law an undisputable precedence over Law 20F5. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 24 13:33:26 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:33:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47988596.1070406@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>> But at least they know what each of the opponents "believes" is their >>> agreement, information that DWS illegally hides from them. >>> >> And there you are wrong. As you have often said, it does not matter >> what you believe, all they are entitled to is the real system. The >> real system cannot be both, so at least one of the beliefs cannot be >> "illegally" hidden from them. > > Indeed it can. > No, not both of them - which is what you wrote above. > Remember that it is not illegal to give an incorrect explanation > accidentally because you believe that your explanation is correct but it is > illegal to change your actions according to UI received from your partner. > Again, Sven? You know I don't agree with that argument - please don't use it against me. L16 restricts calls and plays not actions generally. > If your explanation would have been correct but you instead give an > explanation that fits the conflicting explanation given by your partner then > you have intentionally violated Law 20F1 by concealing the correct > explanation from opponents. > Yes. > If instead your explanation would have been incorrect and you instead give > an explanation (possibly the correct one) after hearing your partner's > explanation then you have intentionally violated Law 16B1 by selecting your > response to an alternative suggested by the UI you received from your > partner's explanation. > In that case however, the explanation would be the correct one! Do you believe it is forbidden to give opponents the correct explanation when you know that correct explanation because your partner told you? Then you are even crazier than most MS adepts! > In either way you have violated Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law > intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to > accept." > But that one also works both ways - he must not infringe L20F5 either! He is obliged to break one law or another, so it cannot be unacceptable to break one of them. And you cannot rule that he infracts L72B1, because he is obliged to break one or the other law. > And "hiding" behind Law 20F5 is no excuse for violating Law 72B1; the words > "must not" in the latter give this law an undisputable precedence over Law > 20F5. > There is no hiding. Remember how we got here. I claim that the player must break one law or another. You are trying to convince me that one law is stronger than another. In that try, you mention that I break one law, and that I must not do so. Then you say that this "must" is stronger than the law I intentionally break. In this try, you have made the error of not thinking symmetrically. If we admit that both schools break a law, then the argument above is equally valid on both schools. What you have in fact done is prove that the DWS is illegal by starting from the premise that the DWS is illegal. By an exact same argument I can prove that the MS is illegal, provided I start with the premise that the MS is illegal. If you want to make a valid argument, you need to list the laws that the MS break (including but not limited to L20F5) and compare those laws (in terms of strength) with the laws that the DWS break. Dragging in L72B1 is not valid, though, as both schools are quite happy to break some laws. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 24 13:38:58 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:38:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] WBFLC consultation In-Reply-To: References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <4793912D.60902@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <479886E2.2030004@ntlworld.com> [Adam Wildavsky] In January '06 I started a "Which Laws would you change, and why?" thread with this message: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2006-January/027338.html Among other things I asked "Which Laws do you think are most ambiguous, overcomplicated, inconsistent, subject to misinterpretation, or just plain bad, and how can they be improved?" As to the procedure whereby the 2008 laws were introduced, it seems unfortunate to me that there was no period for public comment. I do not understand how secrecy would tend to improve the laws. [nige1] Some of us contributed many suggestions to Adam's and similar discussions; but as far as I know, no member of any NBO asked any ordinary player for criticisms or improvements to the law. IMO, it will remain hard for NBOs to represent the views of ordinary players until NBOs find out what those views are. Interestingly, when leading British experts were asked what might improve the Bridge experience, they opined that would-be players are deterred because they find the rules too sophisticated to understand. Obviously, there are other relevant factors but I think they're right. Incidentally, all my law suggestions are drastic simplifications. From geller at nifty.com Thu Jan 24 15:20:21 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:20:21 +0900 Subject: [blml] Regulating Authority and bridge vacation In-Reply-To: <1JHzFR-0dtBs80@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> References: <1JHzFR-0dtBs80@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <200801241420.AA12168@geller204.nifty.com> Hi Peter, I seem to recall a few months ago there was discussion of this topic concerning a game at the "Young Chelsea Club" in London or tournaments for American servicemen in Germany.... The JCBL also sanctions some games for Japanese people living abroad (uusally weekly games at the local Japan Club). Such games are also technically forbiddent by the new L80, I suppose, although I doubt anyone will object. The rule (L80) should probably be changed to authorize the odd exceptional case of the type you or I brought up. -Bob Peter Eidt writes: >Another entry for Bob's WBFLC errata list: > >2007 Law 80 A: >"1. The Regulating Authority under these laws is >(a) for its own world tournaments and events the World Bridge >Federation. >(b) the respective Zonal Authority for tournaments and events held >under its auspices. >(c) for any other tournament or event the National Bridge >Organization in whose territory the tournament takes place. >[...]" > >What about a vacation that 100 German players spend in Antalya ? > >I'm sure, it was not the intent of the lawmakers to let the >Germans play under the - unknown - regulations of >the Turkish Bridge Federation, but I fear that's what >the Law says. > >(?) > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 24 15:28:45 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:28:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3564A652-8B1D-4A91-A032-A30BA84DF967@starpower.net> On Jan 23, 2008, at 7:19 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Not sure what word is commonly used for this, but I will use > "explainable" to refer to an agreement you want to explain before the > opening lead if your side is declarer, but you do not bother to alert > it during the auction. In the ACBL, a pass when a support double was > possible is not alertable, but it is probably explainable if you play > the pass as showing fewer than three of partner's suit. (If someone > knows a good term for this, please say so.) Side issue: I have been under the impression that a pass that by agreement denies three-card support (as opposed to merely denying a hand suitable for a raise, as some support doublers play) is alertable in the ACBL. Is that incorrect? > Anyway, suppose this auction: > > West North East South > 1C Pass 1H Pass > 1NT Pass 2C Pass > 3NT > > 2C was a relay to diamonds with either just diamonds or some > invitational hand. 3NT does not exist in this situation, because 2D > is the only option. Because it does not exist, is it alertable? Is > it explainable after the auction but before opening lead if E-W > declare? ISTM that you owe them an explanation of 2C, which should have been alerted, and from which the "impossibility" of 3NT follows. If 2C is properly explained as a relay to 2D, they will figure out that 3NT has no agreed meaning. You don't owe them a positive statement that your auction has come off the rails, but may not suppress information to which they are legitimately entitled merely because it makes such a deduction inevitable. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 24 16:04:16 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:04:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com><06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie><2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com> <002201c85e3d$d49cc900$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <07e201c85e9a$63d7a2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> I am guilty of creating MI in a similar situation recently. I was playing with an unfamiliar partner, though we had worked a bit on system beforehand. She opened 1C, I bid 1D, and she bid 3NT. My RHO asked me what this meant, and I said, based on my own tendencies, "probably based on long clubs". Screens were in use, so my partner had no chance to correct this. Well, partner had a 4=4=1=4 20 count, and I was ruled against for giving MI, though no damage was deemed to have been done, since the experts consulted by the director say that a club from QJxx would not have been led anyway after my partner had opened the suit. Anyway. After being asked it is easy blithely to give your opinion, as I did. It is important to remember that we are not being asked for an opinion. Stefanie Rohan London, England ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:16 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or > explainable? > > >> [Jerry] >> >>> > 3NT does not exist in this situation, because 2D >>> > is the only option. Because it does not exist, is it alertable? Is >>> > it explainable after the auction but before opening lead if E-W >>> > declare? >> >> [Stefanie Rohan] >> >> "No agreement", if asked, would be sufficient. >> >> [Jerry] >> >> Thanks, Stefanie. Is your answer fully consistent with MS? >> >> Suppose my partner (the 3NT bidder) is brilliant and never seems to >> forget anything. Maybe I should try to imagine what he might have. >> ... He probably wants 3NT no matter what I have. For 3NT to make any >> sense, I suspect that he has a good fit for diamonds, no interest in >> the majors, and he would accept any game invitation. (For this >> reasoning to make any sense, suppose that we play a weak NT, so dealer >> should have a strong NT.) But I am only guessing that he is strong >> with great diamonds, for this is not our agreement. But I think it is >> a good guess. Do you still suggest that I say nothing unless asked, >> and if asked only say "No agreement"? >> >> Jerry Fusselman >> > > You only have to explain partnership agreements. As long as the opponents > know the meaning of your call, then there is no reason to speculate on > what > partner might or might not have (assuming that partner has truly broken > systemic agreements). The possibility of MI is a good reason not to > perform > that kind of speculation. Stephanie's suggested explanation is exactly > right. > > If partner has a pattern of doing this with particular hand types, that > behavior can become an implicit agreement which you are obligated to > disclose. > > Hirsch > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 24 16:10:07 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:10:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <4797DE28.5000305@nhcc.net> References: <200801222230.m0MMUkmt014660@cfa.harvard.edu> <4797DE28.5000305@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Jan 23, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Eric Landau > > Leaving aside the "get away with cheating," which I think was refuted > long ago, we have something new: We have been given (and accepted) assurances that none of the DWSists in this forum would use a DWS-like approach as a means to cheat, but that the potential exists to do so has hardly been refuted. Indeed, it is Herman who has pointed it out. The DWS protocol involves (a) deliberately giving MI, and (b) freely admitting after the fact that one has done so. "Getting away with cheating", were one so inclined, would be as simple as "forgetting" to follow through with (b). I'm cynical enough to think that this might prove tempting even to some who would never cheat proactively. >> All a partnership needs to do is agree on a very simple system they >> can't possibly forget, and use that system exclusively as the basis >> of giving explanantions of their bidding to their opponents. It need >> bear no relationship whatsoever to the system that they are actually >> playing. They cannot give UI to their partners... > > Everyone including Herman agrees that MI is an infraction and that > L72B1 > applies to it. The dWS argues that _after MI is already given_, any > action one takes violates this law. I'm surprised that hasn't become > clear by now. > > Further, the procedure Eric suggests would be silly in score > terms. The > partnership would receive an unfavorable MI adjustment on every > deal in > which the opponents might have been in the auction, and only in the > rare > cases where the partnership would have had a misunderstanding -- > and not > all of those -- would there be any benefit whatsoever. Of course it's silly -- they don't call it reductio ad absurdum for nothing. But if the DWS is based on the argument that it is acceptable to break the disclosure laws in order to avoid giving UI, why not take that premise to its illogical conclusion? Or does the logic of the DWS no longer apply once it reaches the point where it no longer results in better expected scores for the DWSists? >> So we could come to a point where the DWSists provide mutually >> consistent false explanations of their auction that bear no >> relationship whatsoever to the methods either partner is actually >> using or what they hold in their hands, > > I'm surprised Eric can write something like this after all the > discussion. The dWS explanations correspond to the methods one of the > partnership is playing, though not the methods he is supposed to be > playing. No, the DWS explanations correspond to the methods one member of the partnership thinks the other member of the partnership is playing, which may be neither of those. That's not so, of course, in Herman's well-chosen Blackwood-diamond-preference example that we have been using as a basis for discussion, but that example does not represent the general case. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 24 16:16:30 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:16:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4796BDC2.9010707@ntlworld.com><000501c85d79$a7b1c310$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <47970499.8070400@skynet.be><060501c85e15$78f75b60$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47985147.3050206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <080801c85e9c$19441320$0100a8c0@stefanie> > In Raija's argumentation, he uses outside rules inside the game - that > simply is not permitted! Well, I must have missed that post, but I cannot speak for what Raija said or didn't say or meant or didn't mean. >> >> What are you talking about? Lying is not allowed because it is "lying"? >> Does this even mean anything? >> > > Well Stefanie, that is what Raija and you are arguing - that the DWS > is not allowed because it is lying. Perhaps I have been misquoted somewhere, because I have never said anything of the sort. > Since various forms of lying are > permitted in the game, you cannot condemn my actions on the basis of > "it's lying" alone. I don't happen to think that legal bids and plays can ever constitute "lying" or "telling the truth", but I don't think that there is any connection between those things and explaining yoru agreements. I don't really see what argument you are trying to make here. > >> Lying about partnership agreements is wrong because the Laws of Bridge >> stipulate teling the truth. >> > > Yes, but that is not what we are talking about! That is what I was talking about. > Of course it is wrong, but there are worse wrongs! Of course there are, although probably not in the context of bridge. > Raija tries to use "biblical" arguments to prove that this wrong is > the worst wrong - that argumentation is false. Maybe he has. Like I said, I must have missed it. > Please note that I am here only criticizing your methodology. I am not > saying that I'm right, only that your argumentation as to how you wish > to prove me wrong is faulty. You are criticising methodology that you claim Raija used, but in a reply to a post of mine. I am afraid, once again, that I am not qualified to comment. > Not that [religious arguments] would not have merit, but they don't apply > within what > is, after all, only a game. Of course not. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 24 16:25:00 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:25:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <4797E21B.9010208@nhcc.net> References: <200801222258.m0MMwcE6023604@cfa.harvard.edu> <4797E21B.9010208@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Jan 23, 2008, at 7:55 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "David Burn" >> What the dWS does is compound confusion for >> the opponents, and that must be bad. > > Even if the opponents are never going to be in the auction? You listen carefully to the opponents' auction, requesting explanations as necessary, all the while carefully constructing a picture of the opponents' possible and likely holdings. This may involve considerable mental effort; indeed, the ability to do this with greater accuracy is one of the things that separates experts from duffers. As you are about to make your opening lead, you hear, "Forget all that stuff. We're not playing what we said we were; we were just making sure we didn't give UI. What we would have said had we been telling the truth is..." Does this not discommode the opponents to the potential advantage of the DWSists? It certainly can't be good for them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 24 16:37:31 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:37:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com> <06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7D7DDBB0-AF35-4181-AEEA-B2DD310097A1@starpower.net> On Jan 23, 2008, at 8:16 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Jerry] > >>> 3NT does not exist in this situation, because 2D >>> is the only option. Because it does not exist, is it alertable? Is >>> it explainable after the auction but before opening lead if E-W >>> declare? > > [Stefanie Rohan] > > "No agreement", if asked, would be sufficient. > > [Jerry] > > Thanks, Stefanie. Is your answer fully consistent with MS? > > Suppose my partner (the 3NT bidder) is brilliant and never seems to > forget anything. Maybe I should try to imagine what he might have. > ... He probably wants 3NT no matter what I have. For 3NT to make any > sense, I suspect that he has a good fit for diamonds, no interest in > the majors, and he would accept any game invitation. (For this > reasoning to make any sense, suppose that we play a weak NT, so dealer > should have a strong NT.) But I am only guessing that he is strong > with great diamonds, for this is not our agreement. But I think it is > a good guess. Do you still suggest that I say nothing unless asked, > and if asked only say "No agreement"? You have at least worked out that "he probably wants 3NT no matter what I have". The rest you merely "suspect", or are "only guessing". I suggest you say nothing uless asked, and if asked say, "He probably wants 3NT no matter what I have." (In contrast to my earlier comment on this example, I am assuming this time that 2C was properly alerted and explained.) Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 24 16:45:24 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:45:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? In-Reply-To: <07e201c85e9a$63d7a2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com><06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie><2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com> <002201c85e3d$d49cc900$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <07e201c85e9a$63d7a2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4798B294.9070604@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > I am guilty of creating MI in a similar situation recently. I was playing > with an unfamiliar partner, though we had worked a bit on system beforehand. > She opened 1C, I bid 1D, and she bid 3NT. > > My RHO asked me what this meant, and I said, based on my own tendencies, > "probably based on long clubs". Screens were in use, so my partner had no > chance to correct this. > > Well, partner had a 4=4=1=4 20 count, and I was ruled against for giving MI, > though no damage was deemed to have been done, since the experts consulted > by the director say that a club from QJxx would not have been led anyway > after my partner had opened the suit. > > Anyway. After being asked it is easy blithely to give your opinion, as I > did. It is important to remember that we are not being asked for an opinion. > What would the TD have done if you had said "no agreement"? Would he have ruled that opponents were entitled to know it was 20+ , 4414? If that is the case, then you have done nothing "wrong" in the sense of giving your opinion. If OTOH the TD would have ruled that "no agreement" was correct information, then he's a very strange guy. You know nothing, yet you offer an opinion, which turns out to be wrong. What harm have you done (of course if you had added some proviso "probably"). No, we are not asked for an opinion. But it is up to the TD to decide what the real agreement is. And he's perhaps going to rule that the agreement fits the hand that bid it. (wrongly in this case, IMHO). Anyway, you would probably better have said "wants to play 3NT, perhaps based on long clubs or something". > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 24 16:54:50 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:54:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <200801240447.AA12150@geller204.nifty.com> References: <4797E21B.9010208@nhcc.net> <200801240447.AA12150@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: On Jan 23, 2008, at 11:47 PM, Robert Geller wrote: > Steve Willner ????????: >>> From: Robert Geller >>> Now let's take the relevant excerpt [from L73B1]: >>> "Partners shall not communicate by ... alerts and >>> explanations given or not given to the [opponents]." >> ... >>> why does L73B1 contain the apparently >>> superfluous phrase "or alerts and >>> explanations given or not given to them." >> >> Opponents ask about 4NT, and a player says "Keycard, 1430 responses." >> Do you really think the last part is or should be legal? It >> requires no >> prearrangement; in fact, an unfamiliar partnership is the type most >> likely to employ it. > > IMO, "RKCB" or the equivalent is sufficient and no more should be > said. > But this is not a matter of law, since L40 leaves this to the RA. > Also, in my experience, I've never found any need to ask such a > question > till the auction is over. I can't imagine a case where it would > benefit us > to ask the oppts during the auction. The law requires that you explain the meaning of your partner's call. It can be neither useful nor legal to add an explanation of the meaning of the call you are about to make! Technically, even the "R" in "RKCB" is too much information; "asking for key cards" is proper. IMO Steve's reading of L73B1 is right on target. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 24 17:01:31 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:01:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] WBFLC consultation References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <4793912D.60902@ntlworld.com> <479886E2.2030004@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <082301c85ea2$62def170$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Interestingly, when leading British experts were asked what might > improve the Bridge experience, they opined that would-be players are > deterred because they find the rules too sophisticated to understand. > Obviously, there are other relevant factors but I think they're right. > Incidentally, all my law suggestions are drastic simplifications. > I am not convinced that any of the laws need to be simplified, but do think that the Laws needs to be simplified. It seems to me that there are loads of places where people in this mailing list have completed the arduous process of learning what a particular law "means". It is truly a shame that the DSC spurned all of the free assistance they could have had in tidying up the language. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 24 17:11:50 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:11:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: <200801091545.m09FjFWu000838@cfa.harvard.edu><4786CE85.8050807@nhcc.net> <02c001c85d59$cba7e670$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47972B30.8080207@ulb.ac.be><06b801c85e1c$7decdf30$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47985C64.8040907@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <082901c85ea3$d3debfd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : >> If he feels that 3S is a "sure zero", then he might as well try something >> else, and that seems a perfectly "logical" thing to do. >> > > AG: > > But you admit that it can't be. > > SR: > > I admit nothing of the sort. > > Stefanie Rohan, 23/01 : How can anything be a "sure" zero? Has no one here ever bid to an excellent slam to find that even game wasn't making? Has no one ever won matchpoints playing in a partscore when game makes, because some pairs have got too high? SR: I said "If he FEELS that 3S is a "sure zero". Please read more carefully in future. > AG: > > That's not what TFLB says. It says you aren't allowed to make a LA that > was suggested.It doesn't say you're compelled to do such-and-such. > > SR: > > I was having trouble expressing myself. What I was trying to say was that > a > player may be forced afterwards, by a director or AC, to have made a > different call. > > Once again, I don't understand. The TD can say your call was made inder influence, he may try and see what would have happened if you had made a non-influenced call ; he can't compel you to "have made another call". BTW, only a time agent could ;-). SR: Please don't mince words. If whatever contract you bid to is ruled back to, say, 3S +1, you have received the result as if you had passed. You have not been compelled to "have made another call", but you are receiving the score you would have received after having made another call, ie pass. Is my writing really so unclear? > SR: > > One is not expected to attempt to score a zero because one's partner has > transmitted UI. > > Anyway, if 7S is more "ethical" than passing, wouldn't 7D be more ethical > still? > > Indeed, but it would cause chaos at the table, which contravenes several items of properties. SR: I don't see how it would be much different. AG But the matter is not "is 7S playing bridge ?" We all know it isn't. The matter is "Is 7S a LA ?" To test LAbility, we have an official procedure : ask the player's peers. Just do it and you'll see. SR: The player is his own #1 peer. Why poll players to see what he might have done when you know what he has actually done? A poll would be used to, say, eliminate pass and allow 4S to pass whatever test is set by the SO. I don't think they are ever used to find out whether a player's own action was a LA. Do you see the distinction? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 24 17:20:13 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:20:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com><06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie><2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com> <002201c85e3d$d49cc900$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><07e201c85e9a$63d7a2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4798B294.9070604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <084701c85ea4$ffcd6f00$0100a8c0@stefanie> (from HDW) > What would the TD have done if you had said "no agreement"? He would never have been called. > Would he have ruled that opponents were entitled to know it was 20+ , > 4414? Of course not. The TD would have ruled that the opponents were entitled to know as much as I knew, which was nothing. > If that is the case, then you have done nothing "wrong" in the sense > of giving your opinion. Yes, I have. I have been asked for my agreements, not my opinion. > If OTOH the TD would have ruled that "no agreement" was correct > information, then he's a very strange guy. Why? "no agreement" was the truth. Why would the TD rule otherwise? > You know nothing, yet you > offer an opinion, which turns out to be wrong. What harm have you done > (of course if you had added some proviso "probably"). I did say "probably", and felt pretty sure that my guess was right. But it was, after all, just a guess. Why should I offer it? My expert opponent would probably be able to guess better. > > No, we are not asked for an opinion. But it is up to the TD to decide > what the real agreement is. And he's perhaps going to rule that the > agreement fits the hand that bid it. (wrongly in this case, IMHO). The TD would have found that there was no agreement. > > Anyway, you would probably better have said "wants to play 3NT, > perhaps based on long clubs or something". I agree, with the exception of the part of the sentence following the comma. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 24 17:26:20 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:26:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47988596.1070406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <088d01c85ea5$da3e9b50$0100a8c0@stefanie> > He is obliged to break one law or another, so it cannot be > unacceptable to break one of them. And you cannot rule that he > infracts L72B1, because he is obliged to break one or the other law. Thankfully, the WBFLC is going to clear up this misconception. And to be honest, the DSC should have made the position absolutely clear. > >> And "hiding" behind Law 20F5 is no excuse for violating Law 72B1; the >> words >> "must not" in the latter give this law an undisputable precedence over >> Law >> 20F5. Why are you saying this when we have been told that a clarification of Law 20F5 is forthcoming? And when you know what it will say? >> > > There is no hiding. Remember how we got here. I claim that the player > must break one law or another. But you will soon have to admit that you are wrong here. > In this try, you have made the error of not thinking symmetrically. If > we admit that both schools break a law, Few people admit this, even before having seen a clarification! > then the argument above is > equally valid on both schools. > Therefore... Stefanie Rohan London, England From mustikka at charter.net Thu Jan 24 17:52:22 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:52:22 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4796BDC2.9010707@ntlworld.com><000501c85d79$a7b1c310$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <47970499.8070400@skynet.be><060501c85e15$78f75b60$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47985147.3050206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c85ea9$80934c00$6e145e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>>> We are allowed to try and deceive the opponents through legal calls and >>>> plays. Those methods are incorporated into the Laws. Other methods of >>>> deception are prohibited. >>>> >>> Exactly Hirsh. The point is that some lying is permitted, other lying >>> is not. It's the bridge laws that tell us which is which. >> >> Deception through calls and plays is not the same as deception when you >> are >> asked for your partnership methods. In the bidding, any sufficient bid is >> permitted by the laws. as well as doubles or redoubles where appropriate. >> > > Yes Stefanie, but deception is lying nevertheless. You cannot use a > meta-law that says "lying is not permitted" for a game in which some > lying is permitted. You need to go through the laws of that game > itself in order to find out what lying is permitted and what not. > > In Raija's argumentation, he uses outside rules inside the game - that > simply is not permitted! > >> In the play, when on lead you are permitted to play any card in your >> hand. >> When you are not on lead you are required to follow suit, and when you >> cannot you must ruff or discard. >> >> This sums up what is legal. There are constraints as to concealed >> agreements, but in general it seems to me meaningless to discuss whether >> a >> call or particularly a play is "lying" or "telling the truth". It is >> simply >> a legal action taken in a game. I guess you could call eg a revoke or an >> insufficient bid a "lie". >> >>> So if you >>> believe that I'm lying, you should use bridge laws logic to find out >>> whether it's allowed. >>> What Raija and Stefanie were trying, is saying >>> that my lying is not allowed because it "is lying". Such arguments are >>> invalid. >> >> What are you talking about? Lying is not allowed because it is "lying"? >> Does this even mean anything? >> > > Well Stefanie, that is what Raija and you are arguing - that the DWS > is not allowed because it is lying. Since various forms of lying are > permitted in the game, you cannot condemn my actions on the basis of > "it's lying" alone. > >> Lying about partnership agreements is wrong because the Laws of Bridge >> stipulate teling the truth. >> > > Yes, but that is not what we are talking about! > Of course it is wrong, but there are worse wrongs! > Raija tries to use "biblical" arguments to prove that this wrong is > the worst wrong - that argumentation is false. > > Please note that I am here only criticizing your methodology. I am not > saying that I'm right, only that your argumentation as to how you wish > to prove me wrong is faulty. > >> Lying in other circumstances, such as in the course of conducting one's >> personal life may be right, wrong or neutral, but in any case it is the >> business of no one but the people involved. >> >> Stefanie Rohan >> London, England >> >> P.S. Sorry, Herman, if I managed to confuse you and other non-native >> speakers of English when I made a comment on "lying" in the Biblical >> sense. >> I am no Biblical scholar, but I know of one passage in the Old Testament >> in >> which lying means telling an untruth. When the discussion is about lying >> with one's manservant or with one's maidservant, or drugging one's father >> and taking it in turns with one's sister to go in and lie with him, the >> word >> means something very different. >> > > Thanks - and I apologize to all the believers out there who may have > been shocked by my references to biblical passages. No-one actually > used the Bible to prove any points, but when they use outside rules to > claim higher force, it was as if they were using religious arguments. > > Not that those would not have merit, but they don't apply within what > is, after all, only a game. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html Cutting Herman's statement and pasting it here. > In Raija's argumentation, he uses outside rules inside the game - that > simply is not permitted! How so? All I have ever argued is that in answer to opponent's question, one must explain one's Partnership Agreement, not something else. This is required by the Law. It is only secondary to any arguments presented that my personal principles forbid me to tell a lie in order to gain an advantage in a game. Raija From mustikka at charter.net Thu Jan 24 18:09:17 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:09:17 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4796BDC2.9010707@ntlworld.com><000501c85d79$a7b1c310$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <47970499.8070400@skynet.be><060501c85e15$78f75b60$0100a8c0@stefanie><47985147.3050206@skynet.be> <080801c85e9c$19441320$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <001d01c85eab$dac018a0$6e145e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 7:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > >> In Raija's argumentation, he uses outside rules inside the game - that >> simply is not permitted! > > Well, I must have missed that post, but I cannot speak for what Raija said > or didn't say or meant or didn't mean. > >>> >>> What are you talking about? Lying is not allowed because it is "lying"? >>> Does this even mean anything? >>> >> >> Well Stefanie, that is what Raija and you are arguing - that the DWS >> is not allowed because it is lying. > > Perhaps I have been misquoted somewhere, because I have never said > anything > of the sort. > >> Since various forms of lying are >> permitted in the game, you cannot condemn my actions on the basis of >> "it's lying" alone. > > I don't happen to think that legal bids and plays can ever constitute > "lying" or "telling the truth", but I don't think that there is any > connection between those things and explaining yoru agreements. I don't > really see what argument you are trying to make here. >> >>> Lying about partnership agreements is wrong because the Laws of Bridge >>> stipulate teling the truth. >>> >> >> Yes, but that is not what we are talking about! > > That is what I was talking about. > >> Of course it is wrong, but there are worse wrongs! > > Of course there are, although probably not in the context of bridge. > >> Raija tries to use "biblical" arguments to prove that this wrong is >> the worst wrong - that argumentation is false. > > Maybe he has. Like I said, I must have missed it. > >> Please note that I am here only criticizing your methodology. I am not >> saying that I'm right, only that your argumentation as to how you wish >> to prove me wrong is faulty. > > You are criticising methodology that you claim Raija used, but in a reply > to > a post of mine. I am afraid, once again, that I am not qualified to > comment. > >> Not that [religious arguments] would not have merit, but they don't apply >> within what > is, after all, only a game. > > Of course not. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England Herman has paraphrased other people's comments (including mine) in a manner that changes the meaning of what was said. Raija From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 24 18:07:59 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:07:59 -0600 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: References: <200801222230.m0MMUkmt014660@cfa.harvard.edu> <4797DE28.5000305@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801240907x50a80301g7a2cc5efc24539d4@mail.gmail.com> Eric Lanau: > > No, the DWS explanations correspond to the methods one member of the > partnership thinks the other member of the partnership is playing, > which may be neither of those. That's not so, of course, in Herman's > well-chosen Blackwood-diamond-preference example that we have been > using as a basis for discussion, but that example does not represent > the general case. > Would you please provide an example that does represent the general case? From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 24 18:09:33 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:09:33 -0600 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: References: <200801222230.m0MMUkmt014660@cfa.harvard.edu> <4797DE28.5000305@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801240909y9e6a062hb5f0cae176f11604@mail.gmail.com> Eric Landau: > > No, the DWS explanations correspond to the methods one member of the > partnership thinks the other member of the partnership is playing, > which may be neither of those. That's not so, of course, in Herman's > well-chosen Blackwood-diamond-preference example that we have been > using as a basis for discussion, but that example does not represent > the general case. > Would you please provide an example that does represent the general case? I would love to see it. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 24 18:11:56 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:11:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com><47961C26.6080800@t-online.de><2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com><000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> [JF] >> >> But if it is so clear to both of you that UI is so benign compared to MI, >> why not clear up the MI at once? >> >> [DALB] >> >> You've lost me. The MS position *does* clear up the MI at once. West >> alerts >> 4NT as Blackwood (MI) and bids 5D; East explains this as minor-suit >> preference (GI, an acronym for "genuine information", although the >> American >> soldiery might correctly claim that they are never given any of that). >> Now >> North-South both know what 4NT really was, which is their entitlement in >> Law. > > [JF] > > You don't see why MS does not clear up the MI at once? I will mention > the two main reasons: The first is that North has no way of knowing > that 4NT is not Blackwood until later. The second is that South might > not ask any questions. > > By "at once," I mean before North calls and before South asks any > questions. Please permit me to rephrase slightly: If it is so clear > to both of you that UI is so benign compared to MI, why not clear up > the MI at once, before either opponent has taken any action that might > be misled by the MI? > Jerry, I think that Herman ought to take you off the payroll! The position (under legal play) if South has not asked any questions is the same as the position (under DWS play) whether or not South has asked any questions. It does not serve the DWS if you say that this is a bad position! > Again, please understand, I realize that there is currently a law > against it. I am asking you to explain why that law is there---i.e., > how do you reconcile that law with your assertion that UI is so benign > compared to MI? (Note that it will be a while before West can take > any action, so if West is going to find out soon anyway, why not let > North in on the situation before he acts?) System information is not given (apart from alerts and announcements) voluntarily. It is given in response to the opponents' questions. Do you really believe it should be otherwise? > Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 24 18:13:32 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:13:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie><479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie><4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be><000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com> <000701c85d51$a1aa5d10$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><037b01c85d61$0190b210$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4796FD74.9070300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <08ca01c85eac$72b1f430$0100a8c0@stefanie> HDW > "not giving UI" is not one of the ten commandments, but it is > forbidden in bridge law. How can this be? Why then would there be instructions on what a player is to do when he is in receipt of UI? Stefanie Rohan London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 24 18:38:11 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:38:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: References: <200801222230.m0MMUkmt014660@cfa.harvard.edu> <4797DE28.5000305@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4798CD03.4080009@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 23, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > >>> From: Eric Landau >> Leaving aside the "get away with cheating," which I think was refuted >> long ago, we have something new: > > We have been given (and accepted) assurances that none of the DWSists > in this forum would use a DWS-like approach as a means to cheat, but > that the potential exists to do so has hardly been refuted. Indeed, > it is Herman who has pointed it out. The DWS protocol involves (a) > deliberately giving MI, and (b) freely admitting after the fact that > one has done so. "Getting away with cheating", were one so inclined, > would be as simple as "forgetting" to follow through with (b). I'm > cynical enough to think that this might prove tempting even to some > who would never cheat proactively. > But that is impossible! The first misinformation is not going to remain unnoticed, is it? So the player is already bound to tell the opponents that his partner has misexplained. He cannot do that without also explaining that he explained consistently in order not to give UI. If he wishes to conceal anything, it is the first misexplanation which must be concealed. That means that he will not say anything before play starts (assuming he's declarer or dummy). He would be simply pretending he has misbid. The actions of a misbidder are the same for a MS or a DWS adept. They can be real (genuine belief) or cheat. But there is nothing in the DWS that favours this for the cheat. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 24 18:44:00 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:44:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <47988596.1070406@skynet.be> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47988596.1070406@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jan 24, 2008, at 7:33 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: >>>> >>>> But at least they know what each of the opponents "believes" is >>>> their >>>> agreement, information that DWS illegally hides from them. >>>> >>> And there you are wrong. As you have often said, it does not matter >>> what you believe, all they are entitled to is the real system. The >>> real system cannot be both, so at least one of the beliefs cannot be >>> "illegally" hidden from them. >> >> Indeed it can. > > No, not both of them - which is what you wrote above. > >> Remember that it is not illegal to give an incorrect explanation >> accidentally because you believe that your explanation is correct >> but it is >> illegal to change your actions according to UI received from your >> partner. > > Again, Sven? > You know I don't agree with that argument - please don't use it > against me. L16 restricts calls and plays not actions generally. > >> If your explanation would have been correct but you instead give an >> explanation that fits the conflicting explanation given by your >> partner then >> you have intentionally violated Law 20F1 by concealing the correct >> explanation from opponents. > > Yes. > >> If instead your explanation would have been incorrect and you >> instead give >> an explanation (possibly the correct one) after hearing your >> partner's >> explanation then you have intentionally violated Law 16B1 by >> selecting your >> response to an alternative suggested by the UI you received from your >> partner's explanation. > > In that case however, the explanation would be the correct one! Do you > believe it is forbidden to give opponents the correct explanation when > you know that correct explanation because your partner told you? > Then you are even crazier than most MS adepts! > >> In either way you have violated Law 72B1: "A player must not >> infringe a law >> intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is >> willing to >> accept." > > But that one also works both ways - he must not infringe L20F5 either! > He is obliged to break one law or another, so it cannot be > unacceptable to break one of them. And you cannot rule that he > infracts L72B1, because he is obliged to break one or the other law. > >> And "hiding" behind Law 20F5 is no excuse for violating Law 72B1; >> the words >> "must not" in the latter give this law an undisputable precedence >> over Law >> 20F5. > > There is no hiding. Remember how we got here. I claim that the player > must break one law or another. You are trying to convince me that one > law is stronger than another. In that try, you mention that I break > one law, and that I must not do so. Then you say that this "must" is > stronger than the law I intentionally break. > In this try, you have made the error of not thinking symmetrically. If > we admit that both schools break a law, then the argument above is > equally valid on both schools. Sven seems to be willing to debate with Herman on Herman's terms, but these have nothing to do with the position taken by the majority of anti-DWS partisans in this forum (which includes Grattan, Ton, Kojak and myself along with, I believe, most of us). The majority view has nothing to do with trying to convince Herman that one law is stronger than another. Herman's entire rationale for the DWS is based on his "claim that the player must break one law or another". The majority rejects that claim as false. > What you have in fact done is prove that the DWS is illegal by > starting from the premise that the DWS is illegal. By an exact same > argument I can prove that the MS is illegal, provided I start with the > premise that the MS is illegal. In order to prove -- on Herman's own terms! -- that the DWS is illegal, one need merely start from the premise that the MS is legal. Indeed, we don't even need that. It is sufficient to accept no more than the premise that *it is possible to play bridge legally*. To me, that is hardly an unreasonable assumption on which to premise one's interpretation of the laws. > If you want to make a valid argument, you need to list the laws that > the MS break (including but not limited to L20F5) and compare those > laws (in terms of strength) with the laws that the DWS break. Dragging > in L72B1 is not valid, though, as both schools are quite happy to > break some laws. If one accepts Herman's premise ("the laws that the MS break") at the outset, it will be rather difficult to make a valid argument against his conclusion. I think it makes a valid argument to strip the debate down to the minimal difference between the premises of the two sides sufficient to differentiate their conclusions, reducing the debate to the respective merits of those premises. If we do this, we discover a rather stark choice: Premise: It is possible to play bridge without violating any of its laws. If you accept that statement, you accept the majority view, by which the DWS is illegal. Premise: It is not possible to play bridge without violating any of its laws. If -- and only if -- you accept that statement can the question of which laws are "stronger" than which other laws possibly matter. Given that choice of premises, it seems a little hard to understand why this debate has been going on for so long. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 24 18:49:16 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:49:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] Overtricks Message-ID: <0a9a01c85eb1$701fe560$0100a8c0@stefanie> SR: > There is a free bridge magazine that circulates in England. In almost > every > issue there is at least one letter to the editor describing how it would > be > "better for the game" if 2S making 3 was worth less than 3S just made, or > maybe vice versa. There are obviously people who think that this is really > important, and a fair number of them. > HDW: I happen to agree with that suggestion - but that's not important. SR: I am rather surprised to hear that; I had not thought that any experienced player would want such a fundamental change to the game of bridge -- if only because of the time and effort already invested in bridge, and the difficulties of learning another game. In any case, it is interesting to speculate on the effects of such changes. Since overtricks are already worth less than bid tricks, as they don't count towards games or slams or, in rubber bridge, partscores, I will assume that what you favour is increasing the value of overtricks; perhaps to that of undertricks. The main effect of this, I think, would be to reward those players who have taken the risks entailed in pushing their opponents to a higher (but still making) contract. Sounds like it could be a fun game. I don't think it would ever rival bridge in popularity, but I think the same about canasta, and thousands of people spend many happy hours playing it. Stefanie Rohan London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 24 19:05:15 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:05:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: References: <200801222258.m0MMwcE6023604@cfa.harvard.edu> <4797E21B.9010208@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4798D35B.8000507@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 23, 2008, at 7:55 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > >>> From: "David Burn" >>> What the dWS does is compound confusion for >>> the opponents, and that must be bad. >> Even if the opponents are never going to be in the auction? > > You listen carefully to the opponents' auction, requesting > explanations as necessary, all the while carefully constructing a > picture of the opponents' possible and likely holdings. This may > involve considerable mental effort; indeed, the ability to do this > with greater accuracy is one of the things that separates experts > from duffers. As you are about to make your opening lead, you hear, > "Forget all that stuff. We're not playing what we said we were; we > were just making sure we didn't give UI. What we would have said had > we been telling the truth is..." > > Does this not discommode the opponents to the potential advantage of > the DWSists? It certainly can't be good for them. > Well Eric, the alternative is that they are being told two different stories, which cannot be good either. It's up to the director to give a ruling. It's a simple misinformation case. One hand has been misrepresented, the other not. But all that is the consequence of the first misexplanation. Not the second one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 24 19:06:57 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:06:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <080801c85e9c$19441320$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4796BDC2.9010707@ntlworld.com><000501c85d79$a7b1c310$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <47970499.8070400@skynet.be><060501c85e15$78f75b60$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47985147.3050206@skynet.be> <080801c85e9c$19441320$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4798D3C1.4030804@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> >> Yes, but that is not what we are talking about! > > That is what I was talking about. > Which is, quite often, the cause of a lot of trouble on blml. Raija wrote something, and I commented on that. You thought it would be a good idea to attack my comment, without knowing what it was about. And then we start a discussion that is based on two different things. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 24 19:09:10 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:09:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000b01c85ea9$80934c00$6e145e47@DFYXB361> References: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4796BDC2.9010707@ntlworld.com><000501c85d79$a7b1c310$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <47970499.8070400@skynet.be><060501c85e15$78f75b60$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47985147.3050206@skynet.be> <000b01c85ea9$80934c00$6e145e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <4798D446.4040102@skynet.be> raija wrote: > > How so? All I have ever argued is that in answer to opponent's question, > one must explain one's Partnership Agreement, not something else. This is > required by the Law. > But that argument is hardly original. I agree with it. > It is only secondary to any arguments presented that my personal principles > forbid me to tell a lie in order to gain an advantage in a game. > And that argument has no bearing on me. I don't care what you would do in the situation. What I don't want is to be judged for what _I_ do, if your basis for judging me is your outside ethical considerations. And don't tell me that was not what you were trying to do. > Raija > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 24 19:10:17 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:10:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? In-Reply-To: <084701c85ea4$ffcd6f00$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com><06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie><2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com> <002201c85e3d$d49cc900$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><07e201c85e9a$63d7a2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4798B294.9070604@skynet.be> <084701c85ea4$ffcd6f00$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4798D489.3040304@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > The TD would have found that there was no agreement. >> Anyway, you would probably better have said "wants to play 3NT, >> perhaps based on long clubs or something". > > I agree, with the exception of the part of the sentence following the comma. > Yet that last bit was precisely what you said! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 24 19:09:50 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:09:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Eric Landau: > Premise: It is possible to play bridge without violating any of its > laws. If you accept that statement, you accept the majority view, by > which the DWS is illegal. > > Premise: It is not possible to play bridge without violating any of > its laws. If -- and only if -- you accept that statement can the > question of which laws are "stronger" than which other laws possibly > matter. > > Given that choice of premises, it seems a little hard to understand > why this debate has been going on for so long. > Well, Herman will not accept the first premise until the WBFLC proffer their official interpretation*. So those arguing according to the second should perhaps hold their fire until then. But now I think that many people (myself included) are discussing whether the DWS (under a set of laws that makes it legal) would be good for the game. Sure, it's an academic debate, but sometimes intellectual exercises that are fruitless on a practical level can help us learn more about both sides of the issue and clarify our own thinking. Stefanie Rohan London, England * While I do not believe for a second that the DSC should ever have considered a DWS-friendly rule change, they could really have tightened up L20F5 in order to make the position crystal-clear. This is one place where they knew that such a change in wording would have been helpful. Because it is, after all, not just Herman and his small band of non-acolytes. DALB offered a case in which a player "invented" the DWS by himself. Now, I am sure that this player did it out of ignorance of the Laws and was trying to do the best thing. But what if an inexperienced director or AC (at our local club we have volunteer directors who have never been on a course) should become confused? Yes, make the Laws idiot-proof and they will invent a bigger idiot. That is no excuse not to have made them clearer to the current level of idiot (before anyone wails, I am not referring to anyone in particular, but rather to all of us and all of the players and directors out in the real world.) From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 24 19:11:14 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:11:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <08ca01c85eac$72b1f430$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie><479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie><4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be><000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com> <000701c85d51$a1aa5d10$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><037b01c85d61$0190b210$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4796FD74.9070300@skynet.be> <08ca01c85eac$72b1f430$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4798D4C2.5080109@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > HDW > >> "not giving UI" is not one of the ten commandments, but it is >> forbidden in bridge law. > > How can this be? Why then would there be instructions on what a player is to > do when he is in receipt of UI? > Ehm, maybe because some UI is given inadvertently? > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 24 19:12:46 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:12:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com><06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie><2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com> <002201c85e3d$d49cc900$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><07e201c85e9a$63d7a2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4798B294.9070604@skynet.be><084701c85ea4$ffcd6f00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4798D489.3040304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0ad701c85eb4$b8b7da00$0100a8c0@stefanie> "Herman De Wael" > Stefanie Rohan wrote: > >> The TD would have found that there was no agreement. >>> Anyway, you would probably better have said "wants to play 3NT, >>> perhaps based on long clubs or something". >> >> I agree, with the exception of the part of the sentence following the >> comma. >> > > Yet that last bit was precisely what you said! > mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 24 19:14:03 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:14:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com><47961C26.6080800@t-online.de><2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com><000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> <08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4798D56B.5050205@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > System information is not given (apart from alerts and announcements) > voluntarily. It is given in response to the opponents' questions. Do you > really believe it should be otherwise? No, of course not! But the MS position is that MI is tolerated, even obligatory, as long as no questions are asked, but that UI is preferred if a question is asked. That position is inconsistent to say the least. But if that is the way you want to play the game, I have no objections. Just be sure that I'll be asking a lot of questions! > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 24 19:27:01 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:27:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801240907x50a80301g7a2cc5efc24539d4@mail.gmail.com> References: <200801222230.m0MMUkmt014660@cfa.harvard.edu> <4797DE28.5000305@nhcc.net> <2b1e598b0801240907x50a80301g7a2cc5efc24539d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 24, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Eric Lanau: > >> No, the DWS explanations correspond to the methods one member of the >> partnership thinks the other member of the partnership is playing, >> which may be neither of those. That's not so, of course, in Herman's >> well-chosen Blackwood-diamond-preference example that we have been >> using as a basis for discussion, but that example does not represent >> the general case. > > Would you please provide an example that does represent the general > case? 2H-2NT-P-? Your agreements include: (a) on 2NT-P-?, 3C would be Stayman; (b) on 1H-1NT-P-?, 2C would show diamonds; (c) any call not specifically agreed otherwise is natural. You bid 3C, natural by agreement (c), not alertable. Partner alerts, then bids 3D, also natural by agreement and not alertable. Following the DWS, you alert anyhow, so as not to communicate to partner that he has misinterpreted your 3C bid. Opponents inquire about 3D. Over to you. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 24 20:16:02 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:16:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <4798CD03.4080009@skynet.be> References: <200801222230.m0MMUkmt014660@cfa.harvard.edu> <4797DE28.5000305@nhcc.net> <4798CD03.4080009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3D4C0A71-1399-41CA-BDDD-8FA1839B5842@starpower.net> On Jan 24, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Jan 23, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> >>>> From: Eric Landau >>> Leaving aside the "get away with cheating," which I think was >>> refuted >>> long ago, we have something new: >> >> We have been given (and accepted) assurances that none of the DWSists >> in this forum would use a DWS-like approach as a means to cheat, but >> that the potential exists to do so has hardly been refuted. Indeed, >> it is Herman who has pointed it out. The DWS protocol involves (a) >> deliberately giving MI, and (b) freely admitting after the fact that >> one has done so. "Getting away with cheating", were one so inclined, >> would be as simple as "forgetting" to follow through with (b). I'm >> cynical enough to think that this might prove tempting even to some >> who would never cheat proactively. > > But that is impossible! > The first misinformation is not going to remain unnoticed, is it? Of course it is. You ask for a minor suit preference at the five- level, partner describes your call as "Blackwood", he bids 5D, you describe his call as "one ace", you make a call consistent with his having one ace, you play the hand out, and you expect an opponent to work out after the fact that *your* hand was systemically suited for a systemic minor-suit-preference-ask but not for Blackwood? One time in a million maybe. The other 999,999 times, nobody will ever know that you intended to ask for a preference unless you tell them, or, perhaps, unless they take the hand record and your system notes home with them and study them for a couple of hours. OTOH, if you truthfully describe 5D as systemically showing a diamond preference you can be genuinely confident that "the... misinformation is not going to remain unnoticed, is it?" > So the player is already bound to tell the opponents that his partner > has misexplained. He cannot do that without also explaining that he > explained consistently in order not to give UI. As opposed to the non-DWSist, who has already "told" the opponents that his partner has misexplained, has not misexplained anything himself, and owes no additional explanantion in justification of some previous misexplanation which he didn't give. And some would argue that this is not preferable? > If he wishes to conceal anything, it is the first misexplanation which > must be concealed. That means that he will not say anything before > play starts (assuming he's declarer or dummy). He would be simply > pretending he has misbid. But all he need do to accomplish that is "conceal" the contents of his hand! He has no need to pretend to have misbid unless his opponents (or the director) happen to discover that he holds a hand on which it would not make sense to bid Blackwood (which often enough won't even be the case!). > The actions of a misbidder are the same for a MS or a DWS adept. They > can be real (genuine belief) or cheat. But there is nothing in the DWS > that favours this for the cheat. The actions of a genuine misbidder are the same either way, perforce, since the distinction between the MS and the DWS is irrelevant to cases of genuine misbids. And it follows that the actions of a cheater who openly pretends to have misbid in order to conceal his cheating would be the same either way. But the MSer can only conceal his cheating by falsely asserting after the fact that he has misbid, whereas the DWSist, having "poisoned the waters" with his previously mandated "UI-concealing lie", need only keep mum to accomplish the same illegitimate objective. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 24 20:20:11 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:20:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <47988596.1070406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c85ebe$23ffc120$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > > In either way you have violated Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a > law > > intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing > to > > accept." > > > > But that one also works both ways - he must not infringe L20F5 either! > He is obliged to break one law or another, so it cannot be > unacceptable to break one of them. And you cannot rule that he > infracts L72B1, because he is obliged to break one or the other law. > > > And "hiding" behind Law 20F5 is no excuse for violating Law 72B1; the > words > > "must not" in the latter give this law an undisputable precedence over > Law > > 20F5. > > > > There is no hiding. Remember how we got here. I claim that the player > must break one law or another. You are trying to convince me that one > law is stronger than another. In that try, you mention that I break > one law, and that I must not do so. Then you say that this "must" is > stronger than the law I intentionally break. > In this try, you have made the error of not thinking symmetrically. If > we admit that both schools break a law, then the argument above is > equally valid on both schools. > > What you have in fact done is prove that the DWS is illegal by > starting from the premise that the DWS is illegal. By an exact same > argument I can prove that the MS is illegal, provided I start with the > premise that the MS is illegal. > > If you want to make a valid argument, you need to list the laws that > the MS break (including but not limited to L20F5) and compare those > laws (in terms of strength) with the laws that the DWS break. Dragging > in L72B1 is not valid, though, as both schools are quite happy to > break some laws. Let me just repeat a reminder: It is not illegal to give UI to partner, in particular not if this UI is the result of an otherwise legal action. It is the use of UI that is illegal. Sven From mustikka at charter.net Thu Jan 24 20:47:05 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:47:05 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4796BDC2.9010707@ntlworld.com><000501c85d79$a7b1c310$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <47970499.8070400@skynet.be><060501c85e15$78f75b60$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47985147.3050206@skynet.be><000b01c85ea9$80934c00$6e145e47@DFYXB361> <4798D446.4040102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000f01c85ec1$e5ddda40$6e145e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > raija wrote: >> >> How so? All I have ever argued is that in answer to opponent's question, >> one must explain one's Partnership Agreement, not something else. This >> is >> required by the Law. >> > > But that argument is hardly original. I agree with it. If you agree with it, the whole thread is moot. My understanding of what you have written at length is that you say it is acceptable not to give a truthful answer when opponent asks what our partnership agreement is. From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 24 20:45:43 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:45:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c85ec1$b52b1de0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ................ > Sven seems to be willing to debate with Herman on Herman's terms, but > these have nothing to do with the position taken by the majority of > anti-DWS partisans in this forum (which includes Grattan, Ton, Kojak > and myself along with, I believe, most of us). The majority view has > nothing to do with trying to convince Herman that one law is stronger > than another. Herman's entire rationale for the DWS is based on his > "claim that the player must break one law or another". The majority > rejects that claim as false. I don't know about being willing to debate on Herman's terms. What I do "know" is that it is not, and never has been a violation of Law 20F5 when a player correctly explains partner's call(s) even when such explanation reveals a possible mistake in that partner's explanation of his own previous call(s). What is a violation of Law 20F5 is when a player makes any unsolicited remark or mannerism to the effect that his partner's explanation was incorrect. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 24 21:00:27 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:00:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <4798D35B.8000507@skynet.be> References: <200801222258.m0MMwcE6023604@cfa.harvard.edu> <4797E21B.9010208@nhcc.net> <4798D35B.8000507@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jan 24, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Jan 23, 2008, at 7:55 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> >>>> From: "David Burn" >>>> What the dWS does is compound confusion for >>>> the opponents, and that must be bad. >>> Even if the opponents are never going to be in the auction? >> >> You listen carefully to the opponents' auction, requesting >> explanations as necessary, all the while carefully constructing a >> picture of the opponents' possible and likely holdings. This may >> involve considerable mental effort; indeed, the ability to do this >> with greater accuracy is one of the things that separates experts >> from duffers. As you are about to make your opening lead, you hear, >> "Forget all that stuff. We're not playing what we said we were; we >> were just making sure we didn't give UI. What we would have said had >> we been telling the truth is..." >> >> Does this not discommode the opponents to the potential advantage of >> the DWSists? It certainly can't be good for them. > > Well Eric, the alternative is that they are being told two different > stories, which cannot be good either. Perhaps "good" would be a bit of an overbid, but, yes, it's a hell of a lot better -- at least for them! If I am being told a story by two different people, one of whom is telling the truth and one of whom is lying, am I not far better off if their stories are inconsistent, so I know that one of them is lying, than if they are consistent, so I have no reason to believe that anything I am being told is not the truth? IOW, if I'm being told two different stories, am I not better off knowing that they are different? > It's up to the director to give a ruling. It's a simple misinformation > case. One hand has been misrepresented, the other not. But using the DWS, unlike the MS, that one hand has been misrepresented *by both members of the partnership*, in a consistent way, which hides the fact "that they are being told two different stories". Were this not being done, the opponents would have a fighting chance to reconcile those two different stories correctly and avoid damage altogether. This can't happen even against an "ethical DWSist", who "unconceals" the MI only after the fact, so as to bring his own (deliberate) infraction to light to avoid cheating his opponents outright. Not to mention what won't happen against a "forgetful DWSist" who absent-mindedly goes right on to the next board or table without remembering to call the director just in case that otherwise unnoticeable deliberate infraction he committed several minutes ago happened to have damaged his opponents. > But all that is the consequence of the first misexplanation. Not the > second one. Nonsense. Without the second misexplanation the first misexplanation would almost certainly have had no such consequence. For "all that" to be purely the consequence of the first misexplanation, not the second one, would mean that Herman's opponents would be equally likely to believe his partner's "Blackwood" and be damaged by it regardless of which way he describes the 5D response. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 24 21:48:53 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:48:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <4798D446.4040102@skynet.be> References: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4796BDC2.9010707@ntlworld.com><000501c85d79$a7b1c310$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <47970499.8070400@skynet.be><060501c85e15$78f75b60$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47985147.3050206@skynet.be> <000b01c85ea9$80934c00$6e145e47@DFYXB361> <4798D446.4040102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6F196F0A-5420-4CCA-8266-19526B222603@starpower.net> On Jan 24, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > raija wrote: > >> It is only secondary to any arguments presented that my personal >> principles >> forbid me to tell a lie in order to gain an advantage in a game. > > And that argument has no bearing on me. I don't care what you would do > in the situation. What I don't want is to be judged for what _I_ do, > if your basis for judging me is your outside ethical considerations. > > And don't tell me that was not what you were trying to do. We have clearly established that neither logical "argument" nor "outside ethical considerations" have any bearing on Herman's side of the "DWS" debate, so let's see if we can judge Herman for "what _[he] _ do[es] ". Let's totally disregard all the arguments, all the legal reasoning, all the considerations of legality and bridge ethics, all the interpretations and minutes and lah-di-dah, and let's talk about what we should *do*. We can: (a) Adopt a practice that is effectively universal, consensually accepted as legal by TPTB, and totally uncontroversial, or (b) Adopt a practice that, while it might be just as legal, is highly unusual, is overwhelmingly rejected by TPTB, is thought by many (even if wrongly) to be cheating, patently leads to abuse, even ostracism, in on-line fora, and can, as we have seen repeatedly, call into question the reputation of even its most ethical of proponents, but does give us an advantage over our opponents at the table. So what are _the rest of us_ going to do? This is a choice? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 24 22:12:12 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:12:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be> <0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net> On Jan 24, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Eric Landau: > >> Premise: It is possible to play bridge without violating any of its >> laws. If you accept that statement, you accept the majority view, by >> which the DWS is illegal. >> >> Premise: It is not possible to play bridge without violating any of >> its laws. If -- and only if -- you accept that statement can the >> question of which laws are "stronger" than which other laws possibly >> matter. >> >> Given that choice of premises, it seems a little hard to understand >> why this debate has been going on for so long. > > Well, Herman will not accept the first premise until the WBFLC > proffer their > official interpretation*. So those arguing according to the second > should > perhaps hold their fire until then. > > But now I think that many people (myself included) are discussing > whether > the DWS (under a set of laws that makes it legal) would be good for > the > game. Sure, it's an academic debate, but sometimes intellectual > exercises > that are fruitless on a practical level can help us learn more > about both > sides of the issue and clarify our own thinking. "Good for the game" requires a broader context than the details of explaining a 5D preference after pard has explained 4NT as Blackwood. "What's good for the game" at the level of the DWS debate is whatever derives from whatever far more general and fundamental principles we believe to be good for the game. At that level, we are discussing whether "special partnership agreements... must be fully and freely available to the opponents" is good for the game, or whether we could improve the game by replacing it with something better. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 24 22:33:53 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:33:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000301c85ec1$b52b1de0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000301c85ec1$b52b1de0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Jan 24, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > ................ >> Sven seems to be willing to debate with Herman on Herman's terms, but >> these have nothing to do with the position taken by the majority of >> anti-DWS partisans in this forum (which includes Grattan, Ton, Kojak >> and myself along with, I believe, most of us). The majority view has >> nothing to do with trying to convince Herman that one law is stronger >> than another. Herman's entire rationale for the DWS is based on his >> "claim that the player must break one law or another". The majority >> rejects that claim as false. > > I don't know about being willing to debate on Herman's terms. > > What I do "know" is that it is not, and never has been a violation > of Law > 20F5 when a player correctly explains partner's call(s) even when such > explanation reveals a possible mistake in that partner's > explanation of his > own previous call(s). > > What is a violation of Law 20F5 is when a player makes any unsolicited > remark or mannerism to the effect that his partner's explanation was > incorrect. I apologize if I have misrepresented Sven's position. The remark about debating on Herman's terms came in reaction to Sven's, "And 'hiding' behind Law 20F5 is no excuse for violating Law 72B1; the words 'must not' in the latter give this law an undisputable precedence over Law 20F5." As Sven makes clear above, what gives L72B1 undisputable precedence over L20F5 here is that L20F5 simply doesn't apply. That is precisely what Grattan, Ton et al have been saying. Herman insists, "If you want to make a valid argument, you need to list the laws that the MS break." But we have done so, many times. For Herman's convenience, the full list is reproduced below the four-line sig at the end of this post. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Jan 25 00:29:15 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:29:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] heretical suggestion Message-ID: <47991F4B.5030105@aol.com> I'm feeling cranky, otherwise I'd not write this. Would it be possible to attach some sort of symbol or abbreviation to the title of all postings dealing with dWs? It is not always possible to know this from the title of some postings. This would enable those who are fed up with the whole controversy to immediately delete such postings and turn to the others that they believe are more interesting. It might also keep some blmlers from resigning because they are sick and tired of the raving and ranting and repetition and superfluousness of the whole discussion. Just a cranky suggestion, ciao, JE From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 25 02:44:50 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:44:50 -0600 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801241744n75c3b44dy9ede393b9cb08010@mail.gmail.com> Question. Is this basically correct MS advice?: Players who know that a call is Alertable, but can't remember the meaning, must Alert it anyway. When asked to explain, do not show doubt if you are going to make a call that assumes a certain meaning. Just state that meaning confidently, and continue. Do not say, "I'm taking it as....", which tells partner of your doubt. If it turns out you were wrong about the meaning, the Director will straighten things out later. Jerry Fusselman From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 02:49:02 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:49:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <19727130.1201018951194.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4796BDC2.9010707@ntlworld.com><000501c85d79$a7b1c310$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <47970499.8070400@skynet.be><060501c85e15$78f75b60$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47985147.3050206@skynet.be><080801c85e9c$19441320$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4798D3C1.4030804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0aed01c85ef4$767c7c00$0100a8c0@stefanie> HDW: > > Raija wrote something, and I commented on that. You thought it would > be a good idea to attack my comment, without knowing what it was > about. And then we start a discussion that is based on two different > things. That is not quite how it went, but whatever. Stefanie Rohan London, England From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 25 02:53:05 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:53:05 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? In-Reply-To: <7D7DDBB0-AF35-4181-AEEA-B2DD310097A1@starpower.net> References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com> <06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com> <7D7DDBB0-AF35-4181-AEEA-B2DD310097A1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801241753p66d30e6cm3c150a031ceae196@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 24, 2008 9:37 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2008, at 8:16 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > [Jerry] > > > >>> 3NT does not exist in this situation, because 2D > >>> is the only option. Because it does not exist, is it alertable? Is > >>> it explainable after the auction but before opening lead if E-W > >>> declare? > > > > [Stefanie Rohan] > > > > "No agreement", if asked, would be sufficient. > > > > [Jerry] > > > > Thanks, Stefanie. Is your answer fully consistent with MS? > > > > Suppose my partner (the 3NT bidder) is brilliant and never seems to > > forget anything. Maybe I should try to imagine what he might have. > > ... He probably wants 3NT no matter what I have. For 3NT to make any > > sense, I suspect that he has a good fit for diamonds, no interest in > > the majors, and he would accept any game invitation. (For this > > reasoning to make any sense, suppose that we play a weak NT, so dealer > > should have a strong NT.) But I am only guessing that he is strong > > with great diamonds, for this is not our agreement. But I think it is > > a good guess. Do you still suggest that I say nothing unless asked, > > and if asked only say "No agreement"? > > You have at least worked out that "he probably wants 3NT no matter > what I have". The rest you merely "suspect", or are "only guessing". > > I suggest you say nothing uless asked, and if asked say, "He probably > wants 3NT no matter what I have." > > (In contrast to my earlier comment on this example, I am assuming > this time that 2C was properly alerted and explained.) > Please assume both 1NT and 2C were properly alerted, but the opponents asked nothing. The alert for 1NT would have been "15--18, balanced, often with four spades." The alert for 2C, had they asked, would have been "either weak with long diamonds or some invitational hand." I am not sure that "puppets 2D" is proper in an alert, for to some it may sound like instructions for your partner. I don't believe an alert should usually include a list of options for the followup. Anyway, with these alerts and no questions asked, does that change your answer? Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 25 03:01:28 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:01:28 -0600 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000201c85ebe$23ffc120$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <47988596.1070406@skynet.be> <000201c85ebe$23ffc120$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801241801i13ed1a38w84ee51c087713692@mail.gmail.com> [Sven Pran] > > Let me just repeat a reminder: It is not illegal to give UI to partner, in > particular not if this UI is the result of an otherwise legal action. It is > the use of UI that is illegal. > Would you agree with the following?: It is not illegal to give MI to the opponents, in particular not if this MI is the result of an otherwise legal action. Jerry Fusselman From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 03:12:46 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:12:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists References: <200801222230.m0MMUkmt014660@cfa.harvard.edu><4797DE28.5000305@nhcc.net> <000f01c85e3c$4e124cd0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <0b7b01c85ef7$c70d2680$0100a8c0@stefanie> > ... written explanations would allow dWs adherents to > play without ever giving their partner the UI that triggers dWs. The > apparent conflict would cease to exist. It would be a logistical > nightmare, > but if a dWs adherent is serious about staying within the Laws, that is > the > only option present to him that allows no Laws to be broken. Hirsch, written explanations would serve only one of the objectives of the DWS; the one which allows either player, uninfluenced by UI, to wake up and remember the correct aggreements, thus allowing the partnership to land on its feet. The other objective, that of keeping from the opponents the fact that there has been a bidding misunderstanding, is not served. Unless each player writes an explanation to every question and shows it only to the player deemed to be his "virtual" screenmate. Stefanie Rohan London, England From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jan 25 03:12:00 2008 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:12 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? In-Reply-To: <084701c85ea4$ffcd6f00$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: "Stefanie Rohan" wrote: > Yes, I have. I have been asked for my agreements, not my opinion. Not just agreements but relevant partnership experience, style, implicit understanding et al. If you have agreed Acol (or a system loosely based thereon) then that is what the bid shows. I expect my partners to know Acol (albeit not to the extent of being surprised when they don't). Tim From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 25 04:41:05 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:41:05 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is a pass that denies 3-card support alertable in the ACBL? Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801241941j7efdf24vb6ea80bd15dace44@mail.gmail.com> >From the thread [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? --- [Jerry Fusselman] > > In the ACBL, a pass when a support double was > > possible is not alertable, but it is probably explainable [before the opening lead if your side declares] if you play > > the pass as showing fewer than three of partner's suit. > [Eric Landau] > Side issue: I have been under the impression that a pass that by > agreement denies three-card support (as opposed to merely denying a > hand suitable for a raise, as some support doublers play) is > alertable in the ACBL. Is that incorrect? =================================== Evidence that it is not alertable in the ACBL: 1. ACBL alert chart: Alertable "Passes with highly unusual or unexpected meanings." A pass that by agreement denies three-card support is not highly unusual or unexpected. For me, that works until you come across a director who says, "but that's highly unusual." Which is to say, it does not work that well. 2. Though it confuses the issue in this case, I checked Marvin French's excellent resource at http://www.marvinfrench.com/p1/laws®s/alerts.pdf . Well, he plainly says that it is alertable: "Most negative inferences; e.g., 4M opening that can't be strong (NAMYATS), jump raise of 1M to 4M that might be strong (Big Club system), calls made in lieu of a support double or redouble, thereby denying exactly three-card support; negative double when playing a new suit not forcing by UPH (doubler's hand is likely quite different from what might be expected), strong three-level bid when playing lebensohl (a weak hand bids 2NT)." Even though I am going to say that Marvin is wrong on this particular issue, I am sure that he would have welcomed that kind of feedback from the ACBL. I also know that he asked many many questions of many ACBL officials to come up with his list. My experience is that Marvin's advice on alertability is generally more accurate than the first response that you get from on rulings at ACBL.org, probably because rulings at ACBL.org does so much volume. He gives this excellent advice: "In addition to delayed Alerts, before the opening lead declarer and/or dummy should disclose anything about their auction that might be unknown to the other side because it was not previously disclosed (e.g., major suit bypass possibility, negative inferences, the meaning of bids following 4NT or Gerber, even those not Alertable)." Again, I would call these "explainable" calls, but I wish someone could give me a better or more-often-used term. 3. The ACBL Competitions and Conventions Committee, which is responsible for the Alert regulations, has stated "in general, negative inferences do not require an Alert". 4. I had a pleasant chat on the phone with a top ACBL official (contact me offline if you want to know which one) on January 10, 2008, and we happened to discuss exactly this issue. He said that negative inferences are not, or tend not to be, alertable. The reason is (but this is no ideal paraphrase) that the alert regulations are there to improve the game and to make the most important information available, but we want to keep things moving along by not requiring every little piece of weird side information to be alerted. In particular, he said to me that a pass when a support double is available is not alertable, even if it guarantees fewer than three of Opener's major. He also explicitly said that Marvin French is wrong on the issue of negative inferences. I think he also said that you could explain negative inferences before the opening lead---or maybe I just assumed that might be what he meant. >From the alert chart and alert procedure documents, the following unusual negative inferences are alertable in the ACBL: A. Negative double when playing negative free bids; B. Opener's 1NT rebid that is not weak (because you did not open with your weak NT); C. Responder's 1D if it absolutely denies a four-card major; D. 2NT rebid after Stayman that often has no a four-card major (because the immediate 2NT is not natural); E. Other rebids after Stayman that often has no a four-card major; F. 2D after 2C artificial opening if it denies a bust and forces to game; G. 4M opening when playing Namyats; H. 1M-4M by artificial club players. But apparently, most negative inferences are not alertable in the ACBL. That said, you might decide to alert some nonalertable negative inferences anyway, for two reasons: 1. Active ethics (perhaps thinking of something like the golden rule); 2. Insurance policy against a director who rules that you "of course" should have alerted it. By the way, does anyone have a better term than "negative inference"? Jerry Fusselman From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 05:08:18 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:08:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com><06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie><2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com><7D7DDBB0-AF35-4181-AEEA-B2DD310097A1@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0801241753p66d30e6cm3c150a031ceae196@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0bc001c85f07$eac555b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> "Jerry Fusselman" > On Jan 24, 2008 9:37 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> On Jan 23, 2008, at 8:16 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >> > [Jerry] >> > >> >>> 3NT does not exist in this situation, because 2D >> >>> is the only option. Because it does not exist, is it alertable? Is >> >>> it explainable after the auction but before opening lead if E-W >> >>> declare? >> > >> > [Stefanie Rohan] >> > >> > "No agreement", if asked, would be sufficient. >> > >> > [Jerry] >> > >> > Thanks, Stefanie. Is your answer fully consistent with MS? >> > >> > Suppose my partner (the 3NT bidder) is brilliant and never seems to >> > forget anything. Maybe I should try to imagine what he might have. >> > ... He probably wants 3NT no matter what I have. For 3NT to make any >> > sense, I suspect that he has a good fit for diamonds, no interest in >> > the majors, and he would accept any game invitation. (For this >> > reasoning to make any sense, suppose that we play a weak NT, so dealer >> > should have a strong NT.) But I am only guessing that he is strong >> > with great diamonds, for this is not our agreement. But I think it is >> > a good guess. Do you still suggest that I say nothing unless asked, >> > and if asked only say "No agreement"? >> >> You have at least worked out that "he probably wants 3NT no matter >> what I have". The rest you merely "suspect", or are "only guessing". >> >> I suggest you say nothing uless asked, and if asked say, "He probably >> wants 3NT no matter what I have." >> >> (In contrast to my earlier comment on this example, I am assuming >> this time that 2C was properly alerted and explained.) >> > > Please assume both 1NT and 2C were properly alerted, but the opponents > asked nothing. The alert for 1NT would have been "15--18, balanced, > often with four spades." > > The alert for 2C, had they asked, would have been "either weak with > long diamonds or some invitational hand." I am not sure that "puppets > 2D" is proper in an alert, for to some it may sound like instructions > for your partner. I don't believe an alert should usually include a > list of options for the followup. > > Anyway, with these alerts and no questions asked, does that change your > answer? Yes. If there is no question, I will not say anything. However, if you are saying that there are no questions until the question about the final 3NT, you should explain the auction to date. That is really what you are supposed to do; explain the whole auction, not just the meaning of one call. (If the final pass has not been made, disclose only what you know about partner's hand, not what he knows about yours). Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 05:13:27 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:13:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? References: Message-ID: <0bc601c85f08$a33a8e80$0100a8c0@stefanie> TWM > "Stefanie Rohan" wrote: > >> Yes, I have. I have been asked for my agreements, not my opinion. > > Not just agreements but relevant partnership experience, style, implicit > understanding et al. > Yes. I was assuming that the situation had not been discussed and there was nothing analogous to it. This was the case in my experience, and I assumed also in the OP's. > If you have agreed Acol (or a system loosely based thereon) then that is > what the bid shows. I expect my partners to know Acol (albeit not to the > extent of being surprised when they don't). I play Acol, despite not knowing it at all. What does the 3NT bid show in Acol (assuming that the Acol in use has the relevant 2-way checkback convention grafted onto it)? What does it show in my auction (1C-1D-3NT)? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 05:18:38 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:18:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <0be201c85f09$5c189b40$0100a8c0@stefanie> EL: > "Good for the game" requires a broader context than the details of > explaining a 5D preference after pard has explained 4NT as > Blackwood. "What's good for the game" at the level of the DWS debate > is whatever derives from whatever far more general and fundamental > principles we believe to be good for the game. At that level, we are > discussing whether "special partnership agreements... must be fully > and freely available to the opponents" is good for the game, or > whether we could improve the game by replacing it with something better. Do you really think that the 4NT-5D bid is about that particular auction? It is just a shortcut for everything that you mention. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 05:20:32 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:20:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <47988596.1070406@skynet.be><000201c85ebe$23ffc120$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <2b1e598b0801241801i13ed1a38w84ee51c087713692@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0bec01c85f09$a0722a40$0100a8c0@stefanie> JF; > [Sven Pran] >> >> Let me just repeat a reminder: It is not illegal to give UI to partner, >> in >> particular not if this UI is the result of an otherwise legal action. It >> is >> the use of UI that is illegal. >> > > Would you agree with the following?: > > It is not illegal to give MI to the opponents, in particular not if > this MI is the result of an otherwise legal action. > I cannot speak for Sven, of whom the question was asked, but I can answer for myself that of course I wouldn't agree. Giving MI is an infraction even if you did it completely by accident. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 05:22:35 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:22:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000301c85ec1$b52b1de0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <0bf901c85f09$e9821560$0100a8c0@stefanie> Posts like this make it all worthwhile... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 9:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > On Jan 24, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> On Behalf Of Eric Landau >> ................ >>> Sven seems to be willing to debate with Herman on Herman's terms, but >>> these have nothing to do with the position taken by the majority of >>> anti-DWS partisans in this forum (which includes Grattan, Ton, Kojak >>> and myself along with, I believe, most of us). The majority view has >>> nothing to do with trying to convince Herman that one law is stronger >>> than another. Herman's entire rationale for the DWS is based on his >>> "claim that the player must break one law or another". The majority >>> rejects that claim as false. >> >> I don't know about being willing to debate on Herman's terms. >> >> What I do "know" is that it is not, and never has been a violation >> of Law >> 20F5 when a player correctly explains partner's call(s) even when such >> explanation reveals a possible mistake in that partner's >> explanation of his >> own previous call(s). >> >> What is a violation of Law 20F5 is when a player makes any unsolicited >> remark or mannerism to the effect that his partner's explanation was >> incorrect. > > I apologize if I have misrepresented Sven's position. The remark > about debating on Herman's terms came in reaction to Sven's, "And > 'hiding' behind Law 20F5 is no excuse for violating Law 72B1; the > words 'must not' in the latter give this law an undisputable > precedence over Law 20F5." As Sven makes clear above, what gives > L72B1 undisputable precedence over L20F5 here is that L20F5 simply > doesn't apply. That is precisely what Grattan, Ton et al have been > saying. Herman insists, "If you want to make a valid argument, you > need to list the laws that the MS break." But we have done so, many > times. For Herman's convenience, the full list is reproduced below > the four-line sig at the end of this post. > > > 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 daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 05:24:35 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:24:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie><479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie><4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be><000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com> <000701c85d51$a1aa5d10$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><037b01c85d61$0190b210$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4796FD74.9070300@skynet.be><08ca01c85eac$72b1f430$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4798D4C2.5080109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0bff01c85f0a$314423c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> How can this be? Why then would there be instructions on what a player is >> to >> do when he is in receipt of UI? >> > > Ehm, maybe because some UI is given inadvertently? > ALL UI is given inadvertently. The word for other UI is cheating. When satisfying your obligation to explain your agreements to your opponents, any UI that partner therefore receives is still inadvertent. Stefanie Rohan London, England From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jan 25 05:28:41 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:28:41 -0600 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com> <47961C26.6080800@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> <000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> <08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801242028g39f4452bse960fc6d2ebb3912@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 24, 2008 11:11 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > >> [JF] > >> > >> But if it is so clear to both of you that UI is so benign compared to MI, > >> why not clear up the MI at once? > >> > >> [DALB] > >> > >> You've lost me. The MS position *does* clear up the MI at once. West > >> alerts > >> 4NT as Blackwood (MI) and bids 5D; East explains this as minor-suit > >> preference (GI, an acronym for "genuine information", although the > >> American > >> soldiery might correctly claim that they are never given any of that). > >> Now > >> North-South both know what 4NT really was, which is their entitlement in > >> Law. > > > > [JF] > > > > You don't see why MS does not clear up the MI at once? I will mention > > the two main reasons: The first is that North has no way of knowing > > that 4NT is not Blackwood until later. The second is that South might > > not ask any questions. > > > > By "at once," I mean before North calls and before South asks any > > questions. Please permit me to rephrase slightly: If it is so clear > > to both of you that UI is so benign compared to MI, why not clear up > > the MI at once, before either opponent has taken any action that might > > be misled by the MI? > > > Jerry, I think that Herman ought to take you off the payroll! The position > (under legal play) if South has not asked any questions is the same as the > position (under DWS play) whether or not South has asked any questions. It > does not serve the DWS if you say that this is a bad position! > About your first sentence: First I am not on any payroll---I think for myself; Second, Herman understands th point of my question, and he wants to know too. Depending on their answer, we will may have a reductio ad absurdum. But, alas, no answer is likely. About your last sentence: I did not assert or argue anything about DWS in this thread. I am just trying to get my one question answered. I would like to find out clearly where DALB and Matthias stand, or anyone else who agrees with their blanket statement that MI is harmful and UI is harmless. I have asked the question about a dozen times in this thread. I hope it is now totally clear that Law 20F5a specifically forbids clearing up of MI at once---meaning at the earliest possible moment before anyone takes any action. My question for David and Matthias is---do agree that clearing up MI at once is wisely forbidden? And if yes, how do you reconcile that with your exceedingly clear statements that MI is harmful and UI is harmless? I think they are stuck in a logical contraction. Jerry Fusselman From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 05:36:13 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:36:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com><47961C26.6080800@t-online.de><2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com><000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com><08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4798D56B.5050205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0c0701c85f0b$d1392000$0100a8c0@stefanie> > But the MS position is that MI is tolerated, even obligatory, as long > as no questions are asked, but that UI is preferred if a question is > asked. The Law-abiding position is that agreements are explained if and only if questions are asked about them. As I asked one of your non-acolytes earlier, do you really think that this is wrong? A person who has received MI and not asked a question about a further bid is in the same position as those playing against DWSists. So you are undermining your argument if you say that this position is undesirable! But yes, if a question is asked, UI is preferable to MI. > > That position is inconsistent to say the least. Why? It is "symmetrical" to your position. You claim that if a question is asked, MI is preferable to UI. You seem to be saying that those who waste their time arguing with you say that there should never be MI and should always be UI. The point is that NEITHER of them should be created deliberately. And no, correctly explaining your agreements is not creating any kind of information deliberately, except that given to your opponents. Your explanations are none of partner's business. > But if that is the way you want to play the game, I have no > objections. Just be sure that I'll be asking a lot of questions! You had better play the game that way too, or you will be chucked out of the tournament in question and perhaps out of your NBO. HOWEVER. When you know that a misunderstanding is in progress, have no intention of entering the auction, and know that the information you obtain from an answer may well be inaccurate (so it will not help you build a picture of the hands or plan the defense), you should not ask a question just to cause UI that might constrain the opponents. I don't know that this is an infraction per se, but it is, in my opinion, unethical Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 05:52:46 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:52:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com><47961C26.6080800@t-online.de><2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com><000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com><2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com><08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801242028g39f4452bse960fc6d2ebb3912@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0c3001c85f0e$211b3070$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> > By "at once," I mean before North calls and before South asks any >> > questions. Please permit me to rephrase slightly: If it is so clear >> > to both of you that UI is so benign compared to MI, why not clear up >> > the MI at once, before either opponent has taken any action that might >> > be misled by the MI? Law (too lazy to look it up) specifies the correction period for MI. The beginning of that period can be assumed to mean "at once". > Second, Herman understands th point of my question, and he > wants to know too. Depending on their answer, we will may have a > reductio ad absurdum. But, alas, no answer is likely. I have answered and will answer again. Person A, who has received MI and not asked for another explanation, will be in the same position as Person B, who is playing against DWS opponents and has asked further questions. Now can you answer the question I have asked over and over? If you believe that the Person A is in a bad position, how can you argue the merits of the DWS, since B will always be in A's position under DWS? > MI is harmful and UI is harmless. Oh, come on. Don't be childish. > I hope it is now totally clear that Law 20F5a specifically forbids > clearing up of MI at once---meaning at the earliest possible moment > before anyone takes any action. Let us define "at once" as above -- the earliest moment in the correction period specified in the Laws. > My question for David and Matthias > is---do agree that clearing up MI at once is wisely forbidden? It is not forbidden. Remember what "at once" means. > And if > yes, how do you reconcile that with your exceedingly clear statements > that MI is harmful and UI is harmless? I think they are stuck in a > logical contraction. Is "aren't" a logical contraction? Stefanie Rohan London, England From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Fri Jan 25 05:56:35 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:56:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com> <3564A652-8B1D-4A91-A032-A30BA84DF967@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001b01c85f0e$a9da8370$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? > > Side issue: I have been under the impression that a pass that by > agreement denies three-card support (as opposed to merely denying a > hand suitable for a raise, as some support doublers play) is > alertable in the ACBL. Is that incorrect? > Yes. That pass was alertable in the past, however, under current ACBL alert regulations it is no longer alertable. On the ACBL alert chart, only passes with highly unusual or unexpected meanings are alertable. After a support double, that pass no longer meets those criteria. http://www.acbl.org/play/alertChart.html Hirsch From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 06:00:43 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:00:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists References: <200801222230.m0MMUkmt014660@cfa.harvard.edu> <4797DE28.5000305@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <0c6e01c85f0f$3d21c2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > I'm surprised Eric can write something like this after all the > discussion. The dWS explanations correspond to the methods one of the > partnership is playing, though not the methods he is supposed to be > playing. > Not if partner has, say, alerted a natural bid, and you have guessed wrong which system he thinks he is playing. Now his explanations will match yours, though neither of you are playing the system you are explaining. Or, similarly, if partner erroneously alerts or forgets to alert, or you don't notice his alert, and he was playing the right system all along. Now you are both playing the same system. And explaining at least one other system. Stefanie Rohan London, England From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Fri Jan 25 06:01:28 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:01:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com><06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie><2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com><002201c85e3d$d49cc900$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><07e201c85e9a$63d7a2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie><4798B294.9070604@skynet.be> <084701c85ea4$ffcd6f00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4798D489.3040304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003201c85f0f$57f21450$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? > Stefanie Rohan wrote: > >> The TD would have found that there was no agreement. >>> Anyway, you would probably better have said "wants to play 3NT, >>> perhaps based on long clubs or something". >> >> I agree, with the exception of the part of the sentence following the >> comma. >> > > Yet that last bit was precisely what you said! > Yes Herman. That is also why the TD was called, and why the opponents may have received an adjustment if they were deterred from a natural club lead. Had the correct "no agreement" been said, there would have been no reason for a possible adjustment. Hirsch From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 06:42:21 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:42:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801241801i13ed1a38w84ee51c087713692@mail.gmail.com> References: <47988596.1070406@skynet.be> <000201c85ebe$23ffc120$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <2b1e598b0801241801i13ed1a38w84ee51c087713692@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000101c85f15$0edd8690$2c9893b0$@com> [JF] Would you agree with the following?: It is not illegal to give MI to the opponents [DALB] Don't be silly. Of course it is illegal to give MI to the opponents. Nothing can justify or excuse doing that, whereas giving UI to partner may be (and often is) excusable, even if it is not justifiable. I mean, sometimes at the table you have to think, but you never have to tell the opponents an untruth. And it never hurts anyone to give UI to an ethical partner, whereas it usually hurts someone to give MI to an innocent opponent. The people hurt are the opponents, and as has been pointed out by Eric on several occasions, they may not even know that they have been hurt. Is that good for bridge? Now that the Bible has found its way into this discussion, the words of Chesterton seem appropriate for what I assure you will be my last message on this topic: Antichrist, or The Reunion Of Christendom: An Ode "A Bill which has shocked the conscience of every Christian community in Europe." - Mr. F.E. Smith, on the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. Are they clinging to their crosses, F.E. Smith, Where the Breton boat-fleet tosses, Are they, Smith? Do they, fasting, trembling, bleeding, Wait the news from this our city? Groaning "That's the Second Reading!" Hissing "There is still Committee!" If the voice of Cecil falters, If McKenna's point has pith, Do they tremble for their altars? Do they, Smith? Russian peasants round their pope Huddled, Smith, Hear about it all, I hope, Don't they, Smith? In the mountain hamlets clothing Peaks beyond Caucasian pales, Where Establishment means nothing And they never heard of Wales, Do they read it all in Hansard With a crib to read it with - "Welsh Tithes: Dr Clifford Answered" - Really, Smith? In the lands where Christians were, F.E. Smith, In the little lands laid bare, Smith, O Smith! Where the Turkish bands are busy And the Tory name is blessed Since they hailed the Cross of Dizzy On the banners from the West, Men don't think it half so hard if Islam burns their kin and kith Since a curate lives in Cardiff Saved by Smith. It would greatly, I must own, Soothe me, Smith, If you left this theme alone, Holy Smith. For your legal cause or civil You fight well and get your fee; For your God or dream or Devil, You will answer not to me. Talk about the pews and steeples And the cash that goes therewith, But the souls of Christian peoples... Chuck it, Smith! David Burn London, England From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 25 06:45:19 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:45:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] WBFLC consultation In-Reply-To: <479886E2.2030004@ntlworld.com> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <4793912D.60902@ntlworld.com> <479886E2.2030004@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <4799776F.4020803@ntlworld.com> Jeff Easterson has kindly pointed out to me that at least 3 or 4 of the countries in which he plays or directs did ask for suggested changes, improvements, etc. of the laws some time (at least a few years) before 2007. (published in their regular bulletin/magazine). I am delighted to retract my blanket criticism. But I am still unaware of an approach by the EBU. It would be interesting to see the list of suggestions from one's own NBO. I fear there is little chance of a radical suggestion being endorsed by a local NBO. Their directors have too large an investment in the status quo. I feel that world-wide public debate in an official on-line Bridge forum would stimulate more interest and produce more useful ideas. I also agree with Adam Wildavsky that the WBFLC should submit their last drafts to public scrutiny to help remove remaining ambiguities, contradicions and solecisms before final publication. From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Fri Jan 25 06:45:22 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:45:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure References: <2b1e598b0801241744n75c3b44dy9ede393b9cb08010@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002e01c85f15$7a7b44f0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 8:44 PM Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure > Question. Is this basically correct MS advice?: > > Players who know that a call is Alertable, but can't remember the > meaning, must Alert it anyway. When asked to explain, do not show > doubt if you are going to make a call that assumes a certain meaning. > Just state that meaning confidently, and continue. Do not say, "I'm > taking it as....", which tells partner of your doubt. If it turns out > you were wrong about the meaning, the Director will straighten things > out later. > No. The first part is correct. If all meanings of the call are known to be alertable, it must be alerted even if the meaning may be in doubt. After that, the rest is incorrect. If I know the meaning of the call, I explain it. If I don't know the meaning of a call, but know that it is on my system card which the opponent has not bothered to look at, I point the opponent to the system card. If the call is not on the system card, and I don't know what it means, I call the TD at that point. Better to get the TD involved before MI goes out. TD should take me away from the table and have partner explain the call. Partner may know that I'm in doubt about system, but will have no idea what I've taken his call to mean, and therefore has no real alternative but to continue bidding as though I've remembered system (unless I bid something impossible, which is a sign that the opponents are getting a good score without an adjustment needed). If I actually guess the correct system, we get out of the hand alive. Short version: Get the TD involved prior to deliberately giving potential MI. You might be able to avoid the infraction completely. It's a lot easier for the TD to sort out if the TD is brought in as early as possible. Hirsch From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 06:50:37 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:50:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <200801222258.m0MMwcE6023604@cfa.harvard.edu> <4797E21B.9010208@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <0d1f01c85f16$35d80d50$0100a8c0@stefanie> > If the MS becomes official, It is. > you will see more of these sorts of cases. > There won't be MI, but there will be UI to both players, and either one > can potentially misjudge the LAs or "suggested over another." Yes, this happens sometimes. Players who are in receipt of UI often suffer therefrom. Poor dears. WHAT!?!? Are we expecting them to have bothered their pretty heads with learning the system?!?! Players in receipt of UI do get some benefit of the doubt. Personally, I think that the EBU's standard (a LA must be at least a 30% action) is a bit too lenient, and I think that the polling methods are flawed. The 30% is supposed to be of the player's peers, but directors usually poll experts. This is perhaps inevitable, though, because two players may both be of intermediate standard, but their teaching and experience (since limited) are likely to be very specific, and it is difficult to determine whether they are "peers". Anyway, these experts will often pick the chosen alternative, especially if they think that it is a good bid or one they would have been pleased to come up with. But they aren't asked in the right way, I don't think. "What would you do?" "I bid 4S". If you get this from 10 people, 4S is a 100% action, and Pass is not a LA. But what if 10 people said, "I would bid 4S, but I think Pass is reasonable"? This is more like the ACBL standard. Pass would now become a LA there. I think that, with this answer, Pass also reaches the 30% mark. What do others think? I know one director (Londoners will know who he is. He may be reading this) who says, after "I bid 4S", "Well, what do you think of Pass"? This, I think, is more like the right approach. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 06:58:45 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:58:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] WBFLC consultation References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <4793912D.60902@ntlworld.com> <479886E2.2030004@ntlworld.com> <4799776F.4020803@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <0d3801c85f17$58f755b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > I am delighted to retract my blanket criticism. But I am still unaware > of an approach by the EBU. > As am I. > It would be interesting to see the list of suggestions from one's own NBO. > Yes. > I fear there is little chance of a radical suggestion being endorsed > by a local NBO. Their directors have too large an investment in the > status quo. It depends how snugly the administration and the TDs are in each other's pocket. I don't think that this is too much of a problem in the EBU. And I don't think that the directors would be violently opposed to learning a few law changes. In any case, most of what has been suggested here is not changes in actual law, but expressing the laws in clearer language. I have seen TDs scratching their head after reading a law relevant to a ruling. They would much prefer to have the text written in something with a passing resemblance to English. > > I feel that world-wide public debate in an official on-line Bridge > forum would stimulate more interest and produce more useful ideas. There have been useful ideas here... > > I also agree with Adam Wildavsky that the WBFLC should submit their > last drafts to public scrutiny to help remove remaining ambiguities, > contradicions and solecisms before final publication. Amen. From geller at nifty.com Fri Jan 25 07:19:56 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:19:56 +0900 Subject: [blml] WBFLC consultation In-Reply-To: <4799776F.4020803@ntlworld.com> References: <4799776F.4020803@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <200801250619.AA12179@geller204.nifty.com> I am somewhat (but only somewhat) sympathetic to the confidentiality adopted by the WBFLC. If thet were forced to reply to each public comment it would be a huge burden. A posssible solution would be to set up a moderated buletin board using Invision, and let all but the most obnoxious or off-topic posters post away to their heart's content with the understanding that the WBFLC was free to reply but had to obligation to reply, and could incorporate proposed changes or ignore proposed changes as they saw fit. (DWS posters could be quarantined to the DWS thread and banned for DWS posts in other threads.) For an example of an Invision-BBS see David Stevenson's BBS or the BridgeBaseOnline BBS (for those few people not familiar with such systems.) -Bob Guthrie ????????: >Jeff Easterson has kindly pointed out to me that at least 3 or 4 of >the countries in which he plays or directs did ask for suggested >changes, improvements, etc. of the laws some time (at least a few >years) before 2007. (published in their regular bulletin/magazine). > >I am delighted to retract my blanket criticism. But I am still unaware >of an approach by the EBU. > >It would be interesting to see the list of suggestions from one's own NBO. > >I fear there is little chance of a radical suggestion being endorsed >by a local NBO. Their directors have too large an investment in the >status quo. > >I feel that world-wide public debate in an official on-line Bridge >forum would stimulate more interest and produce more useful ideas. > >I also agree with Adam Wildavsky that the WBFLC should submit their >last drafts to public scrutiny to help remove remaining ambiguities, >contradicions and solecisms before final publication. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 07:26:12 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Lawsand 2007Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <0d8701c85f1b$2e993f50$0100a8c0@stefanie> I have found that translating into Korean and back produces particularly incomprehensible text. Anyway, go to this site: http://www.metrobridge.co.uk/newsletter/Winter07%20News.doc and read the article on pp19-20. It was translated only once. It is hysterical. Stefanie Rohan London, England ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 6:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Lawsand 2007Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] The software translated this into French as, "Ind?pendamment de 1 pr?c?dant, si un d?fenseur essaye de conc?der un ou plusieurs tours et ses objets d'associ? imm?diatement, aucune concession ne s'est produite." Translating the French back into English produced, "Independently of 1 preceding, if a defender tries to concede one or more turns and his objects of immediately associated, no concession occurred." Translating it into Russian and back produced, "Regardless of 1 preceding, if defender asks it was inferior one or more tricks and his objects of participant immediately, then no concession not of proiskhodila." Japanese produced, "In order in spite even in 1 it precedes for the protection person to recognize the purpose of the trick and that partner of one or more immediately, if you tried, concession did not happen." I guess it's not so easy. Eric Landau ton: Thank you Eric, this was by far my biggest laugh in this new year, I am still giggling. Could you try Dutch? ton _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 25 07:33:46 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:33:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? In-Reply-To: <07e201c85e9a$63d7a2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com><06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie><2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com> <002201c85e3d$d49cc900$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <07e201c85e9a$63d7a2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <479982CA.2000607@ntlworld.com> [Stephanie Rowan] I am guilty of creating MI in a similar situation recently. I was playing with an unfamiliar partner, though we had worked a bit on system beforehand. She opened 1C, I bid 1D, and she bid 3NT. My RHO asked me what this meant, and I said, based on my own tendencies, "probably based on long clubs". Screens were in use, so my partner had no chance to correct this. Well, partner had a 4=4=1=4 20 count, and I was ruled against for giving MI, though no damage was deemed to have been done, since the experts consulted by the director say that a club from QJxx would not have been led anyway after my partner had opened the suit. Anyway. After being asked it is easy blithely to give your opinion, as I did. It is important to remember that we are not being asked for an opinion. [Nige1] Stefanie's partner seems to be undisciplined (and, perhaps, if nothing else, that is declarable). For most partnerships, there would be *some* negative inference about the hand held by the 3N bidder in the auction 1C-1D-3N eg [A] Limited to a maximum of 19 HCP. [B] Likely to hold stops in the majors (or a complete gamble) [C] Unlikely to hold a four card major -- OK you'd be wrong here :) [D] Promises 4D (or, perhaps, denies 4D). [E] Likely to be based on a long club suit. Stephanie based her inference on her own tendencies -- but a local circle of players do tend to share habits that might not be expected by a stranger. [F] Is unlikely to hold a hand suitable for other rebids (eg reverses, jump rebids, and 2N rebids -- assuming that Stefanie and her partner have an understanding about any of these). Hence, I feel that no agreement is rarely an adequate explanation. From geller at nifty.com Fri Jan 25 08:20:39 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:20:39 +0900 Subject: [blml] New Rules vs Old In-Reply-To: <200801250619.AA12179@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200801250619.AA12179@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <200801250720.AA12183@geller204.nifty.com> Dear BLMLers, One of our top national events in Japan is the "Nihon League," a round-robin (league) competition with relegation and promotion, like football (soccer). Such events are apparently also held in many European nations, but not in the United States. Anyway, this competition will next be held over two weekends, the first in April 2008 and the second in June 2008. We (the JCBL) will be converting to the new laws sometime in early May. Our choices for the "Nihon League" are: (1) use old rules throughout (2) use new rules throughout (3) use old rules in April, and new rules in June. How do you vote, and why? (No guarantee the JCBL will follow the BLML majority, but we'll be interested in your opinions. Thanks.) -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Fri Jan 25 08:27:19 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:27:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com><06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie><2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com><002201c85e3d$d49cc900$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><07e201c85e9a$63d7a2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479982CA.2000607@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000801c85f23$b85213e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? > > [Nige1] > Stefanie's partner seems to be undisciplined (and, perhaps, if nothing > else, that is declarable). For most partnerships, there would be > *some* negative inference about the hand held by the 3N bidder in the > auction 1C-1D-3N eg > [A] Limited to a maximum of 19 HCP. > [B] Likely to hold stops in the majors (or a complete gamble) > [C] Unlikely to hold a four card major -- OK you'd be wrong here :) > [D] Promises 4D (or, perhaps, denies 4D). > [E] Likely to be based on a long club suit. Stephanie based her > inference on her own tendencies -- but a local circle of players do > tend to share habits that might not be expected by a stranger. > [F] Is unlikely to hold a hand suitable for other rebids (eg reverses, > jump rebids, and 2N rebids -- assuming that Stefanie and her partner > have an understanding about any of these). > > Hence, I feel that no agreement is rarely an adequate explanation. > > You've missed it. All of the above inferences are based on bridge logic, not partnership agreement. The opponents were as well placed to work these out as Stephanie was, provided all agreements up to that point had been explained. She needed to tell her opponents that the bid did not exist in their partnership agreements. After that, they could have worked the rest out on their own. Hirsch From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Jan 25 08:37:21 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:37:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801242028g39f4452bse960fc6d2ebb3912@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com> <47961C26.6080800@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> <000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> <08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801242028g39f4452bse960fc6d2ebb3912@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <479991B1.2000309@t-online.de> Jerry Fusselman schrieb: > > My question for David and Matthias > is---do agree that clearing up MI at once is wisely forbidden? Yes. > And if > yes, how do you reconcile that with your exceedingly clear statements > that MI is harmful and UI is harmless? Because UI does not confuse my opponents, it just restricts my partner`s choices. Giving UI should be avoided, but there is no infraction if partner does not use it. > I think they are stuck in a > logical contraction. > > Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Jan 25 08:43:01 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:43:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?New_Rules_vs_Old?= In-Reply-To: <200801250720.AA12183@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200801250619.AA12179@geller204.nifty.com> <200801250720.AA12183@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <1JIJDJ-0CGbHE0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> Bob asked: > Dear BLMLers, > > One of our top national events in Japan is the "Nihon League," a > round-robin (league) competition with relegation and promotion, like > football (soccer). > Such events are apparently also held in many European nations, but not > in the United States. > > Anyway, this competition will next be held over two weekends, the > first in April 2008 and the second in June 2008. ?We (the JCBL) will > be converting to the new laws sometime in early May. ? ?Our choices > for the "Nihon League" are: > (1) use old rules throughout > (2) use new rules throughout > (3) use old rules in April, and new rules in June. > How do you vote, and why? I vote for (2). (1) is illegal once you'll have established the 2007 code in May. (3) may be a big problem, because together with the new code you (the JCBL) have to announce quite a lot of supplementary rules concerning all the choices the Regulating Authority has got. Perhaps (probably) your regulations have to be rewritten. This might be IMO quite problematic in the middle of an outstanding event, as the Nihon League (for sure) is. The one premise I would cosider to be necessary is the availability of the translated laws and the choices of the Regulating Authority at last 1 month before the start of your League. If this is practically not possible, I vote for (3). > (No guarantee the JCBL will follow the BLML majority, but we'll be > interested in your opinions. ?Thanks.) From geller at nifty.com Fri Jan 25 08:54:05 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:54:05 +0900 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?New_Rules_vs_Old?= In-Reply-To: <1JIJDJ-0CGbHE0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> References: <1JIJDJ-0CGbHE0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <200801250754.AA12184@geller204.nifty.com> Peter Eidt ????????: >Bob asked: >(1) is illegal once you'll have established the 2007 code in May. I don't think so, because we are under orders from Zone6 to changeover by June 30. As long as we do this, which we will, the JCBL (the RA for Japan) can set different changeover dates for different competitions. So, whether or not this (1) is wise, it can be made legal (we haven't yet promulgated the changeover date and in any case can promulgate an exception.) So IMO any of (1)-(3) is legal (or can be made so by the RA). The question is, which is wise? Cheers, ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 25 09:04:15 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:04:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801241801i13ed1a38w84ee51c087713692@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c85f28$e160d7d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > > Let me just repeat a reminder: It is not illegal to give UI to partner, > in > > particular not if this UI is the result of an otherwise legal action. It > is > > the use of UI that is illegal. > > > > Would you agree with the following?: > > It is not illegal to give MI to the opponents, in particular not if > this MI is the result of an otherwise legal action. NO, I know of no legal action that can result in (known) MI to opponents. Sven From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Jan 26 04:09:19 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:09:19 -0800 Subject: [blml] New Rules vs Old In-Reply-To: <1JIJDJ-0CGbHE0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> References: <200801250619.AA12179@geller204.nifty.com> <200801250720.AA12183@geller204.nifty.com> <1JIJDJ-0CGbHE0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080125190755.0291a668@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 11:43 PM 24/01/2008, you wrote: >Bob asked: > > Dear BLMLers, > > > > One of our top national events in Japan is the "Nihon League," a > > round-robin (league) competition with relegation and promotion, like > > football (soccer). > > Such events are apparently also held in many European nations, but not > > in the United States. > > > > Anyway, this competition will next be held over two weekends, the > > first in April 2008 and the second in June 2008. We (the JCBL) will > > be converting to the new laws sometime in early May. Our choices > > for the "Nihon League" are: > > (1) use old rules throughout > > (2) use new rules throughout > > (3) use old rules in April, and new rules in June. > > How do you vote, and why? Why not try the DWS throughout and report back? :} Otherwise use 2, they are easy except for L27 Tony (Sydney) From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 25 09:11:49 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:11:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801241744n75c3b44dy9ede393b9cb08010@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000101c85f29$f0055bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > Question. Is this basically correct MS advice?: > > Players who know that a call is Alertable, but can't remember the > meaning, must Alert it anyway. Correct, at least in Norway. (This is a matter of regulation, not of law.) > When asked to explain, do not show > doubt if you are going to make a call that assumes a certain meaning. > Just state that meaning confidently, and continue. Do not say, "I'm > taking it as....", which tells partner of your doubt. Incorrect, you must explain your agreements as you "know" them. If you are in doubt you must indicate so. Everything you say is of course UI to your partner. > If it turns out > you were wrong about the meaning, the Director will straighten things > out later. True Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 25 09:40:16 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:40:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] New Rules vs Old In-Reply-To: <200801250720.AA12183@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000201c85f2d$e955f1f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > Dear BLMLers, > > One of our top national events in Japan is the "Nihon League," a > round-robin (league) competition with relegation and promotion, > like football (soccer). > Such events are apparently also held in many European nations, > but not in the United States. > > Anyway, this competition will next be held over two weekends, > the first in April 2008 and the second in June 2008. We (the > JCBL) will be converting to the new laws sometime in early May. > Our choices for the "Nihon League" are: > (1) use old rules throughout > (2) use new rules throughout > (3) use old rules in April, and new rules in June. > How do you vote, and why? (3) is your worst choice: You should never change rules in the middle of an event. Either (1) or (2) could be acceptable, except that continuing with the old rules after a general switch to the new is undesirable to say the least. So I vote for (1). Regards Sven From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jan 25 09:42:12 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:42:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] New Rules vs Old In-Reply-To: <200801250720.AA12183@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200801250619.AA12179@geller204.nifty.com> <200801250720.AA12183@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: On 25/01/2008, Robert Geller wrote: > Dear BLMLers, > > One of our top national events in Japan is the "Nihon League," a round-robin > (league) competition with relegation and promotion, like football (soccer). > Such events are apparently also held in many European nations, but not > in the United States. > > Anyway, this competition will next be held over two weekends, the first in > April 2008 and the second in June 2008. We (the JCBL) will be converting > to the new laws sometime in early May. Our choices for the "Nihon League" > are: > (1) use old rules throughout > (2) use new rules throughout > (3) use old rules in April, and new rules in June. > How do you vote, and why? With the format of the competition (we have the same in Norway), I'd say that the only alternative you should absolutely not adopt is (3). All matches should be played with the same rules - it's plain wrong that the same irregularity could be treated differently. If (2) is really possible, I'd chooce that one, but I've got no problem with (1). -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > (No guarantee the JCBL will follow the BLML majority, but we'll be interested > in your opinions. Thanks.) > > -Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Jan 25 10:35:27 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:35:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?New_Rules_vs_Old?= In-Reply-To: <200801250754.AA12184@geller204.nifty.com> References: <1JIJDJ-0CGbHE0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> <200801250754.AA12184@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <1JIKy7-1uZ6RM0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> From: Robert Geller > Peter Eidt: > > (1) is illegal once you'll have established the 2007 code in May. > > I don't think so, because we are under orders from Zone6 to changeover > by June 30. ?As long as we do this, which we will, the JCBL (the RA > for Japan) can set different changeover dates for different > competitions. ? No, Bob, you (JCBL) are not allowed to do this. >From the WBF sites on Ecatsbridge.co.uk: "Zonal Organizations are authorized to introduce and give effect to the 2007 Code of Laws on dates of their choosing in the period 1st January 2008 to 30th September 2008 inclusive. Please note that it is not appropriate to delegate the choice of date below NBO level." So, if your ZO gives your NBO the option till 30 June, your NBO (JCBL) may choose any date in this period, but only one single date for all events sanctioned by this NBO. > So, whether or not this (1) is wise, it can be made > legal (we haven't yet promulgated the changeover date and in any case > can promulgate an exception.) > > So IMO any of (1)-(3) is legal (or can be made so by the RA). ? The > question is, which is wise? > From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 25 10:37:42 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:37:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be> <0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4799ADE6.1050007@skynet.be> Stefanie offers some very good insight into the problem as it now stands: Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Well, Herman will not accept the first premise until the WBFLC proffer their > official interpretation*. So those arguing according to the second should > perhaps hold their fire until then. > indeed. > But now I think that many people (myself included) are discussing whether > the DWS (under a set of laws that makes it legal) would be good for the > game. Sure, it's an academic debate, but sometimes intellectual exercises > that are fruitless on a practical level can help us learn more about both > sides of the issue and clarify our own thinking. > Very true. But I don't think these are fruitless. We may yet convince so many people that it is better for the game, that the WBF would reconsider making the (what I call) law change that they are contemplating now. I therefore urge people with open minds, like Stefanie, to keep their minds open and refrain from making pre-judgmental statements like: > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > * While I do not believe for a second that the DSC should ever have > considered a DWS-friendly rule change, although: > they could really have tightened up > L20F5 in order to make the position crystal-clear. This is one place where > they knew that such a change in wording would have been helpful. Because it > is, after all, not just Herman and his small band of non-acolytes. DALB > offered a case in which a player "invented" the DWS by himself. Now, I am > sure that this player did it out of ignorance of the Laws and was trying to > do the best thing. But what if an inexperienced director or AC (at our local > club we have volunteer directors who have never been on a course) should > become confused? > is very true! > Yes, make the Laws idiot-proof and they will invent a bigger idiot. That is > no excuse not to have made them clearer to the current level of idiot > (before anyone wails, I am not referring to anyone in particular, but rather > to all of us and all of the players and directors out in the real world.) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 25 10:42:25 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:42:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be> <0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > "Good for the game" requires a broader context than the details of > explaining a 5D preference after pard has explained 4NT as > Blackwood. "What's good for the game" at the level of the DWS debate > is whatever derives from whatever far more general and fundamental > principles we believe to be good for the game. At that level, we are > discussing whether "special partnership agreements... must be fully > and freely available to the opponents" is good for the game, or > whether we could improve the game by replacing it with something better. > Well Eric, you are forgetting the larger picture here. No-one is debating that MI laws should be altered. But the problem here is whether UI or MI is the stronger Law. And this is where the WBF now has an inconsistent attitude: before a second question is asked, the WBF believes UI is worse than MI (hence L20F5); but after such a question, the MS, and the WBFLC apparently believe MI is worse than UI. That is inconsistent, and such an inconsistency is, IMO worse for the game than either of the two possible positions. The WBF has, IMO, only two choices: - either they accept the DWS - or they abolish L20F5 entirely, and ask that MI be corrected immediately. That last one seems to me not what a majority wants. That majority should join the DWS, and make the MS a mS. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 25 10:48:22 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:48:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000001c85f28$e160d7d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c85f28$e160d7d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4799B066.2030303@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > NO, I know of no legal action that can result in (known) MI to opponents. > How about following L20F5? Your partner misexplains, and you remain silent. Does that not result in MI to your opponents? Do you not have the option of clearing up that MI? Are you not an accomplice to the fact of hiding something from your opponents? Should that not count as the gravest form of MI? Indeed, your partner made a simple mistake, but you "know" what the system is and yet you refrain from telling that. And why? Because L20F5 tells you to. People should understand that the WBF has made this choice ages ago (I found the text as far back as 1975 and it may well be older). This law is so ingrained in your thoughts that you don't see it as law anymore, mere practice. And that is why you are happy to defend totally unreasonable, inconsistent points of view. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 25 10:49:30 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:49:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <0bff01c85f0a$314423c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie><479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie><4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be><000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com> <000701c85d51$a1aa5d10$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><037b01c85d61$0190b210$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4796FD74.9070300@skynet.be><08ca01c85eac$72b1f430$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4798D4C2.5080109@skynet.be> <0bff01c85f0a$314423c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4799B0AA.6070506@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> How can this be? Why then would there be instructions on what a player is >>> to >>> do when he is in receipt of UI? >>> >> Ehm, maybe because some UI is given inadvertently? >> > ALL UI is given inadvertently. The word for other UI is cheating. When > satisfying your obligation to explain your agreements to your opponents, any > UI that partner therefore receives is still inadvertent. > Sorry Stefanie, but the UI that is given my the MS is not given inadvertently. It is very conscious! > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 25 10:57:13 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:57:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <0c0701c85f0b$d1392000$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com><47961C26.6080800@t-online.de><2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com><000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com><08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4798D56B.5050205@skynet.be> <0c0701c85f0b$d1392000$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4799B279.8000507@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> But the MS position is that MI is tolerated, even obligatory, as long >> as no questions are asked, but that UI is preferred if a question is >> asked. > > The Law-abiding position is that agreements are explained if and only if > questions are asked about them. As I asked one of your non-acolytes earlier, > do you really think that this is wrong? A person who has received MI and not > asked a question about a further bid is in the same position as those > playing against DWSists. So you are undermining your argument if you say > that this position is undesirable! > > But yes, if a question is asked, UI is preferable to MI. >> That position is inconsistent to say the least. > > Why? It is "symmetrical" to your position. You claim that if a question is > asked, MI is preferable to UI. > Yes, but that is the same situation as when no question is asked, and the same when no call is made. Your preference for UI/MI changes when a question is asked - mine doesn't. Consider what happens when a call is misexplained but the NOS buyt the contract. Then, you are quite happy to let the MI exist until the end of play, while not giving UI to partner who still has to defend the hand with you. Why should that situation change when a question is asked? > You seem to be saying that those who waste their time arguing with you say > that there should never be MI and should always be UI. The point is that > NEITHER of them should be created deliberately. And no, correctly explaining > your agreements is not creating any kind of information deliberately, except > that given to your opponents. Your explanations are none of partner's > business. > >> But if that is the way you want to play the game, I have no >> objections. Just be sure that I'll be asking a lot of questions! > > You had better play the game that way too, or you will be chucked out of the > tournament in question and perhaps out of your NBO. > > HOWEVER. When you know that a misunderstanding is in progress, have no > intention of entering the auction, and know that the information you obtain > from an answer may well be inaccurate (so it will not help you build a > picture of the hands or plan the defense), you should not ask a question > just to cause UI that might constrain the opponents. I don't know that this > is an infraction per se, but it is, in my opinion, unethical > Aha! now you are deeming it unethical if I ask a question! The lengths people go to to keep untenable positions rather than admit they have changed their minds! (and I'm not even saying that you do this deliberately - but unconsciously that's what you're saying). You create a situation in which it is to someone's benefit to ask questions, but when I tell you that this will create more questions, you prefer to rule that asking questions is not allowed, rather than to change your initial situation to one which is neutral with regards to the asking of questions. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 25 11:01:06 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:01:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <3D4C0A71-1399-41CA-BDDD-8FA1839B5842@starpower.net> References: <200801222230.m0MMUkmt014660@cfa.harvard.edu> <4797DE28.5000305@nhcc.net> <4798CD03.4080009@skynet.be> <3D4C0A71-1399-41CA-BDDD-8FA1839B5842@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4799B362.4030101@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 24, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >>> On Jan 23, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >>> >>>>> From: Eric Landau >>>> Leaving aside the "get away with cheating," which I think was >>>> refuted >>>> long ago, we have something new: >>> We have been given (and accepted) assurances that none of the DWSists >>> in this forum would use a DWS-like approach as a means to cheat, but >>> that the potential exists to do so has hardly been refuted. Indeed, >>> it is Herman who has pointed it out. The DWS protocol involves (a) >>> deliberately giving MI, and (b) freely admitting after the fact that >>> one has done so. "Getting away with cheating", were one so inclined, >>> would be as simple as "forgetting" to follow through with (b). I'm >>> cynical enough to think that this might prove tempting even to some >>> who would never cheat proactively. >> But that is impossible! >> The first misinformation is not going to remain unnoticed, is it? > > Of course it is. You ask for a minor suit preference at the five- > level, partner describes your call as "Blackwood", he bids 5D, you > describe his call as "one ace", you make a call consistent with his > having one ace, you play the hand out, and you expect an opponent to > work out after the fact that *your* hand was systemically suited for > a systemic minor-suit-preference-ask but not for Blackwood? One time > in a million maybe. The other 999,999 times, nobody will ever know > that you intended to ask for a preference unless you tell them, or, > perhaps, unless they take the hand record and your system notes home > with them and study them for a couple of hours. > Eric, now describe the actions of a cheat belonging to the MS. They are exactly the same! That fellow to will simply maintain that he bid Blackwood all the time, and of course 5Di shows one ace. If you want to cheat, you don't need the DWS to do it in. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From geller at nifty.com Fri Jan 25 11:20:32 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:20:32 +0900 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?New_Rules_vs_Old?= In-Reply-To: <1JIKy7-1uZ6RM0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> References: <1JIKy7-1uZ6RM0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <200801251020.AA12188@geller204.nifty.com> Peter Eidt $B$5$s$O=q$-$^$7$?(B: >From: Robert Geller >> Peter Eidt: >> > (1) is illegal once you'll have established the 2007 code in May. >> >> I don't think so, because we are under orders from Zone6 to changeover >> by June 30. ?As long as we do this, which we will, the JCBL (the RA >> for Japan) can set different changeover dates for different >> competitions. ? > >No, Bob, you (JCBL) are not allowed to do this. > >>From the WBF sites on Ecatsbridge.co.uk: >"Zonal Organizations are authorized to introduce and give effect to >the 2007 Code of Laws on dates of their choosing in the period >1st January 2008 to 30th September 2008 inclusive. >Please note that it is not appropriate to delegate the choice of date >below NBO level." > >So, if your ZO gives your NBO the option till 30 June, >your NBO (JCBL) may choose any date in this period, >but only one single date for all events sanctioned >by this NBO. Sorry, but as a native speaker of English i don't agree with you. If the WBF site said "...on a date of their choosing..." the JCBL would be limited to a single date for all competitions, but what the WBF actually said was (as you quote) "... on dates of their choosing..." so there is no restriction whatsover against choosing different dates for different competitions as long as all of the dates fall in the period from Jan. 1 till June 30. -Bob > >> So, whether or not this (1) is wise, it can be made >> legal (we haven't yet promulgated the changeover date and in any case >> can promulgate an exception.) >> >> So IMO any of (1)-(3) is legal (or can be made so by the RA). ? The >> question is, which is wise? >> > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jan 25 11:46:17 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:46:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <082901c85ea3$d3debfd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <200801091545.m09FjFWu000838@cfa.harvard.edu><4786CE85.8050807@nhcc.net> <02c001c85d59$cba7e670$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47972B30.8080207@ulb.ac.be><06b801c85e1c$7decdf30$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47985C64.8040907@ulb.ac.be> <082901c85ea3$d3debfd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <4799BDF9.30502@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > > The player is his own #1 peer. Why poll players to see what he might have > done when you know what he has actually done? This doesn't work. This reasoning can bze used everytime anybody bids anything, which means every bid that was made is a LA. Do other blmlists support this ? It would be a revolution, you know. Best regards Alain From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 11:55:59 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:55:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com><06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie><2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com> <002201c85e3d$d49cc900$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><07e201c85e9a$63d7a2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479982CA.2000607@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <0dd101c85f40$de884f80$0100a8c0@stefanie> > [Nige1] > Stefanie's partner seems to be undisciplined (and, perhaps, if nothing > else, that is declarable). For most partnerships, there would be > *some* negative inference about the hand held by the 3N bidder in the > auction 1C-1D-3N eg > [A] Limited to a maximum of 19 HCP. > [B] Likely to hold stops in the majors (or a complete gamble) > [C] Unlikely to hold a four card major -- OK you'd be wrong here :) > [D] Promises 4D (or, perhaps, denies 4D). > [E] Likely to be based on a long club suit. Stephanie based her > inference on her own tendencies -- but a local circle of players do > tend to share habits that might not be expected by a stranger. > [F] Is unlikely to hold a hand suitable for other rebids (eg reverses, > jump rebids, and 2N rebids -- assuming that Stefanie and her partner > have an understanding about any of these). As for the second part of [E], my partner and I are not in the same "circle", don't play with the same partners, and actually had a devil of a time agreeing on a system because we had such divergent views on what constitutes good bidding. We are still finding more and more things we vehemently disagree about. Anyway, out of the six things above, I would expect five of them to be true, and would probably have no clue, except for with my most frequent partner, about [D]. In the event, one [B] was true and four were not, with [D] being impossible to evaluate. Are you really suggesting, Nigel, that [A]-[F] constituted our "agreement"? In any case, you have guessed as well as I could, and you were not even there. Could not my expert opponent have made the same guesses? Perhaps more accurately? > Hence, I feel that no agreement is rarely an adequate explanation. I think that "not often" would be more accurately than "rarely". Stefanie Rohan London, England From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 25 12:30:09 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:30:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <4799B066.2030303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401c85f45$a4de3fb0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > NO, I know of no legal action that can result in > > (known) MI to opponents. > > > > How about following L20F5? Your partner misexplains, and you remain > silent. Does that not result in MI to your opponents? This MI is a result of partner's incorrect explanation and not a result of any other action simply because there is no other action. (Remaining silent is not taking any action.) In due time I call attention to what I believe has been MI. > Do you not have the option of clearing up that MI? NO, because I don't "know" what the system is. All I know is what I believe the system is and that my partner apparently has a different knowledge of our system. For all I know partner may have given the correct information and I remember wrong. I must still continue calling and explaining according to my own understanding of the system (unaffected by what I hear my partner says) until my partner and I can legally synchronize our understandings. > Are you not an accomplice to the fact of hiding something from your > opponents? NO, my duty is to give opponents the information I believe is correct, not to otherwise alert partner of our possible misunderstanding between us. > Should that not count as the gravest form of MI? > Indeed, your partner made a simple mistake, but you "know" what the > system is and yet you refrain from telling that. At this time I don't "know" whether me or my partner is the one that remembers our agreements incorrectly. > > And why? Because L20F5 tells you to. > > People should understand that the WBF has made this choice ages ago (I > found the text as far back as 1975 and it may well be older). Look into the laws of 1935 and you will find the first occurrence of rules on explaining conventional calls. These rules have been enhanced and elaborated on but not essentially changed since then. The laws of 1932 had no rules for explaining conventions, probably because there were none that needed explanation. > This law is so ingrained in your thoughts that you don't see > it as law anymore, mere practice. And that is why you are happy > to defend totally unreasonable, inconsistent points of view. No, that is why I do not see inconsistency that isn't there. The alleged inconsistency is created by people like you who concentrate on parsing text apparently without any consideration for the meaning of the text. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 25 13:50:29 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:50:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000401c85f45$a4de3fb0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000401c85f45$a4de3fb0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <4799DB15.8040701@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> NO, I know of no legal action that can result in >>> (known) MI to opponents. >>> >> How about following L20F5? Your partner misexplains, and you remain >> silent. Does that not result in MI to your opponents? > > This MI is a result of partner's incorrect explanation and not a result of > any other action simply because there is no other action. (Remaining silent > is not taking any action.) > If you think that then I'm sorry to have to say that you are mistaken. Remaining silent is also an action. It is something you choose to do. > In due time I call attention to what I believe has been MI. > >> Do you not have the option of clearing up that MI? > > NO, because I don't "know" what the system is. That is about the worst argument you can make at this time. Every time we are talking about DWS, we automatically assume that the first bidder "knows" for certain what the system is. That is why you insist on him telling the opponents the "real" system later on. But now suddenly it's OK to remain silent because you are uncertain. Bad argument. And even if you are uncertain now - please answer the question about a player who is 110% certain that partner gave a misexplanation. > All I know is what I believe > the system is and that my partner apparently has a different knowledge of > our system. For all I know partner may have given the correct information > and I remember wrong. I must still continue calling and explaining according > to my own understanding of the system (unaffected by what I hear my partner > says) until my partner and I can legally synchronize our understandings. > >> Are you not an accomplice to the fact of hiding something from your >> opponents? > > NO, my duty is to give opponents the information I believe is correct, not > to otherwise alert partner of our possible misunderstanding between us. > NO, the laws state that the opponents are entitled to correct information. It does not state how they get there. They are supposed to know everything there is to know about our system beforehand. When they are not in the correct position, they are entitled to redress. You are an accomplice to that misinformation, because you are in a position to correct it. >> Should that not count as the gravest form of MI? >> Indeed, your partner made a simple mistake, but you "know" what the >> system is and yet you refrain from telling that. > > At this time I don't "know" whether me or my partner is the one that > remembers our agreements incorrectly. > And when you actually do, 110% certain? >> And why? Because L20F5 tells you to. >> >> People should understand that the WBF has made this choice ages ago (I >> found the text as far back as 1975 and it may well be older). > > Look into the laws of 1935 and you will find the first occurrence of rules > on explaining conventional calls. These rules have been enhanced and > elaborated on but not essentially changed since then. > > The laws of 1932 had no rules for explaining conventions, probably because > there were none that needed explanation. > >> This law is so ingrained in your thoughts that you don't see >> it as law anymore, mere practice. And that is why you are happy >> to defend totally unreasonable, inconsistent points of view. > > No, that is why I do not see inconsistency that isn't there. The alleged > inconsistency is created by people like you who concentrate on parsing text > apparently without any consideration for the meaning of the text. > Parsing text without consideration for the meaning of the text? You talk like a bible scholar who knows what the bible says and means, and has no intention of changing his beliefs. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 14:06:06 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:06:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be> <0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net> <4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> > The WBF has, IMO, only two choices: > - either they accept the DWS > - or they abolish L20F5 entirely, and ask that MI be corrected > immediately. > That last one seems to me not what a majority wants. That majority > should join the DWS, and make the MS a mS. > Hmmm... don't like either of those. Oh wait, maybe the WBF could try a middle course. How about... oh, I don't know. Maybe... explain your system only when asked, and explain it accurately. Does that seem a reasonable compromise, Herman? Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 25 15:13:30 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:13:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801241753p66d30e6cm3c150a031ceae196@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com> <06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com> <7D7DDBB0-AF35-4181-AEEA-B2DD310097A1@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0801241753p66d30e6cm3c150a031ceae196@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56C99E63-C378-4D07-B548-E8B7F903CB9B@starpower.net> On Jan 24, 2008, at 8:53 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Jan 24, 2008 9:37 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> On Jan 23, 2008, at 8:16 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> Suppose my partner (the 3NT bidder) is brilliant and never seems to >>> forget anything. Maybe I should try to imagine what he might have. >>> ... He probably wants 3NT no matter what I have. For 3NT to >>> make any >>> sense, I suspect that he has a good fit for diamonds, no interest in >>> the majors, and he would accept any game invitation. (For this >>> reasoning to make any sense, suppose that we play a weak NT, so >>> dealer >>> should have a strong NT.) But I am only guessing that he is strong >>> with great diamonds, for this is not our agreement. But I think >>> it is >>> a good guess. Do you still suggest that I say nothing unless asked, >>> and if asked only say "No agreement"? >> >> You have at least worked out that "he probably wants 3NT no matter >> what I have". The rest you merely "suspect", or are "only guessing". >> >> I suggest you say nothing uless asked, and if asked say, "He probably >> wants 3NT no matter what I have." >> >> (In contrast to my earlier comment on this example, I am assuming >> this time that 2C was properly alerted and explained.) > > Please assume both 1NT and 2C were properly alerted, but the opponents > asked nothing. The alert for 1NT would have been "15--18, balanced, > often with four spades." > > The alert for 2C, had they asked, would have been "either weak with > long diamonds or some invitational hand." I am not sure that "puppets > 2D" is proper in an alert, for to some it may sound like instructions > for your partner. I don't believe an alert should usually include a > list of options for the followup. > > Anyway, with these alerts and no questions asked, does that change > your answer? Yes. If they are unaware of the meaning of the auction prior to 3NT, I will (offer to) explain it to them now. I may not know what 3NT is supposed to mean, but I'm evaluating it in the context of the previous auction, and I owe the opponents the chance to do the same. I don't really know what the relevant legalities are -- I probably don't owe them as much information as I'm prepared to volunteer -- but Jerry asked what I would do. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 25 15:20:34 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:20:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801241801i13ed1a38w84ee51c087713692@mail.gmail.com> References: <47988596.1070406@skynet.be> <000201c85ebe$23ffc120$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <2b1e598b0801241801i13ed1a38w84ee51c087713692@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <25EFE4B7-B5DA-49DD-B755-9BBD6352FE6A@starpower.net> On Jan 24, 2008, at 9:01 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Sven Pran] >> >> Let me just repeat a reminder: It is not illegal to give UI to >> partner, in >> particular not if this UI is the result of an otherwise legal >> action. It is >> the use of UI that is illegal. > > Would you agree with the following?: > > It is not illegal to give MI to the opponents, in particular not if > this MI is the result of an otherwise legal action. No. The laws recognize that UI is inherent and unavoidable (see, for example, L73D1). If it were an infraction per se to give any UI whatsoever, very few hands could be played out without the director at the table. That is not the case for MI. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 25 15:38:15 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:38:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <4799DB15.8040701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c85f5f$ebf3e2a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .................... > > In due time I call attention to what I believe has been MI. > > > >> Do you not have the option of clearing up that MI? > > > > NO, because I don't "know" what the system is. > > That is about the worst argument you can make at this time. Every time > we are talking about DWS, we automatically assume that the first > bidder "knows" for certain what the system is. That is why you insist > on him telling the opponents the "real" system later on. But now > suddenly it's OK to remain silent because you are uncertain. Bad argument. You never "know for certain" what the system is when there is a discrepancy between the two players in a pair. But you "believe" you know for certain what the system is. .................. > NO, the laws state that the opponents are entitled to correct > information. It does not state how they get there. Have you looked up Laws 20, 40 and 75 lately? Law 20 tells you precisely how to answer questions from opponents and how to act if you hear your partner giving incorrect (in your opinion) information to opponents. Law 16 specifically makes it illegal for you to change your "understanding" of a partnership understanding if you realize from hearing your partner's answer to a question that your own original understanding was incorrect. Everything your partner says on such occasions is UI to you. Law 20F5 does not prevent a player from correctly answering a request for explanation on partnership understandings when such answers can reveal mistaken information previously given by partner. Rather than that, Law 20F4 makes it absolutely clear that a player must never intentionally give incorrect information, and if he realizes that he has done so he must immediately call the Director. > They are supposed > to know everything there is to know about our system beforehand. When > they are not in the correct position, they are entitled to redress. > You are an accomplice to that misinformation, because you are in a > position to correct it. As prescribed in detail by Laws 20F4 and 20F5(b) > > >> Should that not count as the gravest form of MI? Not if you act according to L20F4 and L20F5(b) respectively. > >> Indeed, your partner made a simple mistake, but you "know" what the > >> system is and yet you refrain from telling that. > > > > At this time I don't "know" whether me or my partner is the one that > > remembers our agreements incorrectly. > > > > And when you actually do, 110% certain? Nobody can be absolutely certain when there is a discrepancy. That is one of the reasons why each of the players in the pair must stick to his own belief until they can legally synchronize their understandings. ................ > >> This law is so ingrained in your thoughts that you don't see > >> it as law anymore, mere practice. And that is why you are happy > >> to defend totally unreasonable, inconsistent points of view. > > > > No, that is why I do not see inconsistency that isn't there. The alleged > > inconsistency is created by people like you who concentrate on parsing > text > > apparently without any consideration for the meaning of the text. > > > > Parsing text without consideration for the meaning of the text? You > talk like a bible scholar who knows what the bible says and means, and > has no intention of changing his beliefs. Are you looking through a mirror? Established understanding of the laws during more than 60 years doesn't change just because somebody suddenly reads the law text and claims that the text literally means something else. I believe they say you started your quibbling on DWS around 1997 (or was it 1987)? Since then you have apparently continued the same arguing with absolutely no intention of changing your beliefs to correspond with the established understanding of this law since 1935. BTW. The understanding must be even older: I found in Alfred M Gruenther's book "Duplicate Contract Complete" from 1933 (the tournament director's "bible" at the time) where he reprinted the then in force "Laws on Duplicate Contract Bridge" a footnote to Law 9 on "Bidding conventions": "In giving the requested information care should be taken not to convey illegal information to partner. In general an inquiry should be answered by the partner of the player making the last call. If the information about to be given is specific or indicates any definite holding, the player giving it should ask his partner to leave the table momentarily." I consider further comments to be superfluous. Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 25 16:14:54 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:14:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? In-Reply-To: <56C99E63-C378-4D07-B548-E8B7F903CB9B@starpower.net> References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com> <06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com> <7D7DDBB0-AF35-4181-AEEA-B2DD310097A1@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0801241753p66d30e6cm3c150a031ceae196@mail.gmail.com> <56C99E63-C378-4D07-B548-E8B7F903CB9B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4799FCEE.4070502@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > If they are unaware of the meaning of the auction prior to 3NT, > I will (offer to) explain it to them now. I may not know what 3NT is > supposed to mean, but I'm evaluating it in the context of the > previous auction, and I owe the opponents the chance to do the same. > > I don't really know what the relevant legalities are -- I probably > don't owe them as much information as I'm prepared to volunteer -- > but Jerry asked what I would do. > Fine. But it seems that players too frequantly volunteer interpretations : "he doesn't know the system" "perhaps I didn't remember the system" "could he have a huge diamond fit ?" "I guess he misread the vulnerability and suddenly discovered he wasn't playing weak notrumps on this deal" ... And they shouldn't. As Rubens (I think) said, "the meaning of the bid is that he overlooked an Ace", and as long as we're playing guessing games, telling them "your guess is as good as mine ; the bid doesn't exist" is well enough. Best regards Alain From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 16:39:18 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:39:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com><47961C26.6080800@t-online.de><2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com><000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com><08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4798D56B.5050205@skynet.be><0c0701c85f0b$d1392000$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4799B279.8000507@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00db01c85f68$72caa5e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> HOWEVER. When you know that a misunderstanding is in progress, have no >> intention of entering the auction, and know that the information you >> obtain >> from an answer may well be inaccurate (so it will not help you build a >> picture of the hands or plan the defense), you should not ask a question >> just to cause UI that might constrain the opponents. I don't know that >> this >> is an infraction per se, but it is, in my opinion, unethical >> > > Aha! now you are deeming it unethical if I ask a question! Did you read the paragraph above? > The lengths people go to to keep untenable positions rather than admit > they have changed their minds! > (and I'm not even saying that you do this deliberately - but > unconsciously that's what you're saying). Give me a break. Herman, I am really sick of your putting words in my mouth. And I know I am not alone. > You create a situation in which it is to someone's benefit to ask > questions, but when I tell you that this will create more questions, > you prefer to rule that asking questions is not allowed, rather than > to change your initial situation to one which is neutral with regards > to the asking of questions. > I have given a very specific situation when I think that one might ask questions in order DELIBERATELY to damage the opponents. If you know that the answer to your question cannot possibly be of any use to you, but might give the opponents a problem, I do not think you should ask. Not being a DWSist, I do not believe that purposely damaging the opponents is a legitimate "benefit" for my side. At any rate, I am only speculating here. Perhaps this situation would never come up, or would not be recognisable if it did. And I am talking about doing it solely for the purpose of damaging the opponents. Here in England it is considered inappropriate to ask a question if your action (normally pass) is going to be unchanged no matter what the answer. I could not disagree with this more. Besides the losing the ability to build a picture of the opponents' hands and start planning the defence, you are creating UI at practically every one of your turns to call. So I ask A LOT of questions. Enough so that I am certain that my asking or not asking carries no message to my partner. Not sure what all this is apropos of. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 16:42:04 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:42:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com> <06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com> <7D7DDBB0-AF35-4181-AEEA-B2DD310097A1@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0801241753p66d30e6cm3c150a031ceae196@mail.gmail.com><56C99E63-C378-4D07-B548-E8B7F903CB9B@starpower.net> <4799FCEE.4070502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00e101c85f68$d5ebff70$0100a8c0@stefanie> I think all Eric is really saying below is that he will explain the meanings of the calls that were actually systemic, NOT his speculations about the non-systemic call. And as we all know, explaining the whole auction is the proper procedure anyway. Eric Landau a ?crit : > If they are unaware of the meaning of the auction prior to 3NT, > I will (offer to) explain it to them now. I may not know what 3NT is > supposed to mean, but I'm evaluating it in the context of the > previous auction, and I owe the opponents the chance to do the same. > > I don't really know what the relevant legalities are -- I probably > don't owe them as much information as I'm prepared to volunteer -- > but Jerry asked what I would do. > Fine. But it seems that players too frequantly volunteer interpretations : "he doesn't know the system" "perhaps I didn't remember the system" "could he have a huge diamond fit ?" "I guess he misread the vulnerability and suddenly discovered he wasn't playing weak notrumps on this deal" ... And they shouldn't. As Rubens (I think) said, "the meaning of the bid is that he overlooked an Ace", and as long as we're playing guessing games, telling them "your guess is as good as mine ; the bid doesn't exist" is well enough. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 17:06:35 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie><479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie><4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be><000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com> <000701c85d51$a1aa5d10$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><037b01c85d61$0190b210$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4796FD74.9070300@skynet.be><08ca01c85eac$72b1f430$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4798D4C2.5080109@skynet.be><0bff01c85f0a$314423c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4799B0AA.6070506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00e301c85f6c$42bbf4e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> "Herman De Wael" >> ALL UI is given inadvertently. The word for other UI is cheating. When >> satisfying your obligation to explain your agreements to your opponents, >> any >> UI that partner therefore receives is still inadvertent. >> > > Sorry Stefanie, but the UI that is given my the MS is not given > inadvertently. It is very conscious! > OK, let's call it "accidental" instead. Or "incidental". It is very silly to pounce on a particular choice of word when you know exactly what the person was trying to say. Anyhow, what Eric was saying about full disclosure being so fundamental to the game that arguing about it is absurd is completely correct. It demeans the game to give any appearance that there is a legitimate opposing view. Ah, but the DWS is such an easy target -- I know I will continue to find it tough to resist! Stefanie Rohan London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 25 17:07:52 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:07:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be> <0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net> <4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be> <001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> The WBF has, IMO, only two choices: >> - either they accept the DWS >> - or they abolish L20F5 entirely, and ask that MI be corrected >> immediately. >> That last one seems to me not what a majority wants. That majority >> should join the DWS, and make the MS a mS. >> > > Hmmm... don't like either of those. Oh wait, maybe the WBF could try a > middle course. How about... oh, I don't know. Maybe... explain your system > only when asked, and explain it accurately. Does that seem a reasonable > compromise, Herman? > No Stefanie, it doesn't seem like a reasonable compromise. Don't you see what is going on here, Stefanie? We are not talking about the explanation of the system any more. That is completely irrelevant. "diamond preference" - it's not true and the opponents have no use for the information. "diamond preference" really means "my 4NT was not Blackwood, I could tell you what 5Di means in our system but since he doesn't have that, you won't care about that, and, by the way, I know how many aces he has but I'm not going to tell you". If you were to utter this second sentence, all hell would break loose, but you want to impose that first sentence? What is going on here is that the WBF, by means of this new interpretion, are obliging a player to reveal that a mistake has been made, thereby giving UI to partner, interesting but non-entitled information to opponents, and correcting the misinformation. That obligation ONLY exists when an opponent asks a question. So no, your solution is NOT a good compromise. It's a very bad one. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Fri Jan 25 17:27:43 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:27:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net> <4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004201c85f6f$36798000$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 4:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > No-one is debating that MI laws should be altered. > But the problem here is whether UI or MI is the stronger Law. > > And this is where the WBF now has an inconsistent attitude: before a > second question is asked, the WBF believes UI is worse than MI (hence > L20F5); but after such a question, the MS, and the WBFLC apparently > believe MI is worse than UI. That is inconsistent, and such an > inconsistency is, IMO worse for the game than either of the two > possible positions. > > The WBF has, IMO, only two choices: > - either they accept the DWS > - or they abolish L20F5 entirely, and ask that MI be corrected > immediately. > That last one seems to me not what a majority wants. That majority > should join the DWS, and make the MS a mS. > No Herman. The real option is to clarify current practice; that information that may be present as a direct consequence of performing an action demanded by Law is not in violation of L20F5, although it remains UI. A footnote to that Law would suffice. L20F5 is necessary to make it illegal to say "Partner has explained incorrectly", or to wince or grimace when partner botches the explanation. It is not necessary, nor is it properly used, to prohibit system disclosures required in response to a question under other Laws. In current practice, before whatever the WBFLC is contemplating occurs, the strength of the Laws can be noted by simply reading the Introduction to the Laws, where the wording that ranks the strength of the Laws is explained. But you already know that, one would hope. Hirsch From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 25 17:50:48 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:50:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <00e301c85f6c$42bbf4e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie><479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie><4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be><000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com> <000701c85d51$a1aa5d10$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><037b01c85d61$0190b210$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4796FD74.9070300@skynet.be><08ca01c85eac$72b1f430$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4798D4C2.5080109@skynet.be><0bff01c85f0a$314423c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4799B0AA.6070506@skynet.be> <00e301c85f6c$42bbf4e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <479A1368.8050402@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > "Herman De Wael" > >>> ALL UI is given inadvertently. The word for other UI is cheating. When >>> satisfying your obligation to explain your agreements to your opponents, >>> any >>> UI that partner therefore receives is still inadvertent. >>> >> Sorry Stefanie, but the UI that is given my the MS is not given >> inadvertently. It is very conscious! >> > OK, let's call it "accidental" instead. Or "incidental". It is very silly > to pounce on a particular choice of word when you know exactly what the > person was trying to say. > Yes, I did, and he was wrong! When a player is faced with the dilemma that we are talking about, he has the choice of following DWS or MS. When he chooses MS, he makes a conscious decision (even if it was just by choosing to follow MS), and he has given UI. This is not inadvertent UI. And your refusal to admit this is just another symptom of you refusing to have an open mind, and searching for arguments to counter the DWS. Arguments that are almost always based on blind faith, and saying things that are not true, like saying that this UI is not deliberate. I'm not saying that this is bad, or anything, but I refuse to be convicted for giving deliberate MI, when you feel it's OK to give deliberate UI. And your arguments for saying the UI is not deliberate (because you cannot do otherwise) are also valid for my "deliberate" MI. That's what I am trying to do. > Anyhow, what Eric was saying about full disclosure being so fundamental to > the game that arguing about it is absurd is completely correct. It demeans > the game to give any appearance that there is a legitimate opposing view. > Full disclosure so fundamental. Of course it's fundamental. But not giving UI is even more fundamental. That was the choice the WBF made when they wrote L20F5. According to Sven already in the 1930's! Please think about that one. Can you imagine the game where L20F5 says "a wrong explanation has to be corrected immediately"? Yes? Well, that's a game where Full Disclosure is fundamental. But that's not the game we are playing. It might be the game you want to play, but that's not the question here. > Ah, but the DWS is such an easy target -- I know I will continue to find it > tough to resist! > Please continue, Stefanie. If you allow me to chip away at your defences, we'll turn you into a DWS adept yet! > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Fri Jan 25 18:02:42 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:02:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000301c85ec1$b52b1de0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <006701c85f74$1957f920$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > > What I do "know" is that it is not, and never has been a violation of Law > 20F5 when a player correctly explains partner's call(s) even when such > explanation reveals a possible mistake in that partner's explanation of > his > own previous call(s). > > What is a violation of Law 20F5 is when a player makes any unsolicited > remark or mannerism to the effect that his partner's explanation was > incorrect. > > Sven Here, we are at the heart of the problem. I agree completely with Sven. However, that is not what L20F5a says. Herman's interpretation of that Law is a perfectly valid interpretation of that clause as written. It is only when taken in context with the rest of the Lawbook, not to mention the comments here by those who were involved in writing the Laws, that it becomes clear that Herman's interpretation is not what was intended by the Lawmakers. Sven's interpretation of L20F5a is in complete agreement with the intent of the Laws, but that intent must be inferred, as it is not directly expressed by that Law. When something like this occurs, it is an indicator that the Law in question requires modification, so that the Law directly expresses the intent of the Lawmakers without ambiguity. Hopefully, a clarification of L20F5a that has been hinted at will be arriving sooner rather than later. Hirsch From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Jan 25 19:18:21 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:18:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: <200801091545.m09FjFWu000838@cfa.harvard.edu><4786CE85.8050807@nhcc.net> <02c001c85d59$cba7e670$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47972B30.8080207@ulb.ac.be><06b801c85e1c$7decdf30$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47985C64.8040907@ulb.ac.be><082901c85ea3$d3debfd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4799BDF9.30502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <016601c85f7e$aaf72220$0100a8c0@stefanie> AG: Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > > The player is his own #1 peer. Why poll players to see what he might have > done when you know what he has actually done? This doesn't work. This reasoning can bze used everytime anybody bids anything, which means every bid that was made is a LA. SR: But of course every bid that was MADE is a LA. The bids that need to be evaluated as to whether they are LAs are the bids NOT made. AG: Do other blmlists support this ? It would be a revolution, you know. SR: It might already be the popular interpretation. Stefanie Rohan London, England From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Fri Jan 25 19:47:50 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:47:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be> <001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be> Message-ID: <008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 11:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible For purposes of clarification for those who tuned in late and don't want to go back and try to figure out the rest of this, we are talking about one partner bidding 4NT, systemically asking for minor suit preference. Partner, when asked, responds that 4NT was RKCB and responds 5D (0-3) keycards. When the 4NT bidder now has to explain the 5D call...and now back to our story: > We are not talking about the explanation of the system any more. That > is completely irrelevant. "diamond preference" - it's not true and the > opponents have no use for the information. > > "diamond preference" really means "my 4NT was not Blackwood, I could > tell you what 5Di means in our system but since he doesn't have that, > you won't care about that, and, by the way, I know how many aces he > has but I'm not going to tell you". If you were to utter this second > sentence, all hell would break loose, but you want to impose that > first sentence? > > What is going on here is that the WBF, by means of this new > interpretion, are obliging a player to reveal that a mistake has been > made, thereby giving UI to partner, interesting but non-entitled > information to opponents, and correcting the misinformation. > That obligation ONLY exists when an opponent asks a question. > > So no, your solution is NOT a good compromise. It's a very bad one. > Herman, You are completely missing the point that explanations are about disclosure of systems, not hands. The "diamond preference" that you dismiss as "irrelevant" is both relevant and true as an explanation of system. The fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with what is in partner's hand is what is irrelevant. The fact that partner has revealed a number of keycards in an unknown suit (since suit was presumably not agreed since 4NT asked for preference) is irrelevant. The fact that partner will do one of two things a) turn red and summon the TD or b) nothing (likely indicating that he thinks your explanation of "diamond preference" is something that came out of the south end of a northbound horse) is also irrelevant. "Diamond preference" indicates that by your systemic agreements, as you understand them, partner is expressing a preference for diamonds over clubs. That happens to be true, even if you know that is not partner's belief of the meaning. You have obtained that information through the UI of the explanation he has given the opponents, and cannot act on it. "Diamond preference" remains the information you are required to convey by Law. Whether this bears any relationship to the actual hand is irrelevant. Hirsch From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 25 20:29:22 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:29:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? In-Reply-To: <000801c85f23$b85213e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com><06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie><2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com><002201c85e3d$d49cc900$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><07e201c85e9a$63d7a2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479982CA.2000607@ntlworld.com> <000801c85f23$b85213e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <479A3892.2050803@ntlworld.com> [Nige1] Stefanie's partner seems to be undisciplined (and, perhaps, if nothing else, that is declarable). For most partnerships, there would be *some* negative inference about the hand held by the 3N bidder in the auction 1C-1D-3N eg [A] Limited to a maximum of 19 HCP. [B] Likely to hold stops in the majors (or a complete gamble) [C] Unlikely to hold a four card major -- OK you'd be wrong here :) [D] Promises 4D (or, perhaps, denies 4D). [E] Likely to be based on a long club suit. Stefanie based her inference on her own tendencies -- but a local circle of players do tend to share habits that might not be expected by a stranger. [F] Is unlikely to hold a hand suitable for other rebids (eg reverses, jump rebids, and 2N rebids -- assuming that Stefanie and her partner have an understanding about any of these). Hence, I feel that no agreement is rarely an adequate explanation. [Hirsch Davis] You've missed it. All of the above inferences are based on bridge logic, not partnership agreement. The opponents were as well placed to work these out as Stefanie was, provided all agreements up to that point had been explained. She needed to tell her opponents that the bid did not exist in their partnership agreements. After that, they could have worked the rest out on their own. [nige1] Thank you patron, for attempting to put me right. I fear that Hirsch expresses the majority view which seems to be... [A] You should assume opponents to benefit from the same "general knowledge" as you do (usually a patent fiction -- but the laws still seem to encourage it). [B] You are not obliged to divulge available negative inferences (eg from agreed meanings of alternative bids). For example, with a local player but without prior agreement, I would explain that 1C-1D-3N denied a 4 card major. In Stefanie's circle, however, Stefanie's partner actually bid 3N with 4414 shape. Hence if that same auction arose with her on the other side, that exclusion would *not* accord with what Hirsch calls "bridge logic", from *her* viewpoint. Or have I missed something else? :( From mustikka at charter.net Fri Jan 25 20:57:55 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:57:55 -0800 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com><06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie><2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com><002201c85e3d$d49cc900$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><07e201c85e9a$63d7a2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479982CA.2000607@ntlworld.com><000801c85f23$b85213e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479A3892.2050803@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <001d01c85f8c$93eef3b0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? > [Nige1] > Stefanie's partner seems to be undisciplined (and, perhaps, if nothing > else, that is declarable). For most partnerships, there would be > *some* negative inference about the hand held by the 3N bidder in the > auction 1C-1D-3N eg > [A] Limited to a maximum of 19 HCP. > [B] Likely to hold stops in the majors (or a complete gamble) > [C] Unlikely to hold a four card major -- OK you'd be wrong here :) > [D] Promises 4D (or, perhaps, denies 4D). > [E] Likely to be based on a long club suit. Stefanie based her > inference on her own tendencies -- but a local circle of players do > tend to share habits that might not be expected by a stranger. > [F] Is unlikely to hold a hand suitable for other rebids (eg reverses, > jump rebids, and 2N rebids -- assuming that Stefanie and her partner > have an understanding about any of these). > Hence, I feel that no agreement is rarely an adequate explanation. > > [Hirsch Davis] > You've missed it. > All of the above inferences are based on bridge logic, not partnership > agreement. The opponents were as well placed to work these out as > Stefanie was, provided all agreements up to that point had been > explained. She needed to tell her opponents that the bid did not > exist in their partnership agreements. After that, they could have > worked the rest out on their own. > > [nige1] > Thank you patron, for attempting to put me right. I fear that Hirsch > expresses the majority view which seems to be... > > [A] You should assume opponents to benefit from the same "general > knowledge" as you do (usually a patent fiction -- but the laws still > seem to encourage it). > > [B] You are not obliged to divulge available negative inferences (eg > from agreed meanings of alternative bids). > > For example, with a local player but without prior agreement, I would > explain that 1C-1D-3N denied a 4 card major. In Stefanie's circle, > however, Stefanie's partner actually bid 3N with 4414 shape. Hence if > that same auction arose with her on the other side, that exclusion > would *not* accord with what Hirsch calls "bridge logic", from *her* > viewpoint. > > Or have I missed something else? :( Do you have an agreement that it denies a 4-card major? If you don't have that agreement and you are explaining on the basis of *inferences drawn from the fact that he did not choose another bid*, what happens when your partner turns out to have a 4-card major afterall? It would be MI. When there is no agreement the only correct answer is there is No Agreement. If opponents want to inquire about the bids _not made_, they have the right to ask and get all the information they need to draw *THEIR OWN* inferences from that information. Anyway, as always, my two cents that may not be worth a penny :) Raija From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 25 20:58:06 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:58:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <006701c85f74$1957f920$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <000701c85f8c$9a6d65a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Hirsch Davis .............. > > What I do "know" is that it is not, and never has been a violation > > of Law20F5 when a player correctly explains partner's call(s) even > > when such explanation reveals a possible mistake in that partner's > > explanation of his own previous call(s). > > > > What is a violation of Law 20F5 is when a player makes any > > unsolicited remark or mannerism to the effect that his partner's > > explanation was incorrect. > > > > Sven > > Here, we are at the heart of the problem. I agree completely with Sven. > However, that is not what L20F5a says. Herman's interpretation of that > Law is a perfectly valid interpretation of that clause as written. > It is only when taken in context with the rest of the Lawbook, not to > mention the comments here by those who were involved in writing the Laws, > that it becomes clear that Herman's interpretation is not what was > intended by the Lawmakers. > > Sven's interpretation of L20F5a is in complete agreement with the intent > of the Laws, but that intent must be inferred, as it is not directly> > expressed by that Law. When something like this occurs, it is an > indicator that the Law in question requires modification, so that the Law > directly expresses the intent of the Lawmakers without ambiguity. > Hopefully, a clarification of L20F5a that has been hinted at will be > arriving sooner rather than later. Although such a revision of the law text can hardly seem harmful I deny any need for such revision. In my archives I have found verifications that the principles now expressed in Law 20 have remained essentially unchanged at least since 1933. Some individual has apparently discovered that when reading the current laws literally and with no respect for what has been the reality behind these laws during more than 75 years, he has found an inconsistency which he claims enables him to twist the current law 20F5 to mean the opposite of what has been recognized all this time. And finally: The supporters of DWS seem to have completely overlooked Law 20F4 which unconditionally requires a player who becomes aware that he has given an erroneous or incomplete explanation to immediately call the Director. This means that the DWS player who explains his partner's call incorrectly in order not to "indicate" that his partner had given a mistaken explanation must [sic!] immediately call the director and have his own incorrect explanation corrected under the director's control. Sven From geller at nifty.com Fri Jan 25 22:12:54 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:12:54 +0900 Subject: [blml] L42A1 question Message-ID: <200801252112.AA12192@geller204.nifty.com> L42A1 says: "Dummy is entitled to give information, in the Director's presence, as to fact or law." Could someone please explain to me how dummy, or, for that matter, ANY player, could give information to the Director "as to law"? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 25 22:50:46 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:50:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be> <001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie><479A0958.7070204@skynet.be> <008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <003b01c85f9c$5d2ac4c0$3dd0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 11:07 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > > > For purposes of clarification for those who tuned in late and don't want > to > go back and try to figure out the rest of this, we are talking about one > partner bidding 4NT, systemically asking for minor suit preference. > Partner, when asked, responds that 4NT was RKCB and responds 5D (0-3) > keycards. When the 4NT bidder now has to explain the 5D call...and now > back > to our story: > >> We are not talking about the explanation of the system any more. That >> is completely irrelevant. "diamond preference" - it's not true and the >> opponents have no use for the information. >> >> "diamond preference" really means "my 4NT was not Blackwood, I could >> tell you what 5Di means in our system but since he doesn't have that, >> you won't care about that, and, by the way, I know how many aces he >> has but I'm not going to tell you". If you were to utter this second >> sentence, all hell would break loose, but you want to impose that >> first sentence? >> >> What is going on here is that the WBF, by means of this new >> interpretion, are obliging a player to reveal that a mistake has been >> made, thereby giving UI to partner, interesting but non-entitled >> information to opponents, and correcting the misinformation. >> That obligation ONLY exists when an opponent asks a question. >> >> So no, your solution is NOT a good compromise. It's a very bad one. >> > > Herman, > > You are completely missing the point that explanations are about > disclosure > of systems, not hands. The "diamond preference" that you dismiss as > "irrelevant" is both relevant and true as an explanation of system. The > fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with what is in partner's hand > is > what is irrelevant. The fact that partner has revealed a number of > keycards > in an unknown suit (since suit was presumably not agreed since 4NT asked > for > preference) is irrelevant. The fact that partner will do one of two things > a) turn red and summon the TD or b) nothing (likely indicating that he > thinks your explanation of "diamond preference" is something that came out > of the south end of a northbound horse) is also irrelevant. > > "Diamond preference" indicates that by your systemic agreements, as you > understand them, partner is expressing a preference for diamonds over > clubs. > That happens to be true, even if you know that is not partner's belief of > the meaning. You have obtained that information through the UI of the > explanation he has given the opponents, and cannot act on it. "Diamond > preference" remains the information you are required to convey by Law. > Whether this bears any relationship to the actual hand is irrelevant. > > Hirsch > +=+ In the above the reference to "this new interpretation" is an error. This interpretation has applied, and has been applied, since Kaplan explained the law. Someone may have been ignorant of it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Fri Jan 25 23:06:45 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:06:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] L42A1 question References: <200801252112.AA12192@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000801c85f9e$934eb6e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 4:12 PM Subject: [blml] L42A1 question > L42A1 says: > "Dummy is entitled to give information, in the Director's presence, > as to fact or law." > > Could someone please explain to me how dummy, or, for that matter, > ANY player, could give information to the Director "as to law"? > I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. > > -Bob > A couple of weeks ago, I was playing in a club game. The TD was a nice hostess, but had no clue about rulings, and didn't bring her Lawbook to the table (a cardinal sin, IMO). I've had much more directing experience than she has. As Dummy, I could still point her to the appropriate Law legally. The final ruling was still hers, but I could at least tell her what Laws to look up and help her to understand them. She needed the help (even for a simple revoke ruling). A sad irony about this story is that the actual game was originally run by Jerry Machlin after he retired as ACBL Chief Director. When he finally gave up directing completely, his wife Trudy ran it with the help of other TDs in the area (I was one). Even after he stopped directing, Jerry used to play in the game every week up until his death. The game is now less than half the size that it was when Jerry and Trudy were running it. Hirsch From geller at nifty.com Fri Jan 25 23:31:27 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:31:27 +0900 Subject: [blml] L45Cb4 questions Message-ID: <200801252231.AA12195@geller204.nifty.com> L45Cb4 reads as follows: ----------------------------------------------------------- (b) Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. If an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to his hand, and substitute another (see Laws 47D and 16D1). ---------------------------------------------------------- I have two questions: (1) This laws says "....a player may change an inadvertent dsignation..." But is there any way that "a player" could be anyone other than declarer? If so, could someone please explain how this could happen. If not, then maybe shouldn't "a player" be changed to "declarer" ? (2) If the "player" is always declarer (only) and "his partner" is always dummy, then the above wording suggests that once dummy has played the card then declarer can no longer change the designation, even if the change was "without pause for thought." This suggests that it is advantageous for dummy to deliberately be a bit slow in playing cards, so as to allow for the possibility of a change in designation. Somehow it doesn't seem right for the Laws to be worded in a way that encourages such behavior. Does anyone else besides me feel this way? -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Fri Jan 25 23:36:44 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:36:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] L42A1 question In-Reply-To: <200801252112.AA12192@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000801c85fa2$c3f5b6a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > L42A1 says: > "Dummy is entitled to give information, in the Director's presence, > as to fact or law." > > Could someone please explain to me how dummy, or, for that matter, > ANY player, could give information to the Director "as to law"? > I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. > > -Bob Say that for instance Ton or Grattan was participating in an event conducted by me as director. I would not hesitate at all to consult their wisdom on the laws if I were the least in doubt on a question of law while being called to their table. Nor would I hesitate to consult any player whom I knew to be competent on the laws in such a situation. The actual ruling would still of course be my responsibility. Regards Sven From geller at nifty.com Fri Jan 25 23:43:15 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:43:15 +0900 Subject: [blml] L42A1 question In-Reply-To: <000801c85fa2$c3f5b6a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000801c85fa2$c3f5b6a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <200801252243.AA12197@geller204.nifty.com> I see. Hirsch and Sven, thanks. -Bob Sven Pran writes: >> On Behalf Of Robert Geller >> L42A1 says: >> "Dummy is entitled to give information, in the Director's presence, >> as to fact or law." >> >> Could someone please explain to me how dummy, or, for that matter, >> ANY player, could give information to the Director "as to law"? >> I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. >> >> -Bob > >Say that for instance Ton or Grattan was participating in an event conducted >by me as director. > >I would not hesitate at all to consult their wisdom on the laws if I were >the least in doubt on a question of law while being called to their table. >Nor would I hesitate to consult any player whom I knew to be competent on >the laws in such a situation. > >The actual ruling would still of course be my responsibility. > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 26 00:26:30 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:26:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] L45Cb4 questions In-Reply-To: <200801252231.AA12195@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000a01c85fa9$b7610640$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > L45C4(b) reads as follows: > ----------------------------------------------------------- > (b) Until his partner has played a card a player may change an > unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. If an > opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in > designation, that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to > his hand, and substitute another (see Laws 47D and 16D1). > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > I have two questions: > (1) This laws says "....a player may change an inadvertent dsignation..." > But is there any way that "a player" could be anyone other than declarer? > If so, could someone please explain how this could happen. If not, then > maybe shouldn't "a player" be changed to "declarer" ? You already have the answer in Law 45C4(a). Also a defender can "name or otherwise designate a card". If this is done inadvertently and he does not have the card named (or if the naming is incomplete as for instance saying "a spade") then Law 45C4(b) should IMO apply. If he names a particular card that he actually holds in his hand then that card must IMO be played even if the naming was inadvertent because then he is (Law 49) exposing a defender's card just as if the card was accidentally dropped face up on the table. > > (2) If the "player" is always declarer (only) and "his partner" is always > dummy, This condition will never be "true" so the following question is not applicable. Regards Sven > then the above wording suggests that once dummy has played the card then > declarer can no longer change the designation, even if the change was > "without pause for thought." This suggests that it is advantageous for > dummy to deliberately be a bit slow in playing cards, so as to allow for > the possibility of a change in designation. Somehow it doesn't seem > right > for the Laws to be worded in a way that encourages such behavior. Does > anyone else besides me feel this way? > -Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Jan 26 01:31:34 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:31:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com><06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie><2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com><002201c85e3d$d49cc900$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><07e201c85e9a$63d7a2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479982CA.2000607@ntlworld.com><000801c85f23$b85213e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479A3892.2050803@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <01ef01c85fb2$ce2b22d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > For example, with a local player but without prior agreement, I would > explain that 1C-1D-3N denied a 4 card major. In Stefanie's circle, > however, Stefanie's partner actually bid 3N with 4414 shape. Hence if > that same auction arose with her on the other side, that exclusion > would *not* accord with what Hirsch calls "bridge logic", from *her* > viewpoint. > > Or have I missed something else? :( You have missed something, yes. I have stated that my partner was not in my "circle", if I even have one. We don't share many of the same ideas on bidding, and I would never bid as she did on the hand in question. I used "bridge logic" and was completely off the mark. If I had let my expert opponent work it out for herself without telling her my opinion, she might have had a much better result on the board. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Jan 26 01:46:24 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:46:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be> <0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net> <4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be> Message-ID: <01fd01c85fb4$e0876220$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> Hmmm... don't like either of those. Oh wait, maybe the WBF could try a >> middle course. How about... oh, I don't know. Maybe... explain your >> system >> only when asked, and explain it accurately. Does that seem a reasonable >> compromise, Herman? >> > > No Stefanie, it doesn't seem like a reasonable compromise. See below. > > Don't you see what is going on here, Stefanie? > We are not talking about the explanation of the system any more. That > is completely irrelevant. "diamond preference" - it's not true and the > opponents have no use for the information. They do, actually, and even more importantly from your point ot view, they have a right to it. > > "diamond preference" really means "my 4NT was not Blackwood, I could > tell you what 5Di means in our system but since he doesn't have that, > you won't care about that, and, by the way, I know how many aces he > has but I'm not going to tell you". If you were to utter this second > sentence, all hell would break loose, but you want to impose that > first sentence? "Diamond preference" is all that is necessary. You can leave the opponents to work out the rest for themselves. As for how many aces partner has, the opponents can still ask how many aces his response to Blackwood would show. So they would have that information too. > > What is going on here is that the WBF, by means of this new > interpretion, It is not new. > are obliging a player to reveal that a mistake has been > made, thereby giving UI to partner, interesting but non-entitled "Non-entitled"? I have long been meaning to ask you which law this is included in. > information to opponents, and correcting the misinformation. > That obligation ONLY exists when an opponent asks a question. Right. We tell our agreements to the opponents when they ask questions but not when they don't, though we may have more information to offer them in the correction period. I am surprised that you are not familiar with this practice. Have you ever actually been to a session of duplicate bridge? > > So no, your solution is NOT a good compromise. It's a very bad one. It is not "my solution". It is the current position as it appears in the Laws. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Jan 26 02:18:35 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:18:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000701c85f8c$9a6d65a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <024201c85fb9$5f91ac70$0100a8c0@stefanie> > And finally: The supporters of DWS seem to have completely overlooked Law > 20F4 which unconditionally requires a player who becomes aware that he has > given an erroneous or incomplete explanation to immediately call the > Director. You are wrong here, Sven. I do not have an online (or indeed any) version of the new Laws, but I know that Law 20F4 uses the word "subsequently". The DWSists say you never "subsequently realise" that you gave MI, since you had intended to do it all along. The Law might have the word inadvertantly as well, but the DWSists will say that it was not inadvertant. I realise that this is stretching language beyond its breaking point. But this is what they have said. > > This means that the DWS player who explains his partner's call incorrectly > in order not to "indicate" that his partner had given a mistaken > explanation > must [sic!] immediately call the director and have his own incorrect > explanation corrected under the director's control. Here is where I get confused about what they are saying. I explain A, you, my partner, explain A too. Now I realise that we are really playing system B. All of the conditions of 20F4 are fulfilled; I have given MI inadvertantly, I have realised it subsequently. But now I think that YOU might well be under the impression that we are playing A. So according to the DWS logic, I cannot call the director either. 20F4 is apparently null and void. You see, Sven, the fun never stops when the DWS is in force! Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Jan 26 02:22:01 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:22:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 58B2 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <027301c85fb9$da6b6940$0100a8c0@stefanie> > I also see players who play the wrong card by mistake (unintentionally) "Unintentionally" is the wrong choice of word here -- it suggests that the card could be a minor penalty card! > and then try to correct it by playing a second card (the one originally > intended). > > The bracketed section of law50b merely gives examples of the two most > common ways of a card being exposed unintentionally/inadvertently (by > getting stuck to the intended card or by being dropped). > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam at tameware.com Sat Jan 26 04:02:15 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:02:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] San Francisco cases posted Message-ID: The ACBL has posted initial versions of the NABC+ case write-ups from Chicago here: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/SanFrancisco2007.html No comments are there yet. I'll post my comments on BLML shortly. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Sat Jan 26 04:03:42 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:03:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Nashville Case 14 Message-ID: NABC+ case 14 from Nashville, which was missing for a while, is now available with comments here: http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Nashville2007/NABC+14.pdf -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Jan 26 05:29:54 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:29:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? In-Reply-To: <001d01c85f8c$93eef3b0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com><06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie><2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com><002201c85e3d$d49cc900$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><07e201c85e9a$63d7a2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479982CA.2000607@ntlworld.com><000801c85f23$b85213e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479A3892.2050803@ntlworld.com> <001d01c85f8c$93eef3b0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <479AB742.1080903@ntlworld.com> [Raija] Do you have an agreement that it denies a 4-card major? If you don't have that agreement and you are explaining on the basis of *inferences drawn from the fact that he did not choose another bid*, what happens when your partner turns out to have a 4-card major afterall? It would be MI. When there is no agreement the only correct answer is there is No Agreement. If opponents want to inquire about the bids _not made_, they have the right to ask and get all the information they need to draw *THEIR OWN* inferences from that information. Anyway, as always, my two cents that may not be worth a penny :) [nige1] A penny for your thoughts, Raija? The bargain of the year! According to most commentators, Raija is right in law. ("Guessing" is "Lying"...). Raija's recommendation certainly accords with the normal practice of most of bridge players. [1] I still maintain that agreements about alternative calls that partner did not make contribute to your understanding of the bid that she actually makes. Thus, if, with this partner, you agree a 2N jump rebid as 18-20 flat, then an undiscussed 1C-1D-3N is be unlikely to convey that identical message. [2] Also, if the circle in which you and partner play never bid 3N (in the sequence 1C-1D-3N) with a four card major, then, even if you have no such agreement with partner, I feel that you should disclose this. I understand that many class this information as *general knowledge* and protest that they are under no obligation to teach bridge; although Stefanie's partner is the perfect example of a person who does not share that "general knowledge"). As already stated, I think you should say "Unlikely to hold a four card major -- and explain why -- [1] or [2] or whatever". I feel that this suggestion would make better law. If the majority disagree, I think they are wrong again :) From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Jan 26 05:37:19 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:37:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] L42A1 question In-Reply-To: <200801252112.AA12192@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200801252112.AA12192@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <479AB8FF.40805@ntlworld.com> [Robert Geller] L42A1 says: "Dummy is entitled to give information, in the Director's presence, as to fact or law." Could someone please explain to me how dummy, or, for that matter, ANY player, could give information to the Director "as to law"? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. [Nige1l In a national competition, I was guilty of an established revoke. We called the harassed director who ruled "declarer can't revoke -- no penalty" :) My partner insisted on chasing after him to put him right about the law :( From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Jan 26 06:05:50 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 05:05:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Is a call that "does not exist" alertable or explainable? In-Reply-To: <01ef01c85fb2$ce2b22d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <2b1e598b0801231619v6a93400bk80a209cd7859dd9d@mail.gmail.com><06cb01c85e22$bdad4f50$0100a8c0@stefanie><2b1e598b0801231716y4147e388oedd3f9f322442b61@mail.gmail.com><002201c85e3d$d49cc900$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><07e201c85e9a$63d7a2f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479982CA.2000607@ntlworld.com><000801c85f23$b85213e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479A3892.2050803@ntlworld.com> <01ef01c85fb2$ce2b22d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <479ABFAE.9010501@ntlworld.com> [Nige1] For example, with a local player but without prior agreement, I would explain that 1C-1D-3N denied a 4 card major. In Stefanie's circle, however, Stefanie's partner actually bid 3N with 4414 shape. Hence if that same auction arose with her on the other side, that exclusion would *not* accord with what Hirsch calls "bridge logic", from *her* viewpoint. Or have I missed something else? :( [Stefanie Rohan] You have missed something, yes. I have stated that my partner was not in my "circle", if I even have one. We don't share many of the same ideas on bidding, and I would never bid as she did on the hand in question. I used "bridge logic" and was completely off the mark. If I had let my expert opponent work it out for herself without telling her my opinion, she might have had a much better result on the board. [Nige1] Stefanie's original post said that her partnership was unfamiliar. I am sorry, Stefanie: I missed the inference that Stefanie's partner did not play in her circle. Stefanie went on to explain that their bridge arguments were so inconclusive that they could not agree about the meaning of a reverse or a 2N jump rebid. I believe that it is a rare partnership who cannot agree upon such fundamentals -- and my original reply specifically excluded such rare scenarios. I uderstand Stefanie's arguments about "Bridge Logic"; I also concede that she has majority opinion on her side; but I'm afraid we must just agree to differ because I can't come up with more counter-arguments at the moment. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Jan 26 06:13:56 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 05:13:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] New Rules vs Old In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080125190755.0291a668@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <200801250619.AA12179@geller204.nifty.com> <200801250720.AA12183@geller204.nifty.com> <1JIJDJ-0CGbHE0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> <6.1.0.6.2.20080125190755.0291a668@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <479AC194.2010005@ntlworld.com> [Bob Geller] Anyway, this competition will next be held over two weekends, the first in April 2008 and the second in June 2008. We (the JCBL) will be converting to the new laws sometime in early May. Our choices for the "Nihon League" are: (1) use old rules throughout (2) use new rules throughout (3) use old rules in April, and new rules in June. How do you vote, and why? [Tony Musgrove] Why not try the DWS throughout and report back? :} [Nige1] Excellent suggestion, Tony :) From svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 26 10:24:02 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:24:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <024201c85fb9$5f91ac70$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000001c85ffd$31151910$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan ........... > You are wrong here, Sven. I do not have an online (or indeed any) > version of the new Laws, but I know that Law 20F4 uses the word > "subsequently". Sorry for being thoughtless, here is the text from 2007 Law 20F4: "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4." > The DWSists say you never "subsequently realise" that you gave > MI, since you had intended to do it all along. So they confirm that their "special" actions are premeditated. > The Law might have the word inadvertantly as well, but the DWSists > will say that it was not inadvertant. > > I realise that this is stretching language beyond its breaking point. > But this is what they have said. How a premeditated action can be inadvertent is beyond me. > > > > This means that the DWS player who explains his partner's call > incorrectly > > in order not to "indicate" that his partner had given a mistaken > > explanation > > must [sic!] immediately call the director and have his own incorrect > > explanation corrected under the director's control. > > Here is where I get confused about what they are saying. I explain A, you, > my partner, explain A too. Now I realise that we are really playing system > B. All of the conditions of 20F4 are fulfilled; I have given MI > inadvertantly, I have realised it subsequently. But now I think that YOU > might well be under the impression that we are playing A. So according to > the DWS logic, I cannot call the director either. 20F4 is apparently null > and void. > > You see, Sven, the fun never stops when the DWS is in force! Except that I should not use the word "fun" about this, I prefer the word "tragedy" when observing it as a fan of Bridge. Regards Sven From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Jan 26 22:35:08 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:35:08 -0600 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <478782D8.5070707@ulb.ac.be> References: <200801091545.m09FjFWu000838@cfa.harvard.edu> <4786CE85.8050807@nhcc.net> <478782D8.5070707@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801261335r29622a45t28bd7ddb75f1b43f@mail.gmail.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] > > The Rules say you may not choose, among "logical alternatives", any that > has been suggested. > The Rules don't say you aren't allowed to choose a non-"logical > alternative". > I think a simple example can show that why, whether traditional or not, the selected action should always be included among the LAs. Imagine this very simple case: Suppose that the LAs under North-South's methods are signoff and ask for keycards, but South chose to jump to slam. Suppose also that UI makes slam a very attractive option to South. Well, perhaps 80% of the keycard asks end up in slam, and so South knows that slam is a good bet. The director determines that South might have these payoffs (expected matchpoints) given the UI: LA: signoff 30% LA: ask keycards 80% what happened: jump to slam 60% The director might decide that signoff and ask keycards are the only LAs, and that's fine, but the director should not therefore allow the expected benefit from jumping to slam. The reason is that the OS shoud not be expected to gain by the use of UI. On the other hand, if the director determines these percentages given the UI: signoff 30% ask keycards 40% jump to slam 20% then he should allow the jump to slam, and if it makes, the result stands. When a subtle approach to slam and a jump to slam are LAs given the pair's methods, UI often often favors the jump to slam to avoid ambiguities, so slam jumps should often be disallowed. A director who thinks he is done just because the jump to slam that actually happened does not appear to be a LA is not doing his job. There is a good example of this principle in an ACBL casebook---Pittsburg 2005, case 8: "The 6D bid prevents further misinterpretation and is disallowed." "South's jump to slam to avoid ambiguities was highly inappropriate." A great way to make sure you don't allow jumps to slam that expect to gain given the UI is by a very simple device. Just assume that the action at the table is another LA. It does not matter whether it is or not; it is just an assumption that helps leads you to the correct conclusion. I think that no time whatsoever need be wasted determining whether the call that occurred at the table was a logical alternative. The time spent in this thread on whether or not the jump to slam that actually happened is a LA was time wasted. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Jan 26 23:03:21 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:03:21 -0600 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <0c3001c85f0e$211b3070$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com> <47961C26.6080800@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> <000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> <08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801242028g39f4452bse960fc6d2ebb3912@mail.gmail.com> <0c3001c85f0e$211b3070$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801261403id3e3ccfp6fada900dbd5b613@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 24, 2008 10:52 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > >> > By "at once," I mean before North calls and before South asks any > >> > questions. Please permit me to rephrase slightly: If it is so clear > >> > to both of you that UI is so benign compared to MI, why not clear up > >> > the MI at once, before either opponent has taken any action that might > >> > be misled by the MI? > > Law (too lazy to look it up) specifies the correction period for MI. The > beginning of that period can be assumed to mean "at once". Wild! I explain what I mean and you say I cannot mean it. But I do mean it. Please don't redefine my terms in my question when it suits your purposes. At once means at once. Look it up. Besides, you forgot the topic. This is what I wrote originally: "To be clear, I am not asking what the laws are, I am asking what is best for the game, which is the subject here." > > > Second, Herman understands th point of my question, and he > > wants to know too. Depending on their answer, we will may have a > > reductio ad absurdum. But, alas, no answer is likely. > > I have answered and will answer again. I am sorry that you do not know what my question is. Try stating what you think my question is. > Person A, who has received MI and not > asked for another explanation, will be in the same position as Person B, who > is playing against DWS opponents and has asked further questions. Nope, that's not it. My question is not about DWS at all. Sorry. I was only asking David and Matthias to clarify their position. > Now can > you answer the question I have asked over and over? > > If you believe that the Person A is in a bad position, how can you argue the > merits of the DWS, since B will always be in A's position under DWS? I said nothing about DWS in my question asked of David and Matthias. Why do you bring up DWS here? > > > MI is harmful and UI is harmless. > > Oh, come on. Don't be childish. Don't misquote me. I never said that. David and Matthias did, not me. > > > I hope it is now totally clear that Law 20F5a specifically forbids > > clearing up of MI at once---meaning at the earliest possible moment > > before anyone takes any action. > > Let us define "at once" as above -- the earliest moment in the correction > period specified in the Laws. This is a fallacy known as assuming your conclusion. I want to know how authorities like David and Matthias who say that MI is harmful and UI is harmless reconcile that viewpoint to the laws. I want to know why they don't favor changing the laws so that the MI is cleared up at once and before either opponent has taken any action. We all realize that makes for more UI and less MI. But since they say MI is harmful and UI is harmless, they should, by simple logic, consider that an improvement in the game. If they just admit that they were grossly overstating their case, and that actually UI and MI both are harmful, then were getting closer to the truth. > > > My question for David and Matthias > > is---do agree that clearing up MI at once is wisely forbidden? > > It is not forbidden. Remember what "at once" means. I defined what at once means. Dictionaries define what at once means. You change what you want a term in my question to mean, a term that I have defined clearly, and then you say "Remember"? Amazing nerve you have. And to top off, if the word is defined to mean what you say it means, my question would make no sense at all. If it means what I defined it it mean, and what a dictionary defines it to mean, then the question has meaning. > > > And if > > yes, how do you reconcile that with your exceedingly clear statements > > that MI is harmful and UI is harmless? I think they are stuck in a > > logical contraction. > > Is "aren't" a logical contraction? Funny! Perhaps you know that I meant to write logical contradiction. Jerry Fusselman From svenpran at online.no Sat Jan 26 23:19:29 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:19:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801261335r29622a45t28bd7ddb75f1b43f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c86069$85927660$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > [Alain Gottcheiner] > > > > The Rules say you may not choose, among "logical alternatives", any that > > has been suggested. > > The Rules don't say you aren't allowed to choose a non-"logical > > alternative". > > > > I think a simple example can show that why, whether traditional or > not, the selected action should always be included among the LAs. > > Imagine this very simple case: Suppose that the LAs under > North-South's methods are signoff and ask for keycards, but South > chose to jump to slam. Suppose also that UI makes slam a very > attractive option to South. Well, perhaps 80% of the keycard asks end > up in slam, and so South knows that slam is a good bet. The director > determines that South might have these payoffs (expected matchpoints) > given the UI: > > LA: signoff 30% > LA: ask keycards 80% > what happened: jump to slam 60% > > The director might decide that signoff and ask keycards are the only > LAs, and that's fine, but the director should not therefore allow the > expected benefit from jumping to slam. The reason is that the OS > shoud not be expected to gain by the use of UI. > > On the other hand, if the director determines these percentages given the > UI: > > signoff 30% > ask keycards 40% > jump to slam 20% > > then he should allow the jump to slam, and if it makes, the result stands. > > When a subtle approach to slam and a jump to slam are LAs given the > pair's methods, UI often often favors the jump to slam to avoid > ambiguities, so slam jumps should often be disallowed. A director who > thinks he is done just because the jump to slam that actually happened > does not appear to be a LA is not doing his job. > > There is a good example of this principle in an ACBL > casebook---Pittsburg 2005, case 8: "The 6D bid prevents further > misinterpretation and is disallowed." "South's jump to slam to avoid > ambiguities was highly inappropriate." > > A great way to make sure you don't allow jumps to slam that expect to > gain given the UI is by a very simple device. Just assume that the > action at the table is another LA. It does not matter whether it is > or not; it is just an assumption that helps leads you to the correct > conclusion. I think that no time whatsoever need be wasted > determining whether the call that occurred at the table was a logical > alternative. The time spent in this thread on whether or not the jump > to slam that actually happened is a LA was time wasted. > > Jerry Fusselman One technicality: There is never any question for the director if he shall "allows a particular call, he must never alter the final contract as reached through an auction regardless of how much UI can have been involved. What the director shall do is after the play has been completed to examine the board and the auction with alleged UI, and judge if the irregularity warrants assigning an adjusted score. It is true that we often use the words "do not allow" when what we really mean is that we assign an adjusted score. I hope that is what you too actually meant above? And as for "allowing" a slam bid or not, I remember having once assigned an adjusted score for slam one down where the partnership had stopped in five after a questionable auction with UI! Regards Sven From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Jan 26 23:35:23 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:35:23 -0600 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <479991B1.2000309@t-online.de> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com> <47961C26.6080800@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> <000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> <08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801242028g39f4452bse960fc6d2ebb3912@mail.gmail.com> <479991B1.2000309@t-online.de> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801261435l7e89b66au7dfd20f15dd76f33@mail.gmail.com> Matthias Berghaus schrieb: > Jerry Fusselman schrieb: > > > > My question for David and Matthias > > is---do agree that clearing up MI at once is wisely forbidden? > > Yes. > > > And if > > yes, how do you reconcile that with your exceedingly clear statements > > that MI is harmful and UI is harmless? > > Because UI does not confuse my opponents, it just restricts my partner`s > choices. Giving UI should be avoided, but there is no infraction if > partner does not use it. We are not yet communicating. I will try an example. You, South, open 2D, weak. I, North, alert it, and when asked, say Flannery. But we agreed to play 2D weak, and it says weak on our convention cards. So I have given MI. Now according to you and David Burn, MI is harmful and UI is harmless. Therefore, I would expect you to clear up the harmful MI and replace it with harmless UI even before West has a chance to make his first call. Say "Sorry partner, we're playing 2D is weak." MI has been replaced with UI. Oh, there is a law against it? Law 20F5a perhaps? Well, I would expect you to want to void that law and replace it with a law requireing that you clear up my MI *at once* (or *immediately* or whatever word Stefanie thinks should go here) before West's turn to make his first call. So, it seems easy for me to infer that you wish Law 20F5a to be overturned and replaced with always-at-the-absolute-earliest-opportunity MI removals. After all, in this thread you wholeheartedly agreed with David Burn when he said that MI is harmful and UI is harmless. And why stop there? When explaining your agreements, why not read your own convention cards to keep MI at its absolute minimum? Sure, it increases UI, but that matters not, for you claim that UI is harmless. Alternately, how about just admitting that you overstated your position? I think UI and MI are both harmful. Sometimes UI is more harmful, and sometimes MI is. Willing to change your position and agree to that? Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Jan 26 23:49:42 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:49:42 -0600 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <000001c86069$85927660$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <2b1e598b0801261335r29622a45t28bd7ddb75f1b43f@mail.gmail.com> <000001c86069$85927660$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801261449j6aa56194i7c64556ba1eb85d@mail.gmail.com> Sven Pran: > > One technicality: There is never any question for the director if he shall > "allows a particular call, he must never alter the final contract as reached > through an auction regardless of how much UI can have been involved. > > What the director shall do is after the play has been completed to examine > the board and the auction with alleged UI, and judge if the irregularity > warrants assigning an adjusted score. > > It is true that we often use the words "do not allow" when what we really > mean is that we assign an adjusted score. I hope that is what you too > actually meant above? > > And as for "allowing" a slam bid or not, I remember having once assigned an > adjusted score for slam one down where the partnership had stopped in five > after a questionable auction with UI! > Yes, quite true. Even in the casebook quote, "not allow" is shorthand for "not allow to benefit by"---referring to a possible score adjustment. One aspect about Pittsburg 2005 case 8 confuses me. They speculated that the 6D leaper was afraid that 4D might be passed. Why, then, didn't they at least consider adjusting to 4D making 6 rather than 3N making 5 or 6? Jerry Fusselman From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Jan 27 06:29:30 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 05:29:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> Message-ID: <479C16BA.1060409@ntlworld.com> [Fearghal O'Boyle] For instance, a player is in receipt of UI in a 1S - 3S auction which suggests bidding 4S rather than passing. He is sort of ethical and aware of 73C so he decides to bid 7S which happens to make today because of 4 successful finesses and extremely lucky breaks. Has he chosen from among logical alternatives one that could have been suggested by the UI? If he has not do you propose to use L12 to take back his gain? [Nige1] In such contexts, the regulations exhort the director to consult others ... [A] to decide what are logical alternatives and also ... [B] to judge which of those alternatives are suggested by the alleged unauthorised information. Ideally, the director should take care *not* to inform those whom he consults of the alternative that the alleged offender actually chose; because, if they know what call was actually chosen, suspicious people have a tendency to stigmatise it. In practice, this means that the alleged offender may be damned no matter what he did. Judging by such criteria, if passing 3S is a logical alternative, then leaping to 7S is not. BLMLers have suggested that you stretch other laws to punish the hapless slam-bidder. I feel, however, that attempting to use the laws on unauthorised information for this purpose is a "Bridge to far" :) From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Jan 27 06:48:43 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 05:48:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <479C16BA.1060409@ntlworld.com> References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> <479C16BA.1060409@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <479C1B3B.2040609@ntlworld.com> [Fearghal O'Boyle] For instance, a player is in receipt of UI in a 1S - 3S auction which suggests bidding 4S rather than passing. He is sort of ethical and aware of 73C so he decides to bid 7S which happens to make today because of 4 successful finesses and extremely lucky breaks. Has he chosen from among logical alternatives one that could have been suggested by the UI? If he has not do you propose to use L12 to take back his gain? [Nige1] In such contexts, the regulations exhort the director to consult others ... [A] to decide what are logical alternatives and also ... [B] to judge which of those alternatives are suggested by the alleged unauthorised information. Ideally, the director should take care *not* to inform those whom he consults of the alternative that the alleged offender actually chose; because, if they know what call was actually chosen, suspicious people have a tendency to stigmatise it. In practice, this means that the alleged offender may be damned no matter what he did. Judging by such criteria, if passing 3S is a logical alternative, then leaping to 7S is not. BLMLers have suggested that you stretch other laws to punish the hapless slam-bidder. I feel, however, that attempting to use the laws on unauthorised information for this purpose is a "Bridge to far" :) I meant to write "a Bridge too far" From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jan 27 06:50:52 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:50:52 -0600 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <479C16BA.1060409@ntlworld.com> References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> <479C16BA.1060409@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801262150q28a4d576l91d82c06e961b5ed@mail.gmail.com> > [Nige1] > In such contexts, the regulations exhort the director to consult > others ... > [A] to decide what are logical alternatives and also ... > [B] to judge which of those alternatives are suggested by the alleged > unauthorised information. > > Ideally, the director should take care *not* to inform those whom he > consults of the alternative that the alleged offender actually chose; > because, if they know what call was actually chosen, suspicious people > have a tendency to stigmatise it. In practice, this means that the > alleged offender may be damned no matter what he did. > > Judging by such criteria, if passing 3S is a logical alternative, then > leaping to 7S is not. BLMLers have suggested that you stretch other > laws to punish the hapless slam-bidder. I feel, however, that > attempting to use the laws on unauthorised information for this > purpose is a "Bridge to far" :) > As I carefully argued just a few hours ago, and apparently Grattan, Steve, and Sven agree with me (and may well have explained it better), it is fruitless to try to determine whether a bid that was made at the table is a logical alternative. It is best to assume that it is a logical alternative, for otherwise, you needlessly risk rewarding a player that took advantage of UI. Jerry Fusselman From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Jan 27 07:17:14 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 06:17:14 +0000 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801262150q28a4d576l91d82c06e961b5ed@mail.gmail.com> References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> <479C16BA.1060409@ntlworld.com> <2b1e598b0801262150q28a4d576l91d82c06e961b5ed@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <479C21EA.7020608@ntlworld.com> [Jerry Fusselman] As I carefully argued just a few hours ago, and apparently Grattan, Steve, and Sven agree with me (and may well have explained it better), it is fruitless to try to determine whether a bid that was made at the table is a logical alternative. It is best to assume that it is a logical alternative, for otherwise, you needlessly risk rewarding a player that took advantage of UI. [Nige1] In this case, where passing partner in a part score is judged to be a logical alternative, leaping to a grand slam is unlikely to be. Like Jerry, I'm accustomed to *disagreeing* with Grattan; and like Jerry, I don't feel that it automatically makes my opinion worthless. My general concern is that, to ensure that the alleged offender has a reasonable prospect of a fair decision, those asked to judge (what the logical alternatives are and which were suggested by the unauthorised information) should be kept ignorant of what call was actually chosen (if possible). From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jan 27 07:34:43 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:34:43 -0600 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <479C21EA.7020608@ntlworld.com> References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> <479C16BA.1060409@ntlworld.com> <2b1e598b0801262150q28a4d576l91d82c06e961b5ed@mail.gmail.com> <479C21EA.7020608@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801262234o4e0e99f6jc76bce5f4712bc6e@mail.gmail.com> [Jerry Fusselman] As I carefully argued just a few hours ago, and apparently Grattan, Steve, and Sven agree with me (and may well have explained it better), it is fruitless to try to determine whether a bid that was made at the table is a logical alternative. It is best to assume that it is a logical alternative, for otherwise, you needlessly risk rewarding a player that took advantage of UI. [Nige1] In this case, where passing partner in a part score is judged to be a logical alternative, leaping to a grand slam is unlikely to be. Like Jerry, I'm accustomed to *disagreeing* with Grattan; and like Jerry, I don't feel that it automatically makes my opinion worthless. My general concern is that, to ensure that the alleged offender has a reasonable prospect of a fair decision, those asked to judge (what the logical alternatives are and which were suggested by the unauthorised information) should be kept ignorant of what call was actually chosen (if possible). [Jerry] I agree with every sentence that you wrote above, but I think it is irrelevant to my main point, which is this: Nothing good comes from trying to determine whether the action taken at the table is a logical alternative. Treat it special. Assume it is an LA, and then continue your analysis in the usual way. You want to make sure that no one gets away with abusing UI to choose an action that improves their expected score over the other, not taken LAs that are contraindicated by the UI. Even if your polling of peers finds no one who considers the action taken to be a logical alternative, you should consider whether the action taken has a higher expected return than the UI-contraindicated LAs that you have identified. Proceeding this way, you are not going to miss a justified penalty to an OS player who took unusual action in order to avoid the danger of further confusion. Part of what I am saying is that the laws are unclear here, and they surely should have mentioned that the action taken is considered an LA, for otherwise players get away with using UI to make expected gains simply by taking unusual actions. But I again admit that if the unusual action has lower expected return than the lowest-returning LA, then you allow that action, even if it turned out lucky for the OS. The main point is not to waste time thinking about whether or not the action taken is an LA. Assume it is, to avoid a bad decision that lets a UI abuser gain. Jerry Fusselman From mustikka at charter.net Sun Jan 27 07:42:12 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:42:12 -0800 Subject: [blml] LA References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000><479C16BA.1060409@ntlworld.com> <479C1B3B.2040609@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <008601c860af$bffbe980$fd145e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 9:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] LA > [Fearghal O'Boyle] > For instance, a player is in receipt of UI in a 1S - 3S auction which > suggests bidding 4S rather than passing. He is sort of ethical and > aware of 73C so he decides to bid 7S which happens to make today > because of 4 successful finesses and extremely lucky breaks. Has he > chosen from among logical alternatives one that could have been > suggested by the UI? If he has not do you propose to use L12 to take > back his gain? > > [Nige1] > In such contexts, the regulations exhort the director to consult > others ... > [A] to decide what are logical alternatives and also ... > [B] to judge which of those alternatives are suggested by the alleged > unauthorised information. > > Ideally, the director should take care *not* to inform those whom he > consults of the alternative that the alleged offender actually chose; > because, if they know what call was actually chosen, suspicious people > have a tendency to stigmatise it. In practice, this means that the > alleged offender may be damned no matter what he did. > > Judging by such criteria, if passing 3S is a logical alternative, then > leaping to 7S is not. BLMLers have suggested that you stretch other > laws to punish the hapless slam-bidder. I feel, however, that > attempting to use the laws on unauthorised information for this > purpose is a "Bridge to far" :) > I meant to write "a Bridge too far" I agree. It looks to me like 7S was a completely _illogical_ alternative, not logical at all. The Law forbids choosing among logical alternatives a call that could be demonstrably suggested by the UI. IMO, there is no way that UI from the slow 3S bid could suggest 7S, let alone demonstrably suggest. There is also no way for 7S to be a logical alternative without the UI. It was a flight of fancy, and as such, IMO result should stand. Again, just my unqualified opinion, but I feel that trying to penalize the 7S bid by finding something in the laws to punish it, is indeed going too far. Raija From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jan 27 07:44:51 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:44:51 -0600 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <008601c860af$bffbe980$fd145e47@DFYXB361> References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> <479C16BA.1060409@ntlworld.com> <479C1B3B.2040609@ntlworld.com> <008601c860af$bffbe980$fd145e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801262244p50cb15efifdfd5d37a074f326@mail.gmail.com> Raija: > I agree. It looks to me like 7S was a completely _illogical_ alternative, > not logical at all. The Law forbids choosing among logical alternatives a > call that could be demonstrably suggested by the UI. More fundamentally, the law also forbids gaining through UI, so it is counterproductive to determine whether 7S is a LA. Assume that it is. Then all you need to do is determine whether it is an expect gain over 3S. If no, allow it. If yes, disallow it. Your way, you reward UI abusers if they choose actions that are expected to gain when that action is rarely chosen by peers. Jerry Fusselman From mustikka at charter.net Sun Jan 27 08:14:48 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:14:48 -0800 Subject: [blml] LA References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000><479C16BA.1060409@ntlworld.com> <479C1B3B.2040609@ntlworld.com><008601c860af$bffbe980$fd145e47@DFYXB361> <2b1e598b0801262244p50cb15efifdfd5d37a074f326@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00a601c860b4$4d4ab2e0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] LA > Raija: > >> I agree. It looks to me like 7S was a completely _illogical_ >> alternative, >> not logical at all. The Law forbids choosing among logical alternatives >> a >> call that could be demonstrably suggested by the UI. > > More fundamentally, the law also forbids gaining through UI, so it is > counterproductive to determine whether 7S is a LA. Assume that it is. > Then all you need to do is determine whether it is an expect gain > over 3S. If no, allow it. If yes, disallow it. I think it is, again, going too far to assume 7S is a logical alternative. By any standards that I am familiar with, it was an illogical alternative, whether there was UI or no UI or tempo break or no temp break. > > Your way, you reward UI abusers if they choose actions that are > expected to gain when that action is rarely chosen by peers. The question is, do you and does anyone, expect a gain from a 7S call in the given auction? I wouldn't. It may have been made (and I have no knowledge or evidence, of course, mere speculation) in frustration by someone who knows enough about laws that when there is UI, one is not free to bid what one may want to; so he bid something silly that is definitely not taking advantage of the UI and landed on his feet. Passing 3S might have turned out to be judged by TD [or TD plus consultation with peer players] to be _NOT a logical alternative_ and therefore raise to 4S would have stood. But maybe this player did not know that and tried his best in obeying the laws? I do not wish to reward law breakers, but this is a peculiar case where (IMO) a completely illogical alternative was chosen and intent to gain was absent. Again, IMO. I don't know of a law that punishes illogical bids; if one existed, lots of novices would be in legal trouble much of the time :) Raija From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Jan 28 07:04:04 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:04:04 -0800 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <00a601c860b4$4d4ab2e0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> <479C16BA.1060409@ntlworld.com> <479C1B3B.2040609@ntlworld.com> <008601c860af$bffbe980$fd145e47@DFYXB361> <2b1e598b0801262244p50cb15efifdfd5d37a074f326@mail.gmail.com> <00a601c860b4$4d4ab2e0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080127215927.029b3b90@mail.optusnet.com.au> Raija: >I do not wish to reward law breakers, but this is a peculiar case where >(IMO) a completely illogical alternative was chosen and intent to gain was >absent. Again, IMO. I don't know of a law that punishes illogical bids; if >one existed, lots of novices would be in legal trouble much of the time :) Suppose 3NT is also so illogical that no peer selects it (1S bidder has a void), yet 3NT makes via the same 4 finesses. Where does it all end?...remember the bidder has been given UI that suggests pass is not going to work too well. If 3NT is allowed, what if partner removes to 4S? Tony (Sydney) From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Jan 27 12:12:24 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:12:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <00a601c860b4$4d4ab2e0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000><479C16BA.1060409@ntlworld.com> <479C1B3B.2040609@ntlworld.com><008601c860af$bffbe980$fd145e47@DFYXB361> <2b1e598b0801262244p50cb15efifdfd5d37a074f326@mail.gmail.com> <00a601c860b4$4d4ab2e0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <479C6718.3020107@ntlworld.com> [Jerry Fusselman] Your way, you reward UI abusers if they choose actions that are expected to gain when that action is rarely chosen by peers. [Raija] The question is, do you and does anyone, expect a gain from a 7S call in the given auction? I wouldn't. It may have been made (and I have no knowledge or evidence, of course, mere speculation) in frustration by someone who knows enough about laws that when there is UI, one is not free to bid what one may want to; so he bid something silly that is definitely not taking advantage of the UI and landed on his feet. Passing 3S might have turned out to be judged by TD [or TD plus consultation with peer players] to be _NOT a logical alternative_ and therefore raise to 4S would have stood. But maybe this player did not know that and tried his best in obeying the laws? I do not wish to reward law breakers, but this is a peculiar case where (IMO) a completely illogical alternative was chosen and intent to gain was absent. Again, IMO. I don't know of a law that punishes illogical bids; if one existed, lots of novices would be in legal trouble much of the time :) [nige1] It is possible to imagine unauthorised information that justifies Jerry's position. For example, suppose that partner incorrectly explains your agreement as "3S is Goren - a forcing raise". In such special circumstances, Raija and I would probably change our minds and agree with Jerry. Also, in the past, I have argued that the law should be changed so that it sometimes penalizes the unauthorised information *itself*, rather than its *use*. For example, for a player in an experienced partnership, there is rarely ambiguity as to which alternative is suggested by partner's hesitation. The director, however, often cannot determine whether the UI favoured one alternative over another. Thus, again, the current law encourages its infraction! In that respect, at least, it is consistent. From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 27 12:46:05 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:46:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be> <001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be> <008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 11:07 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > > > For purposes of clarification for those who tuned in late and don't want to > go back and try to figure out the rest of this, we are talking about one > partner bidding 4NT, systemically asking for minor suit preference. > Partner, when asked, responds that 4NT was RKCB and responds 5D (0-3) > keycards. When the 4NT bidder now has to explain the 5D call...and now back > to our story: > >> We are not talking about the explanation of the system any more. That >> is completely irrelevant. "diamond preference" - it's not true and the >> opponents have no use for the information. >> >> "diamond preference" really means "my 4NT was not Blackwood, I could >> tell you what 5Di means in our system but since he doesn't have that, >> you won't care about that, and, by the way, I know how many aces he >> has but I'm not going to tell you". If you were to utter this second >> sentence, all hell would break loose, but you want to impose that >> first sentence? >> >> What is going on here is that the WBF, by means of this new >> interpretion, are obliging a player to reveal that a mistake has been >> made, thereby giving UI to partner, interesting but non-entitled >> information to opponents, and correcting the misinformation. >> That obligation ONLY exists when an opponent asks a question. >> >> So no, your solution is NOT a good compromise. It's a very bad one. >> > > Herman, > > You are completely missing the point that explanations are about disclosure > of systems, not hands. But of course I know that. But the opponents want information about the hands, not about the system. If they have been told that 4NT is considered Blackwood, then the information that 5Di shows diamond preference is of no use to them. In that sense, it is irrelevant. I know that the laws tell me to tell them everything, but they also tell me that I only need to tell them things that are relevant. The laws also only talk about damaging MI. Non-damaging MI is not punished. The argument that ofte is bandied about is that I break a law wilfully, quite agreeing to suffer the consequences. We might just say that since there cannot possibly be any damage, I am not breaking that particular law. > The "diamond preference" that you dismiss as > "irrelevant" is both relevant and true as an explanation of system. And completetly irrelevant and false as an explanation of the hand. > The > fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with what is in partner's hand is > what is irrelevant. To the opponent, it is very relevant. > The fact that partner has revealed a number of keycards > in an unknown suit (since suit was presumably not agreed since 4NT asked for > preference) is irrelevant. To the opponent, it is quite relevant. Are you suggesting that you do not need to tell them how many aces partner has shown? > The fact that partner will do one of two things > a) turn red and summon the TD or b) nothing (likely indicating that he > thinks your explanation of "diamond preference" is something that came out > of the south end of a northbound horse) is also irrelevant. > > "Diamond preference" indicates that by your systemic agreements, as you > understand them, partner is expressing a preference for diamonds over clubs. > No, "diamond preference" indicates that 4NT was not Blackwood. All the other pieces of information are irrelevant. > That happens to be true, even if you know that is not partner's belief of > the meaning. You have obtained that information through the UI of the > explanation he has given the opponents, and cannot act on it. "Diamond > preference" remains the information you are required to convey by Law. > Whether this bears any relationship to the actual hand is irrelevant. > "Diamond preference" is useless information - opponents have no use for it, and are not damaged when it is not told them. "4NT was not Blackwood" is information you are forbidden to convey. I think that should really cover it, but the majority is too obtuse to catch this simple fact. > Hirsch > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 27 12:51:39 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:51:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000701c85f8c$9a6d65a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000701c85f8c$9a6d65a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <479C704B.2060706@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Although such a revision of the law text can hardly seem harmful I deny any > need for such revision. In my archives I have found verifications that the > principles now expressed in Law 20 have remained essentially unchanged at > least since 1933. > I agree. > Some individual has apparently discovered that when reading the current laws > literally and with no respect for what has been the reality behind these > laws during more than 75 years, he has found an inconsistency which he > claims enables him to twist the current law 20F5 to mean the opposite of > what has been recognized all this time. > I could have written that sentence entirely myself. With exactly the opposite meaning. Grattan, were you at the discussions in 1933? Do you have the minutes? Don't you all see that what was written back then was precisely what the DWS is now telling everyone: giving UI must be avoided, even at the price of MI? Isn't that clear from the text? Would the text not have been different if it had been the reverse? Do you think they foresaw in 1933 a situation in which it would be better to give UI? How can anyone in their right minds find it acceptable that a situation changes so completely by the asking of a simple question. > And finally: The supporters of DWS seem to have completely overlooked Law > 20F4 which unconditionally requires a player who becomes aware that he has > given an erroneous or incomplete explanation to immediately call the > Director. > Put forward and answered - "subsequently". > This means that the DWS player who explains his partner's call incorrectly > in order not to "indicate" that his partner had given a mistaken explanation > must [sic!] immediately call the director and have his own incorrect > explanation corrected under the director's control. > Which is just lunacy - if the laws prescribe one to "lie" about the system (as I believe they do) then they also prescribe keeping quiet about that lie. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Jan 27 13:32:17 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:32:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002101c860e0$a7d516c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............. > But the opponents want information about > the hands, not about the system. Opponents may want information about the hands, but according to the laws of Bridge that is exactly what they are not entitled to! They are entitled to, and should want information about the (relevant) agreements on the auction (and play). Then, if it turns out that they have been given misinformation they are entitled to, and shall receive redress for whatever damage they may have suffered because of this misinformation. Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Jan 27 13:44:37 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:44:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080127215927.029b3b90@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> <479C16BA.1060409@ntlworld.com> <479C1B3B.2040609@ntlworld.com> <008601c860af$bffbe980$fd145e47@DFYXB361> <2b1e598b0801262244p50cb15efifdfd5d37a074f326@mail.gmail.com> <00a601c860b4$4d4ab2e0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> <6.1.0.6.2.20080127215927.029b3b90@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <479C7CB5.3000001@ntlworld.com> [Tony Musgrove] Suppose 3NT is also so illogical that no peer selects it (1S bidder has a void), yet 3NT makes via the same 4 finesses. Where does it all end?...remember the bidder has been given UI that suggests pass is not going to work too well. If 3NT is allowed, what if partner removes to 4S? [Nige1] I agree with Tony's argument that, after 1S-3S, when in receipt of unauthorised information that favours game instead of just bidding game, you could try a cunning 3N, 4C, 4D, or 4H, bid, hoping that your bid would escape censure and wouldn't over-excite partner. I agree that these "illogical" alternatives are not so illogical in this particular context. In the context of the UI, I accept that they are more "logical" than passing 3S. When consulting, perhaps the director should provide a *list* of options, *including* the "alternative" actually chosen. The director should still take care not to divulge which option was actually chosen while establishing that there is a consensus about *at least one* such option *not* suggested by the unauthorised information. I still reckon that 7S is unlikely to gain (It is outside 3 sigma, as John Mclaren used to say). Perhaps, however, it depends on the nature of the unauthorised information. In extreme circumstances I would agree with Jerry. For example ... [A] If partner dithered between 3S and 4S in the bidding box, then I don't reckon 7S to be a sensible option. [B] If partner gratuitously explained his own 3S bid as a trump-asking bid, then 7S would enter the frame. Many times before, I have argued that the law-book should recommend a protocol that directors should follow when a player may have illegally benefited from UI. This kind of problem is common to all jurisdictions and it is lazy to leave it to local regulation. From svenpran at online.no Sun Jan 27 15:02:49 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:02:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <479C704B.2060706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002201c860ed$4d7db9e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > Don't you all see that what was written back then was precisely what > the DWS is now telling everyone: giving UI must be avoided, even at > the price of MI? > Isn't that clear from the text? Would the text not have been different > if it had been the reverse? Do you think they foresaw in 1933 a > situation in which it would be better to give UI? I am surprised you do not notice the simple facts that if your assertion had been correct then instead of the following text (which is what was written): "In giving the requested information care should be taken not to convey illegal information to partner. In general an inquiry should be answered by the partner of the player making the last call. If the information about to be given is specific or indicates any definite holding, the player giving it should ask his partner to leave the table momentarily." We would have had: "In giving the requested information care should be taken not to convey illegal information to partner. In general an inquiry should be answered by the player making the last call. If the information about to be given is specific or indicates any definite holding, the player giving it should ask his partner to leave the table momentarily." A small change: The player making a call rather than his partner gives the information to opponents. The effect of this change would have been the avoidance both of any misinformation (as to the actual cards the player holds) and of any UI (to his partner). But with this change we could never be sure that the information reflected the actual agreements. The very moment the laws established that all information on auctions shall be given by the partner of a player making a call they established that the primary concern is to disclose agreements and understandings, not the actual hand. Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 27 15:44:23 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:44:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <002101c860e0$a7d516c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <002101c860e0$a7d516c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <479C98C7.7070309@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............. >> But the opponents want information about >> the hands, not about the system. > > Opponents may want information about the hands, but according to the laws of > Bridge that is exactly what they are not entitled to! > > They are entitled to, and should want information about the (relevant) > agreements on the auction (and play). > > Then, if it turns out that they have been given misinformation they are > entitled to, and shall receive redress for whatever damage they may have > suffered because of this misinformation. > > Sven > Sven, look at it this way. There are two pieces of information. "Diamond Preference" and "one ace". It is my belief that no matter what else, the opponents are entitled to the information that partner has one ace. The Blackwood responses are, after all, (presumably) part of my system. So I believe that you will be giving misinformation by saying only "diamond preference". I am not giving that misinformation. You are right in saying that the opponents are entitled to also know "diamond preference", but that knowledge is totally useless, since it does not say anything about the hand that made the 5Di call. Therefore, my misinformation does not cause damage. Your misinformation does cause damage. The ideal information could be to tell both (which, I believe, is what everybody from the MS will eventually do), but that merely translates into "he has one ace, but 4NT was not Blackwood". The difference between my explanation and that "ideal" one is not, as you keep insisting, one of lacking information (since that lacking information is useless), but one of extra information (you are telling more - 4NT was not Blackwood), which is contrary to L20F5. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 27 15:46:03 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:46:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <002201c860ed$4d7db9e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <002201c860ed$4d7db9e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <479C992B.8000406@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .............. >> Don't you all see that what was written back then was precisely what >> the DWS is now telling everyone: giving UI must be avoided, even at >> the price of MI? >> Isn't that clear from the text? Would the text not have been different >> if it had been the reverse? Do you think they foresaw in 1933 a >> situation in which it would be better to give UI? > > I am surprised you do not notice the simple facts that if your assertion had > been correct then instead of the following text (which is what was written): > > "In giving the requested information care should be taken not to convey > illegal information to partner. In general an inquiry should be answered by > the partner of the player making the last call. If the information about to > be given is specific or indicates any definite holding, the player giving it > should ask his partner to leave the table momentarily." > > We would have had: > > "In giving the requested information care should be taken not to convey > illegal information to partner. In general an inquiry should be answered by > the player making the last call. If the information about to be given is > specific or indicates any definite holding, the player giving it should ask > his partner to leave the table momentarily." > > A small change: The player making a call rather than his partner gives the > information to opponents. The effect of this change would have been the > avoidance both of any misinformation (as to the actual cards the player > holds) and of any UI (to his partner). > > But with this change we could never be sure that the information reflected > the actual agreements. > > The very moment the laws established that all information on auctions shall > be given by the partner of a player making a call they established that the > primary concern is to disclose agreements and understandings, not the actual > hand. > > Sven Sven, you realize as well as I do that this text stems from 1935, some time before the lawmakers realized that sending the partner from the table causes just as much UI as anything else you might try. Only the DWS is successful in giving no UI to partner. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Sun Jan 27 16:20:49 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:20:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <479C992B.8000406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002301c860f8$32c89060$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................. > Sven, you realize as well as I do that this text stems from 1935, some > time before the lawmakers realized that sending the partner from the > table causes just as much UI as anything else you might try. Yes, but the main principle prevails: It is the partner of the player that has made a call who shall provide opponents with information on that call. The purpose of this principle is apparently to ensure as far as possible that the information given is that of the agreements and not that of the actual cards held. Nothing has changed here since before 1933(!). I only introduced this piece of evidence to show that what you discuss is not a (more or less) recent change of law but one of the established foundations in bridge dating back at least 75 years. If you really want to promote DWS you should stop arguing the current laws, and instead save your efforts for a discussion on the desirability to change one of the fundamental pillars in bridge. > Only the DWS is successful in giving no UI to partner. Rubbish. Anything a player says (except for legal calls) is UI to his partner. This includes the explanations a DWS addict gives whether or not the information given is a correct description of agreements or of cards presumably held. Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Jan 27 18:12:40 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:12:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <479C98C7.7070309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002401c86107$d3011cf0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > ............. > >> But the opponents want information about > >> the hands, not about the system. > > > > Opponents may want information about the hands, but according to > > the laws of Bridge that is exactly what they are not entitled to! > > > > They are entitled to, and should want information about the > > (relevant) agreements on the auction (and play). > > > > Then, if it turns out that they have been given misinformation > > they are entitled to, and shall receive redress for whatever > > damage they may have suffered because of this misinformation. > > > > Sven > > > > Sven, look at it this way. > > There are two pieces of information. "Diamond Preference" and "one ace". > > It is my belief that no matter what else, the opponents are entitled > to the information that partner has one ace. The Blackwood responses > are, after all, (presumably) part of my system. > > So I believe that you will be giving misinformation by saying only > "diamond preference". I am not giving that misinformation. > > You are right in saying that the opponents are entitled to also know > "diamond preference", but that knowledge is totally useless, since it > does not say anything about the hand that made the 5Di call. > Therefore, my misinformation does not cause damage. > Your misinformation does cause damage. In this particular case opponents are entitled to the information: "4NT is Blackwood" from one player and "5Di is Diamonds preference" from the other as these explanations conform to their respective beliefs. Each player must still give exactly the same explanation he would have given without any knowledge of what his respective partner has said. (He must also continue his part of the auction on the same premises.) Opponents will probably understand that at least one of the explanations is incorrect and may rest assured that they shall not suffer any damage as long as they continue to play bridge seriously to the best of their ability in the situation. They may even infer (at their own risk) that the player whose bid is explained as "Diamond preference" holds exactly one ace. However your assertion that the information "5Di is diamond preference" is totally useless is nonsense. This information can give valuable information to opponents about the hand that bid 4NT (in particular its shape), and it is also a warning to them about what is going on. This warning can even assist in reducing damage from the incorrect information. When you assert that my misinformation does cause damage I must ask in what way? If you are thinking of damage to the offending side I couldn't care less; they are themselves the primary cause for whatever damage that can result from their irregularity. And if you are thinking of damage to the non-offending side I trust you agree that they shall receive redress for any damage caused to them as a result of the irregularity, whether the damage is direct or consequential. Sven From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sun Jan 27 18:14:35 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:14:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 6:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > Hirsch Davis wrote: >> >> Herman, >> >> You are completely missing the point that explanations are about >> disclosure >> of systems, not hands. > > But of course I know that. But the opponents want information about > the hands, not about the system. If they have been told that 4NT is > considered Blackwood, then the information that 5Di shows diamond > preference is of no use to them. In that sense, it is irrelevant. > > I know that the laws tell me to tell them everything, but they also > tell me that I only need to tell them things that are relevant. The > laws also only talk about damaging MI. Non-damaging MI is not > punished. The argument that ofte is bandied about is that I break a > law wilfully, quite agreeing to suffer the consequences. We might just > say that since there cannot possibly be any damage, I am not breaking > that particular law. > >> The "diamond preference" that you dismiss as >> "irrelevant" is both relevant and true as an explanation of system. > > And completetly irrelevant and false as an explanation of the hand. > Herman, please cite any Law you can find that indicates that anyone is entitled to an explanation of the hand, not partnership agreements. >> The >> fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with what is in partner's hand >> is >> what is irrelevant. > > To the opponent, it is very relevant. > Of course not, see above. >> The fact that partner has revealed a number of keycards >> in an unknown suit (since suit was presumably not agreed since 4NT asked >> for >> preference) is irrelevant. > > To the opponent, it is quite relevant. > Are you suggesting that you do not need to tell them how many aces > partner has shown? > Yes. Although partner has "shown" aces, the actual agreement is diamond preference. If they want to count aces, they can do it themselves at their own risk. >> The fact that partner will do one of two things >> a) turn red and summon the TD or b) nothing (likely indicating that he >> thinks your explanation of "diamond preference" is something that came >> out >> of the south end of a northbound horse) is also irrelevant. >> >> "Diamond preference" indicates that by your systemic agreements, as you >> understand them, partner is expressing a preference for diamonds over >> clubs. >> > No, "diamond preference" indicates that 4NT was not Blackwood. All the > other pieces of information are irrelevant. > Wrong again. 4NT not being Blackwood is an inescapable inference from the correct explanation of "diamond preference". It is UI to partner, who will likely summon the TD if he has misexplained 4NT. >> That happens to be true, even if you know that is not partner's belief of >> the meaning. You have obtained that information through the UI of the >> explanation he has given the opponents, and cannot act on it. "Diamond >> preference" remains the information you are required to convey by Law. >> Whether this bears any relationship to the actual hand is irrelevant. >> > > "Diamond preference" is useless information - opponents have no use > for it, and are not damaged when it is not told them. > "4NT was not Blackwood" is information you are forbidden to convey. > It doesn't matter if the information is useful to the opponents or not. It does matter that the information is a correct explanation of systemic agreements. If an opponent wishes to draw the inference that 4NT is not Blackwood, from the explanation of "diamond preference", he is entitled to do so. If partner realizes that his 4NT was not Blackwood, he will summon the TD. > I think that should really cover it, but the majority is too obtuse to > catch this simple fact. > Alas, Herman appears too obtuse to read the Laws. It's really simple. The Laws call for an explanation of explicit and implicit partnership agreements. They do not call for an explanation of the hands, nor is there any indication in Law that the information about partnership agreements must be useful to the opponents. If one member of the partnership has psyched, correct information may in fact be very damaging to the opponents. So what? Hirsch From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Jan 27 23:49:28 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:49:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000701c85f8c$9a6d65a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <479C704B.2060706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <056a01c86136$df7bcd20$0100a8c0@stefanie> Herman, you have not answered this. You never have, and I can't imagine what answer you would come up with. >> And finally: The supporters of DWS seem to have completely overlooked Law >> 20F4 which unconditionally requires a player who becomes aware that he >> has >> given an erroneous or incomplete explanation to immediately call the >> Director. >> > > Put forward and answered - "subsequently". You are trying to say that the "becoming aware" must happen after the infraction in order for the law to be in effect. So 20F, paraphrased, is "if you realise that you have incorrectly explained your system, you must call the director if you have done it by accident, but must keep quiet if you have done it on purpose." This is truly insane. The reason that the Law says "becomes aware" and "subsequently" is simply that the writers did not anticipate that anyone would give an incorrect explanation on purpose. Committing an infraction on purpose is commonly known by the term "cheating". There is no point in writing a law explaining what you must do when you have cheated -- why would the cheater obey that law? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Jan 27 23:58:59 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:58:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com><47961C26.6080800@t-online.de><2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com><000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com><2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com><08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie><2b1e598b0801242028g39f4452bse960fc6d2ebb3912@mail.gmail.com><479991B1.2000309@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801261435l7e89b66au7dfd20f15dd76f33@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <059601c86138$340cb510$0100a8c0@stefanie> > After all, > in this thread you wholeheartedly agreed with David Burn when he said > that MI is harmful and UI is harmless. > I am not David or Matthias, but I can read. And neither of them has ever said this. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 28 00:07:43 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:07:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com><47961C26.6080800@t-online.de><2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com><000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com><2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com><08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie><2b1e598b0801242028g39f4452bse960fc6d2ebb3912@mail.gmail.com><0c3001c85f0e$211b3070$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801261403id3e3ccfp6fada900dbd5b613@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <05c401c86139$6c2eb690$0100a8c0@stefanie> JF >> > MI is harmful and UI is harmless. >> SR >> Oh, come on. Don't be childish. > JF > Don't misquote me. I never said that. David and Matthias did, not me. SR Unlike you, who attributed to me large blocks of text (above but snipped) written by David Burn, I am careful to whom I attribute quotes. You said the top sentence above in a post dated 25 January 2008 04:28. You are learning well from Herman in the subject of deliberately misquoting people, and then asking them to defend the statement that YOU have made. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 28 00:10:40 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:10:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead References: <22BCC94DE0984538B30F3A44639BA07D@BridgeNZL3> Message-ID: <05c601c86139$d5de6090$0100a8c0@stefanie> Ed Reppert a ?crit : > Once the opening lead is made, even if face down, it may only be > retracted on instruction of the director, so if a review of the > auction reveals he shouldn't have led, he can't just retract it. > So please tell me what's the use of making one's lead face down ? [[MRO]] The use is that partner may now ask questions relating to the auction without it being seen to affect your lead. But your face-up lead will not be affected either. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 28 00:22:06 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:22:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000001c85ffd$31151910$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <05c701c8613b$6eea4230$0100a8c0@stefanie> SR: > You see, Sven, the fun never stops when the DWS is in force! SP: > Except that I should not use the word "fun" about this, I prefer the word > "tragedy" when observing it as a fan of Bridge. > Relax, Sven. It is not a tragedy. The DWS is not really a threat to bridge; I can guarantee you that nothing will ever come of it. So one might as well see the humour! From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 28 01:09:09 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:09:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <05c601c86139$d5de6090$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <003101c86142$01e2dd80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > Ed Reppert a ?crit : > > Once the opening lead is made, even if face down, it may only be > > retracted on instruction of the director, so if a review of the > > auction reveals he shouldn't have led, he can't just retract it. > > > So please tell me what's the use of making one's lead face down ? > > [[MRO]] The use is that partner may now ask questions relating to the > auction without it being seen to affect your lead. And if misinformation during the auction from (presumed) declarer or dummy is revealed before your opening lead is faced the Director should allow you to retract your lead (L47E2), and he should also offer the last defender (you or your partner) that passed to retract this final pass and replace it with another call (L21B). This option is no longer available once the opening lead is faced. > But your face-up lead will not be affected either. Your faced opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card. Regards Sven From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 28 02:16:14 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:16:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead References: <003101c86142$01e2dd80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <06be01c8614b$6076d0a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> SP: And if misinformation during the auction from (presumed) declarer or dummy is revealed before your opening lead is faced the Director should allow you to retract your lead (L47E2), and he should also offer the last defender (you or your partner) that passed to retract this final pass and replace it with another call (L21B). This option is no longer available once the opening lead is faced. SR: Oh, I see. That makes perfect sense. But. When the lead is made face-down and no MI is revealed, why is the card usually left face-down while third hand asks questions? Is this simply so that declarer can answer questions about dummy's bidding without being influenced by the sight of dummy itself? Stefanie Rohan London, England From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jan 28 03:53:54 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:53:54 -0600 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <059601c86138$340cb510$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47961C26.6080800@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> <000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> <08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801242028g39f4452bse960fc6d2ebb3912@mail.gmail.com> <479991B1.2000309@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801261435l7e89b66au7dfd20f15dd76f33@mail.gmail.com> <059601c86138$340cb510$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801271853m50766ab0t701af502968e16d@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 27, 2008 4:58 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > After all, > > in this thread you wholeheartedly agreed with David Burn when he said > > that MI is harmful and UI is harmless. > > > I am not David or Matthias, but I can read. And neither of them has ever > said this. > But it did happen, five days ago, in this thread: [David Burn] > > That is why the dWS is a load of rotten Brussels > > sprouts: it is based on the premise that UI is harmful and MI harmless, > > whereas the exact opposite is the case. [and immediately below that:] > I couldn`t agree more. > > Best regards > Matthias You see? What could be clearer? David Burn's last sentence immediately followed by Matthias's words to the effect that he couldn't agree more. I am assuming that David Burn is way more than smart enough to know the logical meaning of "exact opposite". If I say that red is ugly and that muave is beautiful and you say that for you the exact opposite is true, then that is equivalent to asserting that for you, red is beautiful and muave is ugly. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jan 28 03:57:58 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:57:58 -0600 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <05c401c86139$6c2eb690$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47961C26.6080800@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> <000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> <08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801242028g39f4452bse960fc6d2ebb3912@mail.gmail.com> <0c3001c85f0e$211b3070$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801261403id3e3ccfp6fada900dbd5b613@mail.gmail.com> <05c401c86139$6c2eb690$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801271857p39c0750aua9537f784f228be6@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 27, 2008 5:07 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote (and I did not endit: > SR > > Unlike you, who attributed to me large blocks of text (above but snipped) > written by David Burn, Really? Are you sure? Gmail says that you wrote the things I attributed to you. It would be really weird if it wasn't you. Perhaps you can give an example of a sentence where I goofed. If I did, I apologize. I would like to see it, and I looked for it just now, but it looks to me like you actually wrote those things that my post has the single > sign next to them. Check it out. Let me know. Please pick out one sentence I falsely attributed to you, if there is one. > I am careful to whom I attribute quotes. No doubt you are. However, most of us make attribution mistakes sometimes. It is not the end of the world. > You said the > top sentence above in a post dated 25 January 2008 04:28. I did not assert it. I was asking David and Matthias why they think so. Take another look, and you might see it. Maybe it is best to use entire paragraphs, or at least entire sentences, when quoting exact words. For example, I did write this in this thread: "Remember, the Dave Burn quote was "[DWS] is based on the premise that UI is harmful and MI harmless, whereas the exact opposite is the case." That is, Dave Burn asserts that UI is harmless and MI is harmful. And Matthias couldn't agree more." But that is not the same as my asserting "MI is harmful and UI is harmless." I never said that as a complete sentence like you wrote. Can you see how you changed the meaning of my sentence entirely by using only the last seven words of one sentence? I do hope that I misrepresented no one and misquoted no one in this thread. As far as I know, I did fine in both regards. Granted, my spelling could use some improvement, and my writing no doubt could be clearer, especially, for some reason, in this thread. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jan 28 05:23:42 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:23:42 -0600 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure In-Reply-To: <000101c85f29$f0055bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <2b1e598b0801241744n75c3b44dy9ede393b9cb08010@mail.gmail.com> <000101c85f29$f0055bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801272023x48310143ka61939f054fd3f7a@mail.gmail.com> Sven Pran: > > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > > Question. Is this basically correct MS advice?: > > > > Players who know that a call is Alertable, but can't remember the > > meaning, must Alert it anyway. > > Correct, at least in Norway. (This is a matter of regulation, not of law.) > > > When asked to explain, do not show > > doubt if you are going to make a call that assumes a certain meaning. > > Just state that meaning confidently, and continue. Do not say, "I'm > > taking it as....", which tells partner of your doubt. > > Incorrect, you must explain your agreements as you "know" them. If you are > in doubt you must indicate so. Everything you say is of course UI to your > partner. > > > If it turns out > > you were wrong about the meaning, the Director will straighten things > > out later. > > True > Thanks so much for your answer. Two more questions, if you would be so kind: 1. Is it good or okay in MS to say, "I'm taking it as....?" For example, a 2NT call that "I'm taking it as Lebensohl" or "I'm taking it as strong." Or can you give a better example of a good-style statement to make in this situation under MS? 2. What can you do as a director help out the NOS when the confusion of the explanations messes up the NOS agreements or judgement? For example, the NOS may have one agreement against a penalty double and another against a conventional double, and the OS might say that they don't know what this double is. Jerry Fusselman From adam at tameware.com Mon Jan 28 07:12:04 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:12:04 -0800 Subject: [blml] San Francisco cases posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1/25/08, I wrote: > The ACBL has posted initial versions of the NABC+ case write-ups from > Chicago here: > > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/SanFrancisco2007.html > > No comments are there yet. I'll post my comments on BLML shortly. Here they are. As always, corrections and suggestions are welcome. SF 1 Welland often makes unusual bidding decisions. No one appeals when they work poorly! I initially agreed that a Player Memo was the appropriate avenue if NS wished to pursue the matter. Reading Jeff Goldsmith's comments convinced me to reconsider. I'd need to know more to judge this one. I don't buy EW's contention that double is unusual, but Jeff provides a different basis on which it would have been plausible to adjust the score. (Note for BLML: Jeff suggested that Welland often opens 1C with a doubleton, and had North known he might have been less inclined to overcall with a four card suit.) SF 2 With such an experienced NS partnership the TD and AC must be careful to determine whether there may be an implicit agreement contrary to the one documented, or whether such forgets are common enough that the possibility should be disclosed to the opponents. That said, I find the TD and AC rulings reasonable. Jeff Goldsmith's suggestions regarding conventions such as this one are worth considering, though I'm not certain they're lawful. (Note for BLML: Jeff suggested that Ghestem accidents always be treated as misexplanations rather than misbids.) SF 3 The chain of reasoning described in the TD ruling is not consistent with the laws, but I suspect the problem lies with the write-up and not the ruling. The TD's job is not to determine what would have happened absent the infraction, but rather what the likely and at all probable results were. Per the AC decision they are both 3N making nine tricks for EW +600. North's "The damage had been done" contention was wrong as a matter of law, mistaken as a matter of logic since the lead and defense could be critical, irrelevant, and insulting to his opponents and to the committee. It would not surprise me if North simply hoped that EW would fail to call the TD if he kept silent. I'd have assessed a PP. This appeal had no merit. SF 4 I've heard this NS describe this agreement as "Clubs or not clubs." That may be accurate, but it's not informative. I have no reason to believe that the language barrier plays a role here. "Game Forcing and Artificial" gets to the essentials. West doubled an artificial game-forcing call. East explained, correctly, that they had no special agreement about the double. It would have been an infraction to say "We've agreed that it shows clubs" when they had not discussed the matter. Not having discussed the call does not preclude East from making the lead any of us would have made in the same situation. I find the TD ruling puzzling. The AC corrected an injustice. SF 5 Good work all 'round. I see no merit to the appeal, but perhaps it's close. SF 6 I still agree with the AC ruling. In retrospect, I think we ought to have assessed an AWMW. SF 7 The TD ruling should be more specific. The laws do not instruct us to adjust to what could have been, but more specifically the most favorable result likely and most unfavorable result at all probable. The write-up of the AC decision didn't sound plausible to me so I asked EW, who chose not to be present, about it. They each assured me that their notes make no mention of defense against canap? openings and that they had had no prior discussion of it. This is a good opportunity to remind readers that as a rule we comment on the write-ups of the cases, rather than the cases themselves. This is unavoidable, and I believe useful, but one should bear in mind that what one reads has been filtered. SF 8 The TD ruling is incomplete. A complete write-up would assert that UI was present, the UI made the losing action more attractive than it would have been with correct information, and that EW +110 was both the most favorable result likely for EW and the most unfavorable result at all probable for NS absent the irregularity. The AC seems to have missed the point. Yes, South would often have five spades even when playing four card majors, but there's no denying that it changes the odds faced by West when deciding whether to balance. Balancing is risky when the opponents are using 5-card majors, more so when they're using 4-card majors. Was it likely that West would have balanced with the correct information available? Note that in case 9 the TD ruled (albeit incorrectly) that there was no logical alternative to balancing against a pair using five card majors! The best strategy for NS here would be to play five card majors while claiming to play four card majors. That is what they achieved, unintentionally but illegally. The laws do not allow them to profit thereby, and the AC went badly wrong. This appeal had no merit. SF 9 It's a shame case 8 was decided as it was. There would have been a nice symmetry in adjusting the result to 2S in one case and 3d in the other. That would illustrates the way the laws treat who violate them, giving players a strong incentive to follow the laws while still allowing adjustment only in cases where an infraction leads to damage. SF 10 I see no merit to this appeal. I'd have considered a PP against NS in addition. SF 11 I am not convinced that 5 seconds is a reasonable amount of time for a player with no problem to hesitate before passing. North's double with a 13 count when his range was 11-16 or so was unusual enough to give me reason to believe that South's pass was out of tempo and that North took notice, consciously or subconsciously. The TD who was at the table immediately after the deal was played found that UI existed. I would hate to overrule him on this point -- he was better placed than the committee to judge the facts. EW may have felt that the TD's determination on the appeal form that UI existed meant that they did not need to appear, and if so I have great sympathy for their decision. Perhaps it's close, but I prefer the TD's ruling to the AC's. SF 12 I'll buy that EW were injured primary through East's call, which some might consider wild or gambling. I agree with those polled, though, that the call would have been less attractive opposite a 3N showing the minors. NS's score ought to have been adjusted, per law 72b1. SF 13 I don't follow the AC's logic. Yes, East's hesitation suggests that he was unsure about how to show or deny the spade queen. Since he in fact denied it, the hesitation suggests that he holds it, and sure enough he did. UI was present and it demonstrably suggested bidding on. The question the AC ought to have considered was whether 6N would have been logical for this West. Surely it was. It's easy enough to construct hands consistent with East's bidding where 7N is an underdog. We have as further evidence West's failure to bid 7N the previous round. No doubt she did not anticipate the ethical bind she'd face as a result of her partner's actions. Unfortunately, he both denied a card he held and indicated by his tempo that he had done exactly that. We cannot give the offenders the benefit of the doubt here. When West asks for the spade queen we have little choice but to conclude that her choice of contracts depended on the answer. I prefer the TD's ruling to the AC's. SF 14 Good work by the AC to correct an injustice. SF 15 Had the TD known that NS were not using "Fast Arrival" he might have ruled differently. He should have enquired, but the "Fast Arrival" style is so popular nowadays that many don't realize there's any alternative. SF 16 Good work all around. The AC's adjustment may have been a small improvement over the TD's. SF 17 A close call. I hate to allow a pair to appear to profit through the alert system, but I don't fault the TD and AC rulings. SF 18 The TD ruling is puzzling. Certainly a slow 2S suggests that the final contract should be higher -- how could it not? The AC got this one right. They might also have noted that 2D may have been available if West had equal length in both majors, and if not then 2H would be the most frequent choice with equal length since it leaves partner room to show extra strength with longer spades at the two-level. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jan 28 07:18:16 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:18:16 -0600 Subject: [blml] San Francisco cases posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801272218h3a4e61f0w2cfce093e1b91cc5@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 28, 2008 12:12 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > On 1/25/08, I wrote: > > The ACBL has posted initial versions of the NABC+ case write-ups from > > Chicago here: > > > > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/SanFrancisco2007.html > > > > No comments are there yet. I'll post my comments on BLML shortly. > It looks like only the NABC+ Appeals (in the bottome half) are up now; might the others be up later? From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jan 28 07:33:09 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:33:09 -0600 Subject: [blml] San Francisco cases posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801272233r3379092exddf0232810dcec25@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 28, 2008 12:12 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote:> > SF 1 > > Welland often makes unusual bidding decisions. No one appeals when > they work poorly! I initially agreed that a Player Memo was the > appropriate avenue if NS wished to pursue the matter. Reading Jeff > Goldsmith's comments convinced me to reconsider. I'd need to know more > to judge this one. I don't buy EW's contention that double is unusual, > but Jeff provides a different basis on which it would have been > plausible to adjust the score. > > (Note for BLML: Jeff suggested that Welland often opens 1C with a > doubleton, and had North known he might have been less inclined to > overcall with a four card suit.) > In case 1, I don't see any expert commentary. The PDF just ends on page 2 with the decision. There is no commentary there. Are you reading different materials than on the website? From adam at tameware.com Mon Jan 28 07:55:30 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:55:30 -0800 Subject: [blml] San Francisco cases posted In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801272233r3379092exddf0232810dcec25@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0801272233r3379092exddf0232810dcec25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/27/08, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Jan 28, 2008 12:12 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote:> > > SF 1 > > > > Welland often makes unusual bidding decisions. No one appeals when > > they work poorly! I initially agreed that a Player Memo was the > > appropriate avenue if NS wished to pursue the matter. Reading Jeff > > Goldsmith's comments convinced me to reconsider. I'd need to know more > > to judge this one. I don't buy EW's contention that double is unusual, > > but Jeff provides a different basis on which it would have been > > plausible to adjust the score. > > > > (Note for BLML: Jeff suggested that Welland often opens 1C with a > > doubleton, and had North known he might have been less inclined to > > overcall with a four card suit.) > > > > In case 1, I don't see any expert commentary. The PDF just ends on > page 2 with the decision. There is no commentary there. Are you > reading different materials than on the website? I should have been clearer. No comments have been posted on the ACBL site. Some of the commentators have exchanged comments with one another. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 28 08:57:09 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:57:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <06be01c8614b$6076d0a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000201c86183$62945f00$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > SP: > > And if misinformation during the auction from (presumed) declarer or > dummy is revealed before your opening lead is faced the Director should > allow you to retract your lead (L47E2), and he should also offer the > last defender(you or your partner) that passed to retract this final > pass and replace it with another call (L21B). This option is no longer > available once the opening lead is faced. > > SR: > > Oh, I see. That makes perfect sense. > > But. When the lead is made face-down and no MI is revealed, why is the > card usually left face-down while third hand asks questions? > Is this simply so that declarer can answer questions about dummy's > bidding without being influenced by the sight of dummy itself? > The same procedure (L47E2 and L21B) is still available if MI is revealed while third hand asks questions. I use to say that the opening lead should be faced on confirmation from third hand that he has no (more) questions to ask. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 28 09:10:17 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:10:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801272023x48310143ka61939f054fd3f7a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301c86185$38a9b5d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > Sven Pran: > > > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > > > Question. Is this basically correct MS advice?: > > > > > > Players who know that a call is Alertable, but can't remember the > > > meaning, must Alert it anyway. > > > > Correct, at least in Norway. (This is a matter of regulation, not of > law.) > > > > > When asked to explain, do not show > > > doubt if you are going to make a call that assumes a certain meaning. > > > Just state that meaning confidently, and continue. Do not say, "I'm > > > taking it as....", which tells partner of your doubt. > > > > Incorrect, you must explain your agreements as you "know" them. If you > are > > in doubt you must indicate so. Everything you say is of course UI to > your > > partner. > > > > > If it turns out > > > you were wrong about the meaning, the Director will straighten things > > > out later. > > > > True > > > > Thanks so much for your answer. Two more questions, if you would be so > kind: > > 1. Is it good or okay in MS to say, "I'm taking it as....?" For > example, a 2NT call that "I'm taking it as Lebensohl" or "I'm taking > it as strong." Or can you give a better example of a good-style > statement to make in this situation under MS? This way of answering questions is not uncommon. It implies uncertainty while giving the information that the responder believes is correct. I consider it OK although technically it can be questionable. (The implied uncertainty is of course like everything a player says to opponents UI to his partner.) > 2. What can you do as a director help out the NOS when the confusion > of the explanations messes up the NOS agreements or judgement? For > example, the NOS may have one agreement against a penalty double and > another against a conventional double, and the OS might say that they > don't know what this double is. During the auction I can do little more than advising NOS to make the best they can out of the situation. But I also tell them that if they eventually feel damaged they should call me again for redress (when the play of that board has been completed). Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 28 10:54:57 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:54:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <002401c86107$d3011cf0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <002401c86107$d3011cf0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <479DA671.9090302@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >> You are right in saying that the opponents are entitled to also know >> "diamond preference", but that knowledge is totally useless, since it >> does not say anything about the hand that made the 5Di call. >> Therefore, my misinformation does not cause damage. >> Your misinformation does cause damage. > > In this particular case opponents are entitled to the information: > > "4NT is Blackwood" from one player and "5Di is Diamonds preference" from the > other as these explanations conform to their respective beliefs. > Well Sven, I hate to have to correct you, but the opponents are not entitled to those two, but rather to these three: - "4NT is asking for minors" - "5Di shows diamond preference" - "our Blackwood responses are 0123" As you yourself often note, they are entitled to our system, not to our beliefs. When I say that you must also answer "one ace", I do so because the Blackwood responses are part of our system, not because partner believes 4Nt is Blackwood. > Each player must still give exactly the same explanation he would have given > without any knowledge of what his respective partner has said. (He must also > continue his part of the auction on the same premises.) > And this is simply wrong. Not the second part, of course, but the first one, yes. As often stated, L16 restricts calls and plays, not other actions. > Opponents will probably understand that at least one of the explanations is > incorrect and may rest assured that they shall not suffer any damage as long > as they continue to play bridge seriously to the best of their ability in > the situation. They may even infer (at their own risk) that the player whose > bid is explained as "Diamond preference" holds exactly one ace. > You are correct in saying that they are allowed to infer from his response "5Di" and his explanation "Blackwood" that he probably has one ace. But in order to do that, they must know what type of Blackwood responses we are playing. Some opponents will already know this, others will look it up on the SC, still others will ask. That third category should not get extra help by your response which basically just says "4NT was not Blackwood". If that third category of opponent would have asked you "what kind of Blackwood responses do you play?", you would not feel it as big a problem in replying "0123", but because he phrases it "what is 5Di?" you think you should answer "4NT was not Blackwood". Do you understand what I am trying to say? They are entitled to know "0123", they are not entitled to know "4NT was not Blackwood". By saying "diamond preference", you are telling them the latter, and actually witholding them the former (you would tell it later, as reply to a second question, you say). My contention is that not only are you not obliged to say "4NT was not Blackwood", you are actively forbidden from saying it. I believe that the added information "5Di over minor asking shows diamonds", to which they are, indeed, entitled, is of so little use that witholding them that piece of information must be acceptable. > However your assertion that the information "5Di is diamond preference" is > totally useless is nonsense. This information can give valuable information > to opponents about the hand that bid 4NT (in particular its shape), and it > is also a warning to them about what is going on. This warning can even > assist in reducing damage from the incorrect information. > Yes Sve, but don't you realize that the misinformation about the hand that bid 4NT was given by partner, and that the laws forbid me to correct that? Even if I wanted to set them straight, and I would shout "4NT is not Blackwood", so as to correct that information, L20F5 would forbid me! The WBF have made that choice. I am to subject myself to a MI ruling, and nothing I do should allow me to get away from that MI ruling. > When you assert that my misinformation does cause damage I must ask in what > way? > By witholding from them (at first) the useful information that partner has one ace. > If you are thinking of damage to the offending side I couldn't care less; > they are themselves the primary cause for whatever damage that can result > from their irregularity. > > And if you are thinking of damage to the non-offending side I trust you > agree that they shall receive redress for any damage caused to them as a > result of the irregularity, whether the damage is direct or consequential. > But that argument works both ways - if you believe that your misinformation is acceptable because the TD will correct it, then why am I not allowed that same argument? Especially since my MI causes no (or very little) damage? > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 28 10:56:44 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:56:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be> <003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: >> > > Yes. Although partner has "shown" aces, the actual agreement is diamond > preference. If they want to count aces, they can do it themselves at their > own risk. > But in order for them to be able to do that (at the same risk as every Blackwood response), they need to know what our Blackwood responses are. They must be informed that we play "0123", or that 5Di shows one ace. After all, that was what the opponent was asking, was he not? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 28 11:03:20 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:03:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <002301c860f8$32c89060$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <002301c860f8$32c89060$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <479DA868.40802@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > I only introduced this piece of evidence to show that what you discuss is > not a (more or less) recent change of law but one of the established > foundations in bridge dating back at least 75 years. > My point exactly! Back in 1935, the Lawmakers of the time had to make a choice, about what to instruct a player to do when he hears his partner misexplain: - correct the misinformation, causing UI; or - keep quiet, leaving the MI. They chose the second alternative and thereby said that UI is worse than MI. That choice has not been changed since, and that choice should still be the one favoured by the WBF. Yet when a second question is asked, the WBFLC now seems to favour the first alternative over the second. That is inconsistent. > If you really want to promote DWS you should stop arguing the current laws, > and instead save your efforts for a discussion on the desirability to change > one of the fundamental pillars in bridge. > But that is precisely what I am advocating we do not do. But you have to realize that the fundamental pillar is not the one you think it is, but rather the one that is evident from the way the WBF chose to write Law 20F5, back in 1935 (of course it wasn't the WBF, or L20, back then, but the text has hardly changed). Fundamental pillars: Yes, very important aspect. But you guys must realize that the game is based on two pillars: UI and MI. And that the most fundamental pillar is the one that supports the other one, below ground. If you read L20F5 correctly, you will see that the UI laws are more fundamental than the MI ones, despite what you seem to think! > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 28 11:37:31 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:37:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <06be01c8614b$6076d0a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <003101c86142$01e2dd80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <06be01c8614b$6076d0a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <479DB06B.2050307@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > > But. When the lead is made face-down and no MI is revealed, why is the card > usually left face-down while third hand asks questions? Is this simply so > that declarer can answer questions about dummy's bidding without being > influenced by the sight of dummy itself? > > A bit of this, and a bit of : third hand's questions might reveal the existence of MI in due time to change your lead. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jan 28 11:56:31 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:56:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <479DA868.40802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401c8619c$719a01d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. At last I believe that I have your implicit confirmation of what I have long suspected: You are deliberately making a joke of blml. Maybe your objective is to sabotage the whole forum; God knows why you would be interested in that? Rather than just quitting blml like several valuable contributors have done in reaction to your activities I suggest that possible other steps against you should be considered. I sincerely trust that blml has a mission, but that mission will soon be jeopardized the way this forum is presently abused. Sven From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 28 11:56:31 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:56:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Herman: > Hirsch Davis wrote: >>> >> >> Yes. Although partner has "shown" aces, the actual agreement is diamond >> preference. If they want to count aces, they can do it themselves at >> their >> own risk. >> > > But in order for them to be able to do that (at the same risk as every > Blackwood response), they need to know what our Blackwood responses > are. They must be informed that we play "0123", or that 5Di shows one > ace. After all, that was what the opponent was asking, was he not? No, the opponent was asking for your agreements. But how stupid do you think your opponent is? If he hears from you "diamond preference", do you think that me might notice that "diamond preference" is not any number of aces at all? He can ask for you Blackwood responses at this point. Stefanie Rohan London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 28 12:52:23 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:52:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Herman: > >> Hirsch Davis wrote: >>> Yes. Although partner has "shown" aces, the actual agreement is diamond >>> preference. If they want to count aces, they can do it themselves at >>> their >>> own risk. >>> >> But in order for them to be able to do that (at the same risk as every >> Blackwood response), they need to know what our Blackwood responses >> are. They must be informed that we play "0123", or that 5Di shows one >> ace. After all, that was what the opponent was asking, was he not? > > No, the opponent was asking for your agreements. > No, he heard 5Di as a response to (what he was told was) Blackwood and wanted to know how many aces that showed. > But how stupid do you think your opponent is? If he hears from you "diamond > preference", do you think that me might notice that "diamond preference" is > not any number of aces at all? He can ask for you Blackwood responses at > this point. > But that is precisely my point. When you reply "diamond preference", you will be asked to also say "one ace". Therefore, "diamond preference" translates to "4NT was not Blackwood". In the end, you have responded to the question that opponent really wanted to know (one ace). In addition, you have said "4NT was not Blackwood", Also, you have said something extra about your system, but nothing interesting. In contrast, I have given the same response (one ace), I have not said "4NT was not Blackwood", and yes, I have omitted the little extra non-interesting bit. Now which is worse: concealing that 5Di systemically shows diamond preference (non-damaging MI) or revealing that 4NT was not Blackwood after all. And please answer that question in the light of L20F5, which already states that revealing that 4NT was not Blackwood is not only not obligatory, but even forbidden! How can you explain that what is forbidden at one moment becomes obligatory the next - when the only thing that has changed is the MI about some part of the system that partner is not in reality playing? And then ask yourself why that change should happen at one table (where there is a lazy opponent who asks how many aces it shows) and not at the next (where there is an active opponent who looks that same question up on the SC). It is this consistency that convinces me that this iw worth while fighting for! > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 28 12:56:30 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:56:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000401c8619c$719a01d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000401c8619c$719a01d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <479DC2EE.6050002@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .............. > At last I believe that I have your implicit confirmation of what I have long > suspected: You are deliberately making a joke of blml. Maybe your objective > is to sabotage the whole forum; God knows why you would be interested in > that? > > Rather than just quitting blml like several valuable contributors have done > in reaction to your activities I suggest that possible other steps against > you should be considered. > > I sincerely trust that blml has a mission, but that mission will soon be > jeopardized the way this forum is presently abused. > > Sven > > Sven, I definitely object to you calling this discussion a joke. I have patiently answered all the arguments, even those that are repeated over and over again. If I needed to repeat my arguments as well, that is the price blml has to pay. I sincerely believe that the WBF would be very very very wrong in writing the MS into law. The arguments about "fundamental principles from 1935" should convince you of my firm beliefs. For the rest you are free to believe what you wish. So am I. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 28 13:19:04 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:19:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2007 Laws - RA's options. References: <002c01c84ef0$96412b30$f0c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <082701c861a7$f97b9e00$0100a8c0@stefanie> Grattan: > 40B3 - A pair is not allowed to vary its understandings > during the auction or playconsequent on a question asked by > either side. A pair is allowed to vary its understandings during the > auction or play by prior agreement consequent on a response by > opponents to a question asked by this pair, but not consequent on > a response by this pair to a question by opponents. Trying to understand under what circumstances you would vary your understandings based on a response by opponents. Is it for when you receive conflicting information? For example, your opponents' convention card indicates weak takeouts over 1NT openings, but you hear a 2H response alerted. When you ask and are told that this is a transfer, you now bid as if it were a transfer? Or, similarly, when you are playing against law-abiding players and get conflicting answers to questions, you switch from believing that the first answer was correct and now bid as if the second one were correct? > A pair is allowed by prior agreemnt to vary its understandings > during the auction or play consequent on an irregularity by either > side. This I cannot understand, try as I might. It seems to me that it means that agreements like the following are permitted: -- When we make an insufficient bid and it is accepted, we use the extra room for a series of relays. -- When one of us has penalty card, our carding in the suit declarer is playing indicates our holding in the penalty card suit. Perhaps the person with the penalty card could give count and his partner attitude? -- If one of us is barred from the auction, the first suit bid by the other promises no particular length but is purely lead-directing. > 61B3 - by 3 votes to 2, the default auction to be adopted, > allowing defenders to ask each other ("Having no hearts, partner?" > for example). Noted that the law recognizes that UI may result > from the question. This I think was un unfortunate decision. Will there at least be a requirement that those who choose to ask this question must ask it every time their partner first shows out in a suit? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 28 13:36:52 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:36:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3? References: <001901c8583f$44d23570$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478E27CC.2080400@skynet.be> <478F1D1B.9050804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <082b01c861aa$75939540$0100a8c0@stefanie> > [Herman, about DWS] the desired purpose: allow partner to > land on his feet without the existence of UI. Why do you not understand that explanations are for opponents' benefit, not yours? Here is something that might help: Accept the premise that a side responsible for an irregularity should do no better than break even as a result. When there has been just a single misexplanation, DWSists are in the same boat as normal players, and the side may well be damaged. But after a second misexplanation, the OS, following DWS principles, may escape the damage that they were at first in danger of. Thus they are doing better than breaking even as a result of an irregularity (the second instance of giving MI). A pair should never benefit from its own irregularity. Can you accept that, Herman? Stefanie Rohan London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 28 13:45:32 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:45:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <056a01c86136$df7bcd20$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000701c85f8c$9a6d65a0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <479C704B.2060706@skynet.be> <056a01c86136$df7bcd20$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <479DCE6C.7070208@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Herman, you have not answered this. You never have, and I can't imagine what > answer you would come up with. > >>> And finally: The supporters of DWS seem to have completely overlooked Law >>> 20F4 which unconditionally requires a player who becomes aware that he >>> has >>> given an erroneous or incomplete explanation to immediately call the >>> Director. >>> >> Put forward and answered - "subsequently". > > You are trying to say that the "becoming aware" must happen after the > infraction in order for the law to be in effect. So 20F, paraphrased, is "if > you realise that you have incorrectly explained your system, you must call > the director if you have done it by accident, but must keep quiet if you > have done it on purpose." This is truly insane. > > The reason that the Law says "becomes aware" and "subsequently" is simply > that the writers did not anticipate that anyone would give an incorrect > explanation on purpose. Committing an infraction on purpose is commonly > known by the term "cheating". There is no point in writing a law explaining > what you must do when you have cheated -- why would the cheater obey that > law? There might be a second reason. Maybe there are situations when deliberate "lying" is acceptable. If it is, then surely the non-correction should also be acceptable. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 28 13:45:26 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:45:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000><479C16BA.1060409@ntlworld.com> <479C1B3B.2040609@ntlworld.com><008601c860af$bffbe980$fd145e47@DFYXB361><2b1e598b0801262244p50cb15efifdfd5d37a074f326@mail.gmail.com><00a601c860b4$4d4ab2e0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> <6.1.0.6.2.20080127215927.029b3b90@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <082c01c861ab$a817e7e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Suppose 3NT is also so illogical that no peer selects it (1S bidder has > a void), yet 3NT makes via the same 4 finesses. Where does it all > end?...remember the bidder has been given UI that suggests pass is > not going to work too well. If 3NT is allowed, what if partner removes > to 4S? > > Tony (Sydney) This is a particularly good example, because it gets to a game, which is suggested by the UI, but a 3NT-bidding peer could not be found as there is a void and no promise of a stopper or length or anything at all opposite. The opponents may make the first nine tricks. Or ten tricks could be there in 3NT, earning this pair a top. I cannot imagine allowing this. And if it is permitted and seen to be permitted, it will become standard practice. Stefanie Rohan London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 28 13:44:12 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:44:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> [HdW] But that is precisely my point. When you reply "diamond preference", you will be asked to also say "one ace". [DALB] Why? My opponent doesn't know (for legal purposes) that I think 4NT is Blackwood - as you yourself said, he is not (necessarily) allowed to know this. So why should he ask about 5D in the context of a response to Blackwood? Herman, it would perhaps assist matters if you were to consider what the ideal position is that the Laws are trying to model. The idea is only that North-South should know what East-West's agreements are, not what East-West's hands are. To that extent, you will find it helpful to interpret the Laws as if any information that is not supposed to be given has not in fact been given (by East-West to one another, or by East-West to North-South). Thus, no one actually hears "4NT was Blackwood", because that is illegal information to East and misinformation to North-South. If anyone acts on the information "4NT was Blackwood", then East-West may be penalised, or North-South may be given redress. But if no one acts on it, then it can safely be treated as if it had never arisen. What you seem incapable of doing is getting away from the fact that the word "Blackwood" has been uttered. So what? You might also care to reflect that, as has been pointed out to you several times, the creation of UI is not illegal (see L73D1, for example). The creation of MI is always illegal (see L40B, for example). It may be inferred from this that the WBF would prefer you to create UI than MI (and always has done). And please, do not reply to this by citing Law 20F5 (the only argument you have ever advanced in support of your nonsensical position). The WBF has already taken steps to nullify that argument, and as far as I can see, you have no other. David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 28 13:51:33 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:51:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <082b01c861aa$75939540$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <001901c8583f$44d23570$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478E27CC.2080400@skynet.be> <478F1D1B.9050804@skynet.be> <082b01c861aa$75939540$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <479DCFD5.2050409@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : >> [ > Why do you not understand that explanations are for opponents' benefit, not > yours? Here is something that might help: > > Accept the premise that a side responsible for an irregularity should do no > better than break even as a result. I know what you're writing about, but I can't agree with the premise, the way it's written. See L72A5. Once again, I'd like to mention the situation when a MPC has to be led, resulting in a cold top. Another case is when you made a BOOT and the ensuing classical "gamble" happens to work. Perhaps you'll say once again that I'm guilty of playing with words, but here we are in a denagerous situation, because many players believe in what you said, the way you said it, and we have a duty to put them back on the right track. Best regards Alain From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 28 14:18:40 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:18:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be><080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie> From: "Herman De Wael" > > But that is precisely my point. When you reply "diamond preference", > you will be asked to also say "one ace". Therefore, "diamond > preference" translates to "4NT was not Blackwood". In the end, you > have responded to the question that opponent really wanted to know > (one ace). In addition, you have said "4NT was not Blackwood", Also, > you have said something extra about your system, but nothing interesting. It may be interesting to the opponents. If you tell them, they can decide whether it is interesting or not. > > In contrast, I have given the same response (one ace), I have not said > "4NT was not Blackwood", and yes, I have omitted the little extra > non-interesting bit. Again, it is not up to you to decide how interesting the information is. > > Now which is worse: concealing that 5Di systemically shows diamond > preference (non-damaging MI) or revealing that 4NT was not Blackwood > after all. Let's see... the opponents have asked for your partnership agreements, and we have a choice between concealing and revealing... Plus it is up to the director or the AC to decide whether the MI is "damaging". It is not for you to decide at the table. > And please answer that question in the light of L20F5, which already > states that revealing that 4NT was not Blackwood is not only not > obligatory, but even forbidden! If only the WBFLC would make their clarification. I don't mind discussing whether theDWS is good for the game of bridge, but would prefer to do so unencumbered by arguments that normal methods are also against the Laws. > How can you explain that what is forbidden at one moment becomes > obligatory the next - when the only thing that has changed is the MI > about some part of the system that partner is not in reality playing? Nothing changes. When a question is asked, one answers it truthfully. Always. > > And then ask yourself why that change should happen at one table > (where there is a lazy opponent who asks how many aces it shows) and > not at the next (where there is an active opponent who looks that same > question up on the SC). > This doesn't matter. At both tables the opponents will be protected from the MI. At one table the poor little OS will have UI to deal with. That is their problem. > It is this consistency that convinces me that this iw worth while > fighting for! But the Laws are not an exercise in aesthetics. One situation does not have to be consistent with another. Each is judged on its own merits. Stefanie Rohan London, England > From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 28 14:55:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:55:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3? In-Reply-To: <082b01c861aa$75939540$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <001901c8583f$44d23570$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <478E27CC.2080400@skynet.be> <478F1D1B.9050804@skynet.be> <082b01c861aa$75939540$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <479DDEC6.1060400@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> [Herman, about DWS] the desired purpose: allow partner to >> land on his feet without the existence of UI. > > Why do you not understand that explanations are for opponents' benefit, not > yours? Here is something that might help: > > Accept the premise that a side responsible for an irregularity should do no > better than break even as a result. When there has been just a single > misexplanation, DWSists are in the same boat as normal players, and the side > may well be damaged. > > But after a second misexplanation, the OS, following DWS principles, may > escape the damage that they were at first in danger of. Thus they are doing > better than breaking even as a result of an irregularity (the second > instance of giving MI). > > A pair should never benefit from its own irregularity. Can you accept that, > Herman? Yes, I can, Stefanie, and I don't want to escape from my first irregularity - but your point is only valid if there is a second irregularity. Which I don't believe there is. Because it is non-damaging MI. And if there is damage, then I'm not escaping from that one either. What you seem to forget is that you are comparing the wrong sides: you are comparing me with a MS adept. And you are saying that because I end up better, I must be doing something unacceptable. We've covered that argument already - if it were true, you would be outlawing double squeezes and finesses as well. What you should be comparing me with is the other table where no question is asked, but where the opponent just looks up the meaning of 5Di. I am not better off than they are. The infraction I might make (and I don't believe that is an infraction) is that I don't say "4NT was not Blackwood". The fact that I don't give the systemic meaning of 5Di is irrelevant, since that meaning is irrelevant as well. If you don't see what I mean, then turn the example around: 4NT was intended as Blackwood, but explained as minors. Now the meaning of 5Di becomes obvious, and not a single opponent will ask about the meaning. Do you believe that this opponent is damaged from not knowing that we are systemically playing "0123"? But now suppose I am playing against a lunatic, who does ask what 5Di means. Should I now be subjected to a worse score than the 99 other tables where the question is not asked? And this brings in a very important argument. Let's change seats, and you're the 4NT bidder, and I'm the opponent. I know your partner is intending to show diamond preference, but I ask anyway, because I know you're a MS adept and you're going to reveal to me that there was a mistake. Do you really want to write laws that give an advantage to: a) the lazy opponent; b) the very clever opponent. I don't want the laws to be like that. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 28 14:57:17 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:57:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> Message-ID: <479DDF3D.80501@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > But that is precisely my point. When you reply "diamond preference", you > will be asked to also say "one ace". > > [DALB] > > Why? My opponent doesn't know (for legal purposes) that I think 4NT is > Blackwood - as you yourself said, he is not (necessarily) allowed to know > this. So why should he ask about 5D in the context of a response to > Blackwood? > Because your opponent has just told him that he thought 4NT was Blackwood. Do you usually play with partners who say something is Blackwood and then give answers that show preference? This is very simple table bridge, David. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 28 15:05:53 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:05:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> Message-ID: <479DE141.20306@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > Herman, it would perhaps assist matters if you were to consider what the > ideal position is that the Laws are trying to model. David, it would perhaps assist matters if you were to consider what the ideal position is that the Laws are trying to model. I am doing this, David, are you? with an open mind? Not with the mind that says "MI is the paramount sin"? > The idea is only that > North-South should know what East-West's agreements are, not what > East-West's hands are. To that extent, you will find it helpful to interpret > the Laws as if any information that is not supposed to be given has not in > fact been given (by East-West to one another, or by East-West to > North-South). Thus, no one actually hears "4NT was Blackwood", because that > is illegal information to East and misinformation to North-South. David, it has been said, heard and interpreted. What the MS do is say "4NT is Blackwood" and then "we were having a misunderstanding". That last bit is illegal per L20F5, unnecessary because non-entitled, and bad for the NOS. There is no law which tells them to say this, so why should they do it if it is to their disadvantage. And I will add a "currently" if you want, but then I'll also ask people to listen to me argue why it would be bad to change that. > If anyone > acts on the information "4NT was Blackwood", then East-West may be > penalised, or North-South may be given redress. But if no one acts on it, > then it can safely be treated as if it had never arisen. What you seem > incapable of doing is getting away from the fact that the word "Blackwood" > has been uttered. So what? > It's not the word "Blackwood" that concerns me, it's the word "misunderstanding". Which is of course not spoken, but understood as synonymous to "diamond preference". > You might also care to reflect that, as has been pointed out to you several > times, the creation of UI is not illegal (see L73D1, for example). The > creation of MI is always illegal (see L40B, for example). It may be inferred > from this that the WBF would prefer you to create UI than MI (and always has > done). And please, do not reply to this by citing Law 20F5 (the only > argument you have ever advanced in support of your nonsensical position). > The WBF has already taken steps to nullify that argument, and as far as I > can see, you have no other. > Yes, I do, but that is not important. What is important is that L20F5 is the only case where the MI and UI actually conflict. By acting according to L20F5, UI is avoided and MI is maintained. That is to me a very great indication that the lawmakers of the 1930's believed that UI is worse than MI. And if you believe that MI is worse than UI, why do you not respond to Jerry's question as why L20F5 is as it currently is. Are you advocating changing L20F5? In that case, I will continue to argue with you - if you don't want to change that law, there's no use discussing. You are then advocating an inconsistent set of laws, and I don't want to spend my time arguing against that. And if you don't see that your current interpretation is inconsistent, then there is nothing I can do - none more blind than those that won't see. > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 28 15:07:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:07:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be><080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <479DE196.1040109@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > >> But that is precisely my point. When you reply "diamond preference", >> you will be asked to also say "one ace". Therefore, "diamond >> preference" translates to "4NT was not Blackwood". In the end, you >> have responded to the question that opponent really wanted to know >> (one ace). In addition, you have said "4NT was not Blackwood", Also, >> you have said something extra about your system, but nothing interesting. > > It may be interesting to the opponents. If you tell them, they can decide > whether it is interesting or not. Sorry Stefanie, but if I tell them, I do a lot more - including breaking another law. Better to tell them afterwards and see if they are damaged. But anyway, since the information does not conform to the hand, how can it (normally) do damage? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 28 15:14:10 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:14:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be><080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > >> How can you explain that what is forbidden at one moment becomes >> obligatory the next - when the only thing that has changed is the MI >> about some part of the system that partner is not in reality playing? > > Nothing changes. When a question is asked, one answers it truthfully. > Always. Biblical arguments yet again. But biblical in a very bad sense. It's OK to remain silent about untruths, but not OK to actually lie? I'm appaled at those ethics. When your friend has stolen something, and they ask him "did you take that?" and he says no, you remain silent, and that's ok, but when they ask you, you'll say "I saw him take it". Is that your ethics? I don't want to discuss bridge laws with people who think that behaviour is acceptable. >> And then ask yourself why that change should happen at one table >> (where there is a lazy opponent who asks how many aces it shows) and >> not at the next (where there is an active opponent who looks that same >> question up on the SC). >> > This doesn't matter. At both tables the opponents will be protected from the > MI. At one table the poor little OS will have UI to deal with. That is their > problem. > Yes, but it should not be their problem, since the laws explicitely forbid (yes forbid, not "allow not to") giving that UI! >> It is this consistency that convinces me that this iw worth while >> fighting for! > > But the Laws are not an exercise in aesthetics. One situation does not have > to be consistent with another. Each is judged on its own merits. > OK, the laws don't have to be consistent. Why bother with this discussion then? Just let me play my game, you'll play yours and we don't care that it's a different game. Oh no, we do care, both of us. But of course it should be your game. The inconsistent one. Because of what reason then? Because it's the majority? I think it was Groucho Marx who said he didn't want to be in a majority - not much fun. I think I'll go and play with him, I believe he was a quite bridge player. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 28 15:13:35 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:13:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <00e301c85f6c$42bbf4e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie><479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie><4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be><000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com> <000701c85d51$a1aa5d10$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><037b01c85d61$0190b210$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4796FD74.9070300@skynet.be><08ca01c85eac$72b1f430$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4798D4C2.5080109@skynet.be><0bff01c85f0a$314423c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4799B0AA.6070506@skynet.be> <00e301c85f6c$42bbf4e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <9805CA45-B31D-44FC-9CB5-376E71195C00@starpower.net> On Jan 25, 2008, at 11:06 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Anyhow, what Eric was saying about full disclosure being so > fundamental to > the game that arguing about it is absurd is completely correct. It > demeans > the game to give any appearance that there is a legitimate opposing > view. Far be it from me to suggest that it would be absurd to argue (hypothetically) about the fundamental nature of full disclosure. On the contrary; I was suggesting that those who would argue that the DWS would be good for bridge must be prepared to do so. It does seem a bit absurd, however, to argue that full disclosure is less than a fundamental principle of the current laws, or that that wouldn't have to change before the DWS could be considered for future laws. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 28 15:21:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:21:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be> <001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be> <008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: On Jan 25, 2008, at 1:47 PM, Hirsch Davis wrote: > Herman, > > You are completely missing the point that explanations are about > disclosure > of systems, not hands. The "diamond preference" that you dismiss as > "irrelevant" is both relevant and true as an explanation of > system. The > fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with what is in partner's > hand is > what is irrelevant. The fact that partner has revealed a number of > keycards > in an unknown suit (since suit was presumably not agreed since 4NT > asked for > preference) is irrelevant. The fact that partner will do one of two > things > a) turn red and summon the TD or b) nothing (likely indicating that he > thinks your explanation of "diamond preference" is something that > came out > of the south end of a northbound horse) is also irrelevant. > > "Diamond preference" indicates that by your systemic agreements, as > you > understand them, partner is expressing a preference for diamonds > over clubs. > That happens to be true, even if you know that is not partner's > belief of > the meaning. You have obtained that information through the UI of the > explanation he has given the opponents, and cannot act on it. "Diamond > preference" remains the information you are required to convey by Law. > Whether this bears any relationship to the actual hand is irrelevant. When Edgar Kaplan was supporting the introduction of alerts, he wrote an editorial in which he suggested that the object of the disclosure rules should be to simulate as closely as possible the ideal situation in which each player had a correct, complete and self- referencing written copy of their opponents' system available to be consulted at will, so that there would be no need ever for the opponents to say or do anything at all for appropriate full disclosure to be achieved. I don't think he'd have approved of the DWS. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 28 15:48:56 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:48:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <9805CA45-B31D-44FC-9CB5-376E71195C00@starpower.net> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie><479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie><4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be><000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com> <000701c85d51$a1aa5d10$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><037b01c85d61$0190b210$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4796FD74.9070300@skynet.be><08ca01c85eac$72b1f430$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4798D4C2.5080109@skynet.be><0bff01c85f0a$314423c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <4799B0AA.6070506@skynet.be> <00e301c85f6c$42bbf4e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <9805CA45-B31D-44FC-9CB5-376E71195C00@starpower.net> Message-ID: <479DEB58.5070909@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Far be it from me to suggest that it would be absurd to argue > (hypothetically) about the fundamental nature of full disclosure. On > the contrary; I was suggesting that those who would argue that the > DWS would be good for bridge must be prepared to do so. It does seem > a bit absurd, however, to argue that full disclosure is less than a > fundamental principle of the current laws, or that that wouldn't have > to change before the DWS could be considered for future laws. > > You find it absurd, but it is! Full disclosure is not the main purpose of the laws - if it were, L20F5 would be reversed. As it stands, the WBF is happy with just less than "full" disclosure, if that means an important piece of UI is not given. And if you cannot see that, then you're blind and I'll keep hammering until you have read it in Braille! > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 28 15:48:08 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:48:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801262234o4e0e99f6jc76bce5f4712bc6e@mail.gmail.com> References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> <479C16BA.1060409@ntlworld.com> <2b1e598b0801262150q28a4d576l91d82c06e961b5ed@mail.gmail.com> <479C21EA.7020608@ntlworld.com> <2b1e598b0801262234o4e0e99f6jc76bce5f4712bc6e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 27, 2008, at 1:34 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Jerry Fusselman] > As I carefully argued just a few hours ago, and apparently Grattan, > Steve, and Sven agree with me (and may well have explained it better), > it is fruitless to try to determine whether a bid that was made at the > table is a logical alternative. It is best to assume that it is a > logical alternative, for otherwise, you needlessly risk rewarding a > player that took advantage of UI. > > [Nige1] > In this case, where passing partner in a part score is judged to be a > logical alternative, leaping to a grand slam is unlikely to be. Like > Jerry, I'm accustomed to *disagreeing* with Grattan; and like Jerry, I > don't feel that it automatically makes my opinion worthless. > > My general concern is that, to ensure that the alleged offender has a > reasonable prospect of a fair decision, those asked to judge (what the > logical alternatives are and which were suggested by the unauthorised > information) should be kept ignorant of what call was actually chosen > (if possible). > > [Jerry] > I agree with every sentence that you wrote above, but I think it is > irrelevant to my main point, which is this: Nothing good comes from > trying to determine whether the action taken at the table is a logical > alternative. Treat it special. Assume it is an LA, and then continue > your analysis in the usual way. You want to make sure that no one > gets away with abusing UI to choose an action that improves their > expected score over the other, not taken LAs that are contraindicated > by the UI. > > Even if your polling of peers finds no one who considers the action > taken to be a logical alternative, you should consider whether the > action taken has a higher expected return than the UI-contraindicated > LAs that you have identified. Proceeding this way, you are not going > to miss a justified penalty to an OS player who took unusual action in > order to avoid the danger of further confusion. > > Part of what I am saying is that the laws are unclear here, and they > surely should have mentioned that the action taken is considered an > LA, for otherwise players get away with using UI to make expected > gains simply by taking unusual actions. > > But I again admit that if the unusual action has lower expected return > than the lowest-returning LA, then you allow that action, even if it > turned out lucky for the OS. > > The main point is not to waste time thinking about whether or not the > action taken is an LA. Assume it is, to avoid a bad decision that > lets a UI abuser gain. Isn't this an entirely semantic argument? "Logical alternative", in this context, refers to an alternative bid to the one actually chosen. The action the player took is not an "alternative" in any relevant sense, logical or otherwise. We use "not an LA" when what we really mean is "so far out as not to be capable of being suggested over anything logical". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 28 15:57:01 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:57:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be><080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be><084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Herman DE WAEL wrote: > Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> >>> How can you explain that what is forbidden at one moment becomes >>> obligatory the next - when the only thing that has changed is the MI >>> about some part of the system that partner is not in reality playing? >> >> Nothing changes. When a question is asked, one answers it truthfully. >> Always. > > Biblical arguments yet again. What on earth are you talking about? > But biblical in a very bad sense. It's OK to remain silent about > untruths, but not OK to actually lie? I'm appaled at those ethics. Bridge is a game, and it is played by following the Laws. There is nothing "unethical" about playing a game according to its rules. In fact, in the context of a game "ethical MEANS playing by the rules. I'm sure some Socialists play monopoly > > When your friend has stolen something, and they ask him "did you take > that?" and he says no, you remain silent, and that's ok, but when they > ask you, you'll say "I saw him take it". Is that your ethics? I don't > want to discuss bridge laws with people who think that behaviour is > acceptable. What I would or would not do if my friend has stolen something is not an appropriate topic for this forum. > >>> And then ask yourself why that change should happen at one table >>> (where there is a lazy opponent who asks how many aces it shows) and >>> not at the next (where there is an active opponent who looks that same >>> question up on the SC). >>> >> This doesn't matter. At both tables the opponents will be protected from >> the >> MI. At one table the poor little OS will have UI to deal with. That is >> their >> problem. >> > > Yes, but it should not be their problem, since the laws explicitely > forbid (yes forbid, not "allow not to") giving that UI! I asked if you would, at least when responding to me, leave out this bit about giving UI being illegal. You claimed to be interested in a discussion of the merits or otherwise of the DWS. Anyway, as you are unwilling to respect my wishes, this message will be my last on the DWS. > > OK, the laws don't have to be consistent. Why bother with this > discussion then? Just let me play my game, you'll play yours and we > don't care that it's a different game. Oh no, we do care, both of us. > But of course it should be your game. The inconsistent one. Because of > what reason then? Because it's the majority? I think it was Groucho > Marx who said he didn't want to be in a majority - not much fun. I > think I'll go and play with him, I believe he was a quite bridge player. > A game is meaningless if various contestants play by different sets of rules. And if there actually were more than one set of legal rules, the question actually would be resolved with a majority vote. This is the way it is done with poker (at home), backgammon chouettes, hearts, etc. Go and play with Groucho if that's what you really want to do. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 28 16:08:59 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:08:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <479DA671.9090302@skynet.be> References: <002401c86107$d3011cf0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <479DA671.9090302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <94E31CD1-0776-410B-AA48-83C952D2647B@starpower.net> On Jan 28, 2008, at 4:54 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Do you understand what I am trying to say? They are entitled to know > "0123", they are not entitled to know "4NT was not Blackwood". Which part of "partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents" says that they are "not entitled" to know that 4NT, by partnership agreement, was not Blackwood? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jan 28 16:16:21 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:16:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be><080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be><084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <479DF1C5.2090400@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > Bridge is a game, and it is played by following the Laws. There is nothing > "unethical" about playing a game according to its rules. In fact, in the > context of a game "ethical MEANS playing by the rules. I'm sure some > Socialists play monopoly > And I'm playing an assassi in MERP. As Levi-Strauss and Huizinga have put forward, a game is characterized by its rules. However, if the rules encourage a situation that goes against the rules, since the players can't be declared guilty, the rules should. Example : the local regulation that says no double or redouble shall be alerted. As a consequence, some pairs have begun devising strange doubles and redoubles that nobody would ever imagine asking about. I can describe quite a few. In this case, one part of the rules (organizing bodies may regulate alerts) goes against another (disclosure). Some Belgian players, and not the worst ones, now ask their opponents to alert nonclassical doubles nevertheless. In a way, they ask their opponents NOT to play according to the rules. But this helps making the game more truthful to the conception we have of it. Regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 28 16:24:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:24:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> Message-ID: <467AEB5D-A3B8-47BD-80FB-4875FB9E6A13@starpower.net> On Jan 28, 2008, at 7:44 AM, David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > But that is precisely my point. When you reply "diamond > preference", you > will be asked to also say "one ace". > > [DALB] > > Why? My opponent doesn't know (for legal purposes) that I think 4NT is > Blackwood - as you yourself said, he is not (necessarily) allowed > to know > this. So why should he ask about 5D in the context of a response to > Blackwood? > > Herman, it would perhaps assist matters if you were to consider > what the > ideal position is that the Laws are trying to model. The idea is > only that > North-South should know what East-West's agreements are, not what > East-West's hands are. To that extent, you will find it helpful to > interpret > the Laws as if any information that is not supposed to be given has > not in > fact been given (by East-West to one another, or by East-West to > North-South). Thus, no one actually hears "4NT was Blackwood", > because that > is illegal information to East and misinformation to North-South. > If anyone > acts on the information "4NT was Blackwood", then East-West may be > penalised, or North-South may be given redress. But if no one acts > on it, > then it can safely be treated as if it had never arisen. What you seem > incapable of doing is getting away from the fact that the word > "Blackwood" > has been uttered. So what? > > You might also care to reflect that, as has been pointed out to you > several > times, the creation of UI is not illegal (see L73D1, for example). The > creation of MI is always illegal (see L40B, for example). It may be > inferred > from this that the WBF would prefer you to create UI than MI (and > always has > done). And please, do not reply to this by citing Law 20F5 (the only > argument you have ever advanced in support of your nonsensical > position). > The WBF has already taken steps to nullify that argument, and as > far as I > can see, you have no other. Herman has yet to offer an interpretation of L20F5 by which "nor may he indicate in any manner" would prohibit one from correcting the misunderstanding by means of a subsequent explanation yet not prohibit one from correcting the misunderstanding by means of a subsequent call. Nor has he been prepared to defend the position that calls are subject to the same DWS principles as explanations. Until he does one or the other, we can logically ignore any arguments for the DWS that depend on L20F5. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Jan 28 16:32:19 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:32:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801261435l7e89b66au7dfd20f15dd76f33@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <000601c85d08$6009ddc0$201d9940$@com> <47961C26.6080800@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> <000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> <08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801242028g39f4452bse960fc6d2ebb3912@mail.gmail.com> <479991B1.2000309@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801261435l7e89b66au7dfd20f15dd76f33@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <479DF583.1090206@t-online.de> Jerry Fusselman schrieb: > > > I think UI and MI are both harmful. Sometimes UI is more harmful, and > sometimes MI is. Willing to change your position and agree to that? > I never denied that. Of course UI is a nuisance, but it is only a nuisance for my partnership, not for the opponents. Giving MI is harmful to my opps. I see no need to change the way the game is played from "if they f**k it up, lets see how they get out of that mess on their own" to " I tell my pard what I think the system is". The problem with the approach you ask about - correcting MI at once - is that there may be no MI at all because I may have goofed, not partner. Since in any serious partnership both will be right about 50% of the time (in case of difference of opinion only, of course) correcting that "MI" would only result in additional UI in those 50% of cases without clearing up any MI at all. That can`t be right. > Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 28 17:08:39 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:08:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <94E31CD1-0776-410B-AA48-83C952D2647B@starpower.net> References: <002401c86107$d3011cf0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <479DA671.9090302@skynet.be> <94E31CD1-0776-410B-AA48-83C952D2647B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <479DFE07.6070006@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 28, 2008, at 4:54 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Do you understand what I am trying to say? They are entitled to know >> "0123", they are not entitled to know "4NT was not Blackwood". > > Which part of "partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, > must be fully and freely available to the opponents" says that they > are "not entitled" to know that 4NT, by partnership agreement, was > not Blackwood? > They are entitled to know it was "minor asking", but once that mistake has been given, they are no longer entitled to know that it wasn't Blackwood. L20F5. Also, they are not entitled to know that we are having a bidding misunderstanding. So once the MI has been given, they shall get a correction for the damage this has caused, but nothing more. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 28 17:18:05 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:18:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be><080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be><084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <479E003D.2020901@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Herman DE WAEL wrote: > >> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>>> How can you explain that what is forbidden at one moment becomes >>>> obligatory the next - when the only thing that has changed is the MI >>>> about some part of the system that partner is not in reality playing? >>> Nothing changes. When a question is asked, one answers it truthfully. >>> Always. >> Biblical arguments yet again. > > What on earth are you talking about? > When a question is asked, one answers it truthfully. Where in the Bridge Laws does it say that? Nowhere. You are again guilty of using outside laws inside the game. That's not a valid argument. >> But biblical in a very bad sense. It's OK to remain silent about >> untruths, but not OK to actually lie? I'm appaled at those ethics. > > Bridge is a game, and it is played by following the Laws. There is nothing > "unethical" about playing a game according to its rules. In fact, in the > context of a game "ethical MEANS playing by the rules. I'm sure some > Socialists play monopoly Indeed. My point exactly. Which I interpret as meaning I am allowed to answer "1 ace". _You_ are the one using outside laws to tell me that I should not do that, because it is lying. >> When your friend has stolen something, and they ask him "did you take >> that?" and he says no, you remain silent, and that's ok, but when they >> ask you, you'll say "I saw him take it". Is that your ethics? I don't >> want to discuss bridge laws with people who think that behaviour is >> acceptable. > > What I would or would not do if my friend has stolen something is not an > appropriate topic for this forum. I agree - but then don't use the lying argument within this discussion. When I say "1 ace" I am guilty of lying about my system, in the sense that I do not correct the "4NT is Blackwood". When there was no question, and I remained silent, I was equally guilty of lying about my system, in that same sense. All this is lying, and it's just as wrong for you or me. Don't use the "lying" argument. >>>> And then ask yourself why that change should happen at one table >>>> (where there is a lazy opponent who asks how many aces it shows) and >>>> not at the next (where there is an active opponent who looks that same >>>> question up on the SC). >>>> >>> This doesn't matter. At both tables the opponents will be protected from >>> the >>> MI. At one table the poor little OS will have UI to deal with. That is >>> their >>> problem. >>> >> Yes, but it should not be their problem, since the laws explicitely >> forbid (yes forbid, not "allow not to") giving that UI! > > I asked if you would, at least when responding to me, leave out this bit > about giving UI being illegal. You claimed to be interested in a discussion > of the merits or otherwise of the DWS. Anyway, as you are unwilling to > respect my wishes, this message will be my last on the DWS. But this is not the giving of UI that is illegal - it's the correcting of the MI. Which _is_ illegal, no doubt about that. Granted if changed? >> OK, the laws don't have to be consistent. Why bother with this >> discussion then? Just let me play my game, you'll play yours and we >> don't care that it's a different game. Oh no, we do care, both of us. >> But of course it should be your game. The inconsistent one. Because of >> what reason then? Because it's the majority? I think it was Groucho >> Marx who said he didn't want to be in a majority - not much fun. I >> think I'll go and play with him, I believe he was a quite bridge player. >> > A game is meaningless if various contestants play by different sets of > rules. And if there actually were more than one set of legal rules, the > question actually would be resolved with a majority vote. This is the way it > is done with poker (at home), backgammon chouettes, hearts, etc. > Currently, I believe two actions to be acceptable. There's nothing wrong with that. We do not play according to different rules. We may differ as to what the rules actually say, but we do believe they are the same set. When the WBF get around to issueing a clarification, _then_ we will be playing under a different set of rules, in which only one action is acceptable. That set of rules can be consistent or inconsistent. I know which one I prefer. You seem not to be bothered about consistency. Which is your right, but don't argue that I'm wrong in saying that those rules would be inconsistent. > Go and play with Groucho if that's what you really want to do. > I believe it would be more fun than arguing about the DWS. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jan 28 17:21:14 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:21:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be> <001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be> <008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <479E00FA.100@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 25, 2008, at 1:47 PM, Hirsch Davis wrote: > >> Herman, >> >> You are completely missing the point that explanations are about >> disclosure >> of systems, not hands. The "diamond preference" that you dismiss as >> "irrelevant" is both relevant and true as an explanation of >> system. The >> fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with what is in partner's >> hand is >> what is irrelevant. The fact that partner has revealed a number of >> keycards >> in an unknown suit (since suit was presumably not agreed since 4NT >> asked for >> preference) is irrelevant. The fact that partner will do one of two >> things >> a) turn red and summon the TD or b) nothing (likely indicating that he >> thinks your explanation of "diamond preference" is something that >> came out >> of the south end of a northbound horse) is also irrelevant. >> >> "Diamond preference" indicates that by your systemic agreements, as >> you >> understand them, partner is expressing a preference for diamonds >> over clubs. >> That happens to be true, even if you know that is not partner's >> belief of >> the meaning. You have obtained that information through the UI of the >> explanation he has given the opponents, and cannot act on it. "Diamond >> preference" remains the information you are required to convey by Law. >> Whether this bears any relationship to the actual hand is irrelevant. > > When Edgar Kaplan was supporting the introduction of alerts, he wrote > an editorial in which he suggested that the object of the disclosure > rules should be to simulate as closely as possible the ideal > situation in which each player had a correct, complete and self- > referencing written copy of their opponents' system available to be > consulted at will, so that there would be no need ever for the > opponents to say or do anything at all for appropriate full > disclosure to be achieved. I don't think he'd have approved of the DWS. > In the sense that such a written copy would give one consistent explanation of a bidding sequence, I believe the DWS gives a better approximation of that ideal. With a full written copy, a player does not get any indication that his opponents are having a bidding misunderstanding. Under MS principles, such an indication becomes mandatory! MS is far less like the Kaplan ideal. > > 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 Mon Jan 28 17:23:46 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:23:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <467AEB5D-A3B8-47BD-80FB-4875FB9E6A13@starpower.net> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> <467AEB5D-A3B8-47BD-80FB-4875FB9E6A13@starpower.net> Message-ID: <479E0192.20806@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Herman has yet to offer an interpretation of L20F5 by which "nor may > he indicate in any manner" would prohibit one from correcting the > misunderstanding by means of a subsequent explanation yet not > prohibit one from correcting the misunderstanding by means of a > subsequent call. Nor has he been prepared to defend the position > that calls are subject to the same DWS principles as explanations. > Until he does one or the other, we can logically ignore any arguments > for the DWS that depend on L20F5. > I have answered that one too. I'm not going to look it up to paste and copy. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 28 17:48:55 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:48:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <479E0192.20806@skynet.be> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> <467AEB5D-A3B8-47BD-80FB-4875FB9E6A13@starpower.net> <479E0192.20806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <07A9A3CC-AA29-42BD-A6E7-EDEA31D9A5BE@starpower.net> On Jan 28, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> Herman has yet to offer an interpretation of L20F5 by which "nor may >> he indicate in any manner" would prohibit one from correcting the >> misunderstanding by means of a subsequent explanation yet not >> prohibit one from correcting the misunderstanding by means of a >> subsequent call. Nor has he been prepared to defend the position >> that calls are subject to the same DWS principles as explanations. >> Until he does one or the other, we can logically ignore any arguments >> for the DWS that depend on L20F5. > > I have answered that one too. I'm not going to look it up to paste and > copy. It seems I owe Herman an apology, as I am unable to find his answer anywhere. I would humbly abjure him to reconsider, and, as a personal boon, to look it up to paste and copy. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Jan 28 18:43:58 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:43:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <07A9A3CC-AA29-42BD-A6E7-EDEA31D9A5BE@starpower.net> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> <467AEB5D-A3B8-47BD-80FB-4875FB9E6A13@starpower.net> <479E0192.20806@skynet.be> <07A9A3CC-AA29-42BD-A6E7-EDEA31D9A5BE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001901c861d5$5cd17ba0$167472e0$@com> [HdW] I have answered that one too. I'm not going to look it up to paste and copy. [EL] It seems I owe Herman an apology, as I am unable to find his answer anywhere. I would humbly abjure him to reconsider, and, as a personal boon, to look it up to paste and copy. [DALB] I think he (or it may have been someone else) said that since you have to do something at your turn, and since your call might indicate that a mistaken explanation has been given by someone or other, L20F5 may be superseded by the requirements of L17C. For example, South opens 1S and North bids 2NT, explained by South as a game-forcing raise. The actual methods are that 2NT shows a limit raise or better, and North actually has a limit raise. South bids 3S, which a DWS North will explain as forcing and then pass it. A MS North will explain it as a sign-off facing a limit raise and then pass it, but in either case North's pass will indicate that South's explanation was an error, and thus be in breach of L20F5. Of course, the DWS creates yet another avoidable difficulty: all East knows against a DWS player is that North has passed a forcing bid. East may decide on this basis to re-enter an auction in which he does not belong, for fear that North has psyched his 2NT response on an awful hand. No doubt any damage East-West suffer can be remedied by the director - but why should the director (particularly if he is a playing director at a club) have this extra burden imposed upon him? David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jan 28 20:39:23 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:39:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <001901c861d5$5cd17ba0$167472e0$@com> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> <467AEB5D-A3B8-47BD-80FB-4875FB9E6A13@starpower.net> <479E0192.20806@skynet.be> <07A9A3CC-AA29-42BD-A6E7-EDEA31D9A5BE@starpower.net> <001901c861d5$5cd17ba0$167472e0$@com> Message-ID: On Jan 28, 2008, at 12:43 PM, David Burn wrote: > I think he (or it may have been someone else) said that since you > have to do > something at your turn, and since your call might indicate that a > mistaken > explanation has been given by someone or other, L20F5 may be > superseded by > the requirements of L17C. For the DWS to apply, you must know what your partner mistakenly thinks the auction has meant up to the point of explaining his call, as that is the basis on which the "DWS explanation" is selected over the "L75 explanation". If you do, you will always be able to choose a "DWS call", from the same basis, which will prevent both your partner and your opponents from knowing that you're having a mixup. L17C merely requires you to make a call; it doesn't require that it be a sensible one, or suited to your hand. > For example, South opens 1S and North bids 2NT, explained by South > as a > game-forcing raise. The actual methods are that 2NT shows a limit > raise or > better, and North actually has a limit raise. South bids 3S, which > a DWS > North will explain as forcing and then pass it. A MS North will > explain it > as a sign-off facing a limit raise and then pass it, but in either > case > North's pass will indicate that South's explanation was an error, > and thus > be in breach of L20F5. Right! Under the DWS interpretaton of L20F5, if the DWSist explains it as forcing and then passes it, he completely undoes the effect of his just-given explanation, indicating that South's explanation was in error, passing UI to partner, and informing the opponents that he is in the midst of a partnership misunderstanding. I thought the whole point of the DWS was to avoid doing that, even, indeed, by violating L75 if necessary. So why does the DWS not require that he bid 4S in David's example? 4S conceals the fact that South's explanation was in error, avoids giving UI to partner, avoids informing the opponents about the mixup, and directly breaks no other law. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at tameware.com Mon Jan 28 20:49:25 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:49:25 -0800 Subject: [blml] New Rules vs Old In-Reply-To: <200801250720.AA12183@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200801250619.AA12179@geller204.nifty.com> <200801250720.AA12183@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40801281149p65c9ce3g6ffae85a8c895589@mail.gmail.com> I suggest (3) use old rules in April, and new rules in June. Several posters have suggested that this is somehow inconsistent, but I don't see why. The new laws are not so different than the old, and even if they were I see nothing that would favor one team over another. Does one team habitually take advantage of, say, "purposeful change of call"? What problems might arise from (3)? -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue Jan 29 01:05:04 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:05:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie><479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be><080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie><479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002e01c8620a$99ace8e0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> >>> How can you explain that what is forbidden at one moment becomes >>> obligatory the next - when the only thing that has changed is the MI >>> about some part of the system that partner is not in reality playing? >> >> Nothing changes. When a question is asked, one answers it truthfully. >> Always. > > Biblical arguments yet again. > But biblical in a very bad sense. It's OK to remain silent about > untruths, but not OK to actually lie? I'm appaled at those ethics. > Herman, I would not throw accusations about ethics about if I were you. Those of us who believe that the game should be played by the Laws might be seriously tempted to respond in kind. It is not a biblical argument, although you keep trying to put it in those terms. It is compliance with L40B6a. You must disclose the all special information you have from partnership agreement and experience. If you create a fiction, you also create a violation. Hirsch From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue Jan 29 01:09:18 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:09:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie><479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be><080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie><479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be><084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie><479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479E003D.2020901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003501c8620b$312ec490$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > > When a question is asked, one answers it truthfully. > Where in the Bridge Laws does it say that? Nowhere. You are again > guilty of using outside laws inside the game. That's not a valid argument. > L40B6a tells you what to say in response to a question posed under L20. If your answer does not meet those standards, it is a Law violation. This IS a valid argument. Hirsch From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue Jan 29 01:20:40 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:20:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie><479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie><4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be><000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com><000701c85d51$a1aa5d10$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><037b01c85d61$0190b210$0100a8c0@stefanie><4796FD74.9070300@skynet.be><08ca01c85eac$72b1f430$0100a8c0@stefanie><4798D4C2.5080109@skynet.be><0bff01c85f0a$314423c0$0100a8c0@stefanie><4799B0AA.6070506@skynet.be> <00e301c85f6c$42bbf4e0$0100a8c0@stefanie><9805CA45-B31D-44FC-9CB5-376E71195C00@starpower.net> <479DEB58.5070909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003c01c8620c$c7b95280$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > Eric Landau wrote: > >> >> Far be it from me to suggest that it would be absurd to argue >> (hypothetically) about the fundamental nature of full disclosure. On >> the contrary; I was suggesting that those who would argue that the >> DWS would be good for bridge must be prepared to do so. It does seem >> a bit absurd, however, to argue that full disclosure is less than a >> fundamental principle of the current laws, or that that wouldn't have >> to change before the DWS could be considered for future laws. >> >> > > You find it absurd, but it is! > > Full disclosure is not the main purpose of the laws - if it were, > L20F5 would be reversed. As it stands, the WBF is happy with just less > than "full" disclosure, if that means an important piece of UI is not > given. And if you cannot see that, then you're blind and I'll keep > hammering until you have read it in Braille! > Herman, The main purpose of the Laws is expressed in the first paragraph of the Introduction. Everything else is simply instructions on how to do it. There are some general principles that apply throughout. Full disclosure is one of them. Not making use of UI provided by partner, particularly for your own advantage, is another. Hirsch From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue Jan 29 01:26:19 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:26:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <002401c86107$d3011cf0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><479DA671.9090302@skynet.be><94E31CD1-0776-410B-AA48-83C952D2647B@starpower.net> <479DFE07.6070006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004701c8620d$918357a0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Jan 28, 2008, at 4:54 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Do you understand what I am trying to say? They are entitled to know >>> "0123", they are not entitled to know "4NT was not Blackwood". >> >> Which part of "partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, >> must be fully and freely available to the opponents" says that they >> are "not entitled" to know that 4NT, by partnership agreement, was >> not Blackwood? >> > > They are entitled to know it was "minor asking", but once that mistake > has been given, they are no longer entitled to know that it wasn't > Blackwood. > L20F5. > Also, they are not entitled to know that we are having a bidding > misunderstanding. So once the MI has been given, they shall get a > correction for the damage this has caused, but nothing more. > What they are entitled to know is all information as described in L40B6a. If that information allows them to infer that you're having a bidding misunderstanding, so be it. The Law does not entitle them to know that. It does entitle them to the information stated above by Eric. If dWs is simply being used to conceal a bidding misunderstanding, please read L73C. Not to mention L72B3. But we've been over this ad infinitum. Hirsch From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 29 02:33:41 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:33:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] Double disclosure In-Reply-To: <479DF1C5.2090400@ulb.ac.be> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be><080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be><084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DF1C5.2090400@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <479E8275.6070602@ntlworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner wrote] Example: the local regulation that says no double or redouble shall be alerted. As a consequence, some pairs have begun devising strange doubles and redoubles that nobody would ever imagine asking about. I can describe quite a few. In this case, one part of the rules (organizing bodies may regulate alerts) goes against another (disclosure). Some Belgian players, and not the worst ones, now ask their opponents to alert nonclassical doubles nevertheless. In a way, they ask their opponents NOT to play according to the rules. But this helps making the game more truthful to the conception we have of it. [nige1] As I understand EBU regulations, below 3N, I think we are meant to alert doubles of [A] Natural suit bids unless they are take-out. [B] Notrump and artificial bids unless they penalty. As expected, apart from simple cases, few players get this right. Intermediate cases complicate things further ... [C] For some pairs, a "negative" double just promises some points and four cards in an unbid major (but doesn't show unbid minors). [D] For others, it just indicates a willingness to compete with no obvious bid. For example, it denies 4 cards in a major that could have been bid at the one level. Are [C] and [D] "for take-out"? The directors whom I've consulted are split 50-50 in case [A] but most think case [D] should be alerted. IMO far better would be to *announce* doubles for "penalty" and "take-out" and alert the rest -- including [D] and possibly [C]. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 29 02:33:58 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:33:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asked: >1. Is it good or okay in MS to say, "I'm taking it as....?" >For example, a 2NT call that "I'm taking it as Lebensohl" or >"I'm taking it as strong." Or can you give a better example >of a good-style statement to make in this situation under MS? Paraphrase of Law in ABF Alert Regulation, clause 9.2: >>If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a >>call, you must say so (by saying, "Undiscussed", for >>example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. >>When, however, as a result of partnership experience and >>style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely >>meaning of an undiscussed call, that information should be >>given to opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, you should >>not offer statements such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm >>treating it as...". Such a response is improper as it gives >>unauthorised information to partner. Jerry Fusselman asked: >2. What can you do as a director help out the NOS when the >confusion of the explanations messes up the NOS agreements or >judgement? > >For example, the NOS may have one agreement against a penalty >double and another against a conventional double, and the OS >might say that they don't know what this double is. Richard Hills replies: An excellent example by Jerry. Firstly, as Director, I do not beg the question by referring to OS and NOS before determining the facts. Secondly, there is no obligation under Law for a pair to have an agreement about the meaning of "Double" in an obscure third round auction. Indeed, in a Bridge World editorial, Jeff Rubens recommended that one should not rely on the competence of the opponents in system design, so Jeff advised that a good partnership should have a default agreement to be used against the opponents' undiscussed calls. Slightly off-topic is this anecdote. An expert Canberra pair had differing agreements for defensive bidding against strong NT openings and weak 1NT openings. I opened a 14-16 1NT, which one expert deemed to be a strong NT, while his partner deemed it to be a weak NT, and the eventual number was 800. ;-) 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 Tue Jan 29 04:03:57 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:03:57 -0600 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801281903i7c8cf2c8k2f32c9802819c0bf@mail.gmail.com> [Jerry Fusselman asked:] >1. Is it good or okay in MS to say, "I'm taking it as....?" >For example, a 2NT call that "I'm taking it as Lebensohl" or >"I'm taking it as strong." Or can you give a better example >of a good-style statement to make in this situation under MS? [Paraphrase of Law in ABF Alert Regulation, clause 9.2:] >>If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a >>call, you must say so (by saying, "Undiscussed", for >>example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. >>When, however, as a result of partnership experience and >>style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely >>meaning of an undiscussed call, that information should be >>given to opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, you should >>not offer statements such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm >>treating it as...". Such a response is improper as it gives >>unauthorised information to partner. Thanks so much, Richard, this is certainly to the point! I want to focus on the ABF's last two sentences. First I note they say *how* *not* to do it, but not *how* to do it. Is it possible to achieve what the ABF desires? They say it is wrong to say, "I take it to mean X." What do they want someone to say? "Perhaps "I think it is X." or "It is probably X" or "I am almost sure it is X." ? Are these better in light of the regulation? I don't see how. To me, they convey the same information. Both are just as much UI to partner. Do we really think he is going to say "I think it is X" and then play it as something else? Perhaps the ABF wants the announcement to be something truly lacking in UI to partner, such as "Mostly likely it is A or B, and I refuse to say which is more likely, and it might even be C or something I have not thought of. I will not say how I am playing it." Would this satisfy the ABF in terms of little or no UI to partner. The problem, which I hope is obvious, is that little or no AI is provided to the opponents. I don't believe that the ABF alert-explanation regulations have solved the problem of how to get useful AI to the opponents without giving UI to partner. It looks to me like they are deceiving themselves into thinking that it is possible. I am still hoping for a wise example of how to explain when you are unsure. Again, this ABF regulation has provided nothing of that. Careful readers of my previous posts (if any) will note that I asked the same question about a week ago to Grattan, and he counselled patience without promising any answer. I admit that I really doubt that an answer will be forthcoming from the TPTB. They do not enjoy dabbling in probability when the subject is partnership agreements. It is just not their style to think in such terms. How I would like to be proven wrong in this case! Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 04:23:28 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:23:28 -0600 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801281923l7fb6fbcx6a2c6c1bf89179e6@mail.gmail.com> Jerry Fusselman asked: >2. What can you do as a director help out the NOS when the >confusion of the explanations messes up the NOS agreements or >judgement? > >For example, the NOS may have one agreement against a penalty >double and another against a conventional double, and the OS >might say that they don't know what this double is. [Richard Hills replies:] Firstly, as Director, I do not beg the question by referring to OS and NOS before determining the facts. [Jerry] OK, assume the OS are the ones that have confused their explanations and the NOS have lovely, shiny halos over their heads, and have done nothing wrong other than to call the director for help. Oh well, I was trying to save space. [Richard] Secondly, there is no obligation under Law for a pair to have an agreement about the meaning of "Double" in an obscure third round auction. Indeed, in a Bridge World editorial, Jeff Rubens recommended that one should not rely on the competence of the opponents in system design, so Jeff advised that a good partnership should have a default agreement to be used against the opponents' undiscussed calls. [Jerry] Who has varying agreements about obscure third-round doubles? To be realistic, assume the double is the first call by the opponents after an opening of 1NT, announced 11--14, and they have no convention card. Or, if you prefer a different realistic example, assume that our defense needs to know whether the opponent's 1C opening in the ACBL (with an empty convention card) is conventional or not, and the explainer of the 1C opening describes an illegal agreement (illegal because it includes all natural 1C openings with 8+ HCP) that is mostly natural that you have not prepared for. I am hoping the director can do something wise to make the hand playable. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 05:04:33 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:04:33 -0600 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <479DF583.1090206@t-online.de> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47961C26.6080800@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> <000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> <08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801242028g39f4452bse960fc6d2ebb3912@mail.gmail.com> <479991B1.2000309@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801261435l7e89b66au7dfd20f15dd76f33@mail.gmail.com> <479DF583.1090206@t-online.de> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801282004qd3e248fv76eca455a154f99d@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 28, 2008 9:32 AM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Jerry Fusselman schrieb: > > > > > > I think UI and MI are both harmful. Sometimes UI is more harmful, and > > sometimes MI is. Willing to change your position and agree to that? > > > > I never denied that. Well, I think you have denied it in this thread. I know it sounds amazing. I was amazed to read your words six days ago. I will show what you two wrote, yet again: Here is what David Burn wrote: [David Burn] > > That is why the dWS is a load of rotten Brussels > > sprouts: it is based on the premise that UI is harmful and MI harmless, > > whereas the exact opposite is the case. [Jerry] And that is how he ended his post. You copied this and replied, which I give in full: [Matthias] > I couldn`t agree more. > > Best regards > Matthias [Jerry] Thus, two very smart guys, you and David, have asserted that UI is harmful and MI is harmless. Had your two posts not happened, I would have said nothing. Do you still deny that six days ago in this thread, you agreed with David that UI is harmless? I just want you and David to admit that giving UI is sometimes harmful, and that some cases of allowing MI to remain in return for preventing UI are codified in our laws: Law 20F5a is, in essence, a law that requires MI remain uncorrected for a while, perhaps the whole auction, for the *sole* purpose of keeping UI lower. Another one in our laws is that you generally cannot look at your convention card or system notes even when an opponent really wants to know some detail of your system. I don't think the supporters of MI really understand it completely. For example, it is not exactly the same as full disclosure. (Look to the previous paragraph for two examples why.) Also, one does not see many recommendations by MI advocates of what to do when you are unsure. I see a lot of what *not* to do, but that is not what I am looking for. But I digress. Maybe another time. I am fairly sure that we cannot get anywhere when bright people are asserting that UI is harmless, and yet, at the same time, the laws are fine the way they are. The key to David's argument, with which you could not agree more, is that fanatical statement that UI is no problem compared to MI. Because I have such respect for your honesty and intellect, I am hoping that you and David completely renounce your position that MI is harmful and UI is harmless. Up to now, David has been silent, and you could not recall supporting the position. I hope you now see that you did. I admit that for a while I assumed that you or David did want to repeal Law 20F5a, but now I am not sure. It is still possible that David does, for he has a history of carefully working out his positions (in sometimes surprising ways) to avoid internal contradictions. There might also be a subtlety that you or David could share that I missed. It is only because you guys are David Burn and Matthias Berghaus that I want to get this cleared up. If you were Curly and Moe, I would have ignored that statement that UI is harmless. Jerry Fusselman From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue Jan 29 05:19:20 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:19:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0801281903i7c8cf2c8k2f32c9802819c0bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001201c8622e$1ee76d00$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:03 PM Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Jerry Fusselman asked:] > >>1. Is it good or okay in MS to say, "I'm taking it as....?" >>For example, a 2NT call that "I'm taking it as Lebensohl" or >>"I'm taking it as strong." Or can you give a better example >>of a good-style statement to make in this situation under MS? > > [Paraphrase of Law in ABF Alert Regulation, clause 9.2:] > >>>If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a >>>call, you must say so (by saying, "Undiscussed", for >>>example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. >>>When, however, as a result of partnership experience and >>>style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely >>>meaning of an undiscussed call, that information should be >>>given to opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, you should >>>not offer statements such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm >>>treating it as...". Such a response is improper as it gives >>>unauthorised information to partner. > > Thanks so much, Richard, this is certainly to the point! > > I want to focus on the ABF's last two sentences. First I note they > say *how* *not* to do it, but not *how* to do it. Is it possible to > achieve what the ABF desires? They say it is wrong to say, "I take it > to mean X." What do they want someone to say? "Perhaps "I think it > is X." or "It is probably X" or "I am almost sure it is X." ? Are > these better in light of the regulation? I don't see how. To me, > they convey the same information. Both are just as much UI to > partner. > > Do we really think he is going to say "I think it is X" and then play > it as something else? > > Perhaps the ABF wants the announcement to be something truly lacking > in UI to partner, such as "Mostly likely it is A or B, and I refuse to > say which is more likely, and it might even be C or something I have > not thought of. I will not say how I am playing it." Would this > satisfy the ABF in terms of little or no UI to partner. The problem, > which I hope is obvious, is that little or no AI is provided to the > opponents. > > I don't believe that the ABF alert-explanation regulations have solved > the problem of how to get useful AI to the opponents without giving UI > to partner. It looks to me like they are deceiving themselves into > thinking that it is possible. > > I am still hoping for a wise example of how to explain when you are > unsure. Again, this ABF regulation has provided nothing of that. > Jerry, Note that the regulation says that "...you should not offer statements *such as*..." The part I emphasized indicated that the following were examples, but not all inclusive. So, you need to look for the common denominator of the examples. In this case, the common denominator is doubt. If you know the agreement, then you state it directly. If you believe that you know the agreement, but have some small doubt, you still state it directly. If you have no idea what the agreement is, but know that there is in fact an agreement, this would be a good time to call the TD, before you commit an infraction. The only real way to get the AI to the opponents when you are in doubt about your agreements is for the TD to take you away from the table, and have your partner explain the agreements. Partner will still have the UI that you were in doubt, but since you did not hazard a guess, he will have no idea what you were considering. The opponents get the information, and you are far better of than if you had hazarded a guess. There is no good to explain uncertainty. If you are unsure, let the TD do the explaining. Hirsch From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 05:23:09 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:23:09 -0600 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <479DF583.1090206@t-online.de> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47961C26.6080800@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801221433t295f352as817fda5527394367@mail.gmail.com> <000001c85d74$4220e260$c662a720$@com> <2b1e598b0801222130y700fceffkd0a423427523810b@mail.gmail.com> <08c801c85eac$393b69c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801242028g39f4452bse960fc6d2ebb3912@mail.gmail.com> <479991B1.2000309@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801261435l7e89b66au7dfd20f15dd76f33@mail.gmail.com> <479DF583.1090206@t-online.de> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801282023x54ff3aewdb1eac92cb59d381@mail.gmail.com> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Of course UI is a nuisance, but it is only a > nuisance for my partnership, not for the opponents. Giving MI is harmful > to my opps. Very true. Both are bad, but they are bad in different ways. MI is bad the opponents, and UI is bad for the good guys. But both are potentially harmful. Do I have it right? > I see no need to change the way the game is played from "if they f**k it > up, lets see how they get out of that mess on their own" to " I tell my > pard what I think the system is". The problem with the approach you ask > about - correcting MI at once - is that there may be no MI at all > because I may have goofed, not partner. Since in any serious partnership > both will be right about 50% of the time (in case of difference of > opinion only, of course) correcting that "MI" would only result in > additional UI in those 50% of cases without clearing up any MI at all. > That can`t be right. > Hmm. How do you recommend explaining a bid to the opponents when you know that you and partner are on different wavelengths, and you estimate that the probability that you are right is 45%---and the probability that partner is right is 55%? How do you differ from DWS in this case:? Jerry Fusselman From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Jan 30 00:51:35 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:51:35 -0800 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801281903i7c8cf2c8k2f32c9802819c0bf@mail.gmail.co m> References: <2b1e598b0801281903i7c8cf2c8k2f32c9802819c0bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080129154556.03eb76c0@mail.optusnet.com.au> > >cut JerrY: >I don't believe that the ABF alert-explanation regulations have solved >the problem of how to get useful AI to the opponents without giving UI >to partner. It looks to me like they are deceiving themselves into >thinking that it is possible. As has been pointed out ad nauseum in a concurrent thread, giving UI to partner is not a crime. Partner may be restricted in his choice of later bids, though. If the bid is truly undiscussed, say so. It the meaning is on the SC and I have forgotten, give them the SC and point it out. Otherwise leave the table and allow partner to inform the opponents of the meaning. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From geller at nifty.com Tue Jan 29 06:15:32 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:15:32 +0900 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801282004qd3e248fv76eca455a154f99d@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0801282004qd3e248fv76eca455a154f99d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200801290515.AA12231@geller204.nifty.com> Jerry Fusselman writes: >I just want you and David to admit that giving UI is sometimes >harmful, Yes, but UI is harmless unless it could have affected partner's bidding or play, and in that case score adjustments can rectify the harm. So there are ample mechanisms in place for dealing with the problems created by UI. If David or Matthias say "UI is harmless" IMO they really don't mean mean this literally, but rather they are using this as a shorthand for what I wrote in the above paragraph (which everyone here knows, so we don't have to write it out in full every single time). -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From geller at nifty.com Tue Jan 29 06:26:31 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:26:31 +0900 Subject: [blml] New Rules vs Old In-Reply-To: <694eadd40801281149p65c9ce3g6ffae85a8c895589@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40801281149p65c9ce3g6ffae85a8c895589@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200801290526.AA12232@geller204.nifty.com> Thanks everybody for your comments on this. The JCBL staff though about this more and realized that by moving up the date of the changeover to April 26 (the first day of the "Nihon League" competition) then all of the problems could be avoided, as no competition would then be held under split rules. I agree with Adam that this wouldn't have been a major problem in any event..... -Bob Adam Wildavsky writes: >I suggest (3) use old rules in April, and new rules in June. > >Several posters have suggested that this is somehow inconsistent, but >I don't see why. The new laws are not so different than the old, and >even if they were I see nothing that would favor one team over >another. Does one team habitually take advantage of, say, "purposeful >change of call"? > >What problems might arise from (3)? > >-- >Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 06:56:29 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:56:29 -0600 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <200801290515.AA12231@geller204.nifty.com> References: <2b1e598b0801282004qd3e248fv76eca455a154f99d@mail.gmail.com> <200801290515.AA12231@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801282156q59e0b537oeae05c0ae5652d41@mail.gmail.com> Robert Geller writes: > Jerry Fusselman writes: > >I just want you and David to admit that giving UI is sometimes > >harmful, > > Yes, but UI is harmless unless it could have affected partner's > bidding or play, and in that case score adjustments can rectify > the harm. So there are ample mechanisms in place for dealing > with the problems created by UI. > > If David or Matthias say "UI is harmless" IMO they really don't > mean mean this literally, but rather they are using this as > a shorthand for what I wrote in the above paragraph (which > everyone here knows, so we don't have to write it out in > full every single time). > Ample mechanisms, you say? Then why not repeal Law 20F5a? Why not allow perusing your own convention card and system notes to give a definitive answer to an opponent's question? Seriously, I want to know. I think the reason is that UI is difficult to recognize and deal with. That's why Law 20F5a was born, and it is why you cannot look at your own convention card during the hand. Here is one example of how difficult UI is to handle. Sometimes I am declarer and before the opening lead, the opponents explain that there has been a misexplanation on their side. They are not supposed to, but they believe in full disclosure and want to remove the MI. And it helps them avoid a later MI ruling! Probably, we have all had that experience. The director usually tells the defenders not to do it next time, and leaves before the hand is played. Has that been your experience, if the director is called at all? Has anyone on BLML *ever* seen any adjustment for the benefit of the NOS in response to this violation of clearing up the MI too soon? Probably not. How could anyone prove that the resulting UI was helpful for the defense? Unless clear, blatant, and on the opening lead, it is generally beyond my capabilities. I just think that "ample mechanisms to deal with UI" is an overbid, and I think our laws recognize that---in Law 20F5a as well as the usual regulation that you cannot look at your own convention card and the time at which defenders are supposed to confess about MI during the auction. So even if David and Matthias are merely saying that we have ample mechanisms for dealing with UI, I would question that. And neither has said that's what they meant. Also, sometimes, such as Herman's classic 4NT confusion case, the MI is rather obviously innocuous compared to the UI. That is to say, MI during the remainder of the auction won't cause problems if it is cleared up before the opening lead, but UI may well cause huge problems. I just do not think that blanket statements about the relative badness of MI vs. UI are accurate, and they are not supported by our laws, which, as I have mentioned in the three cases above, sometimes require MI to remain present in order to reduce UI. That's three cases I have listed in the laws where UI is considered worse than MI. Think about it. Three is a lot. Another way of looking at it is this: What percentage of the UI that happens at the table is eventually revealed to the opponents? Perhaps 30%? What percentage of the MI that happens at the table is eventually revealed to the opponents? Perhaps 80%? Are both difficult for the director to handle? Yes. Do both lead to appeals? I think so. It seems obvious to me that UI and MI are both problems, and to pretend that one is always light and the other is always heavy cannot be right. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 07:02:01 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:02:01 -0600 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001201c8622e$1ee76d00$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <2b1e598b0801281903i7c8cf2c8k2f32c9802819c0bf@mail.gmail.com> <001201c8622e$1ee76d00$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801282202y43c5e440ve047614230508b5d@mail.gmail.com> [Hirsch Davis answered:] > > If you know the > agreement, then you state it directly. If you believe that you know the > agreement, but have some small doubt, you still state it directly. If you > have no idea what the agreement is, but know that there is in fact an > agreement, this would be a good time to call the TD, before you commit an > infraction. > Thanks so much for understanding my confusion, and for helping the discussion with such a clear answer! I like your answer. It is totally different from a previous answer to the effect that all doubt must be disclosed. There is seemingly no overlap with that position. I like your position much better. You gave no case in which any doubt is expressed. If I may, your position is expressible as follows: 1. If you know the agreement, then you state it directly. 2. If you believe that you know the agreement, but have some small doubt, you still state it directly. 4. If you have no idea what the agreement is, but know that there is in fact an agreement, this would be a good time to call the TD, before you commit an infraction. I would like your thoughts on how to complete this algorithm with two more cases I am adding below, if you would be so kind: 3. If you have medium doubt (i.e., more doubt than small doubt but less doubt that "no idea"), then you ___ 5. If you have no obvious agreement, but you are pretty sure that both of you are both on the same wavelength of how to extend your agreements to the current case, then you ____ Would you be willing to fill in the blanks, or maybe express the sentences better than I have? Jerry Fusselman From mustikka at charter.net Tue Jan 29 07:35:48 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:35:48 -0800 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <2b1e598b0801282004qd3e248fv76eca455a154f99d@mail.gmail.com><200801290515.AA12231@geller204.nifty.com> <2b1e598b0801282156q59e0b537oeae05c0ae5652d41@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301c86241$2fceafd0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS > Robert Geller writes: >> Jerry Fusselman writes: >> >I just want you and David to admit that giving UI is sometimes >> >harmful, >> >> Yes, but UI is harmless unless it could have affected partner's >> bidding or play, and in that case score adjustments can rectify >> the harm. So there are ample mechanisms in place for dealing >> with the problems created by UI. >> >> If David or Matthias say "UI is harmless" IMO they really don't >> mean mean this literally, but rather they are using this as >> a shorthand for what I wrote in the above paragraph (which >> everyone here knows, so we don't have to write it out in >> full every single time). >> > > Ample mechanisms, you say? Then why not repeal Law 20F5a? Why not > allow perusing your own convention card and system notes to give a > definitive answer to an opponent's question? Seriously, I want to > know. > > I think the reason is that UI is difficult to recognize and deal with. > That's why Law 20F5a was born, and it is why you cannot look at your > own convention card during the hand. > > Here is one example of how difficult UI is to handle. Sometimes I am > declarer and before the opening lead, the opponents explain that there > has been a misexplanation on their side. They are not supposed to, > but they believe in full disclosure and want to remove the MI. And it > helps them avoid a later MI ruling! Probably, we have all had that > experience. > > The director usually tells the defenders not to do it next time, and > leaves before the hand is played. Has that been your experience, if > the director is called at all? Has anyone on BLML *ever* seen any > adjustment for the benefit of the NOS in response to this violation of > clearing up the MI too soon? Probably not. How could anyone prove > that the resulting UI was helpful for the defense? Unless clear, > blatant, and on the opening lead, it is generally beyond my > capabilities. > > I just think that "ample mechanisms to deal with UI" is an overbid, > and I think our laws recognize that---in Law 20F5a as well as the > usual regulation that you cannot look at your own convention card and > the time at which defenders are supposed to confess about MI during > the auction. > > So even if David and Matthias are merely saying that we have ample > mechanisms for dealing with UI, I would question that. And neither > has said that's what they meant. I think the Laws are what they are and most players do their best to follow them. In the case where defender has given MI and it must not be corrected until the hand is played out, it is just another Law that players need to obey. It is the same for everyone, therefore fair. The considerations of "what is better for the game" IMO should not be a factor at the table when there are Laws that tell us what to do. But perhaps this discussion by Jerry was intended to philosophise what would be "better for the game" instead of the Laws as they are. From geller at nifty.com Tue Jan 29 07:42:19 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:42:19 +0900 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <000301c86241$2fceafd0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> References: <000301c86241$2fceafd0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <200801290642.AA12237@geller204.nifty.com> Jerry is certainly correct that sometimes, especially in lower level games, there can be problems. if you are familiar with the opponents systems then you can help yourself by almost never asking questions during the auction. I agree this is less than desirable. But unless we're using screens this seems unavoidable. But it's certainly not (IMO) a reason for throwing out the laws as they now are. -Bob raija write: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jerry Fusselman" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:56 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS > > >> Robert Geller writes: >>> Jerry Fusselman writes: >>> >I just want you and David to admit that giving UI is sometimes >>> >harmful, >>> >>> Yes, but UI is harmless unless it could have affected partner's >>> bidding or play, and in that case score adjustments can rectify >>> the harm. So there are ample mechanisms in place for dealing >>> with the problems created by UI. >>> >>> If David or Matthias say "UI is harmless" IMO they really don't >>> mean mean this literally, but rather they are using this as >>> a shorthand for what I wrote in the above paragraph (which >>> everyone here knows, so we don't have to write it out in >>> full every single time). >>> >> >> Ample mechanisms, you say? Then why not repeal Law 20F5a? Why not >> allow perusing your own convention card and system notes to give a >> definitive answer to an opponent's question? Seriously, I want to >> know. >> >> I think the reason is that UI is difficult to recognize and deal with. >> That's why Law 20F5a was born, and it is why you cannot look at your >> own convention card during the hand. >> >> Here is one example of how difficult UI is to handle. Sometimes I am >> declarer and before the opening lead, the opponents explain that there >> has been a misexplanation on their side. They are not supposed to, >> but they believe in full disclosure and want to remove the MI. And it >> helps them avoid a later MI ruling! Probably, we have all had that >> experience. >> >> The director usually tells the defenders not to do it next time, and >> leaves before the hand is played. Has that been your experience, if >> the director is called at all? Has anyone on BLML *ever* seen any >> adjustment for the benefit of the NOS in response to this violation of >> clearing up the MI too soon? Probably not. How could anyone prove >> that the resulting UI was helpful for the defense? Unless clear, >> blatant, and on the opening lead, it is generally beyond my >> capabilities. >> >> I just think that "ample mechanisms to deal with UI" is an overbid, >> and I think our laws recognize that---in Law 20F5a as well as the >> usual regulation that you cannot look at your own convention card and >> the time at which defenders are supposed to confess about MI during >> the auction. >> >> So even if David and Matthias are merely saying that we have ample >> mechanisms for dealing with UI, I would question that. And neither >> has said that's what they meant. > >I think the Laws are what they are and most players do their best to follow >them. In the case where defender has given MI and it must not be corrected >until the hand is played out, it is just another Law that players need to >obey. It is the same for everyone, therefore fair. The considerations of >"what is better for the game" IMO should not be a factor at the table when >there are Laws that tell us what to do. > >But perhaps this discussion by Jerry was intended to philosophise what would >be "better for the game" instead of the Laws as they are. > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 08:49:08 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:49:08 -0600 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <000301c86241$2fceafd0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> References: <2b1e598b0801282004qd3e248fv76eca455a154f99d@mail.gmail.com> <200801290515.AA12231@geller204.nifty.com> <2b1e598b0801282156q59e0b537oeae05c0ae5652d41@mail.gmail.com> <000301c86241$2fceafd0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801282349l26033e2eud4ff960f67b262d9@mail.gmail.com> Raija: > The considerations of > "what is better for the game" IMO should not be a factor at the table when > there are Laws that tell us what to do. I basically agree with this, but when the laws give several options, a player might choose the option that is better for the game. Style question: Why do most or all of the MI advocates write quotes around "what is better for the game"? Are they casting doubt on whether the concept has meaning? Do they think the subject should be ignored? Or is it some other reason? > > But perhaps this discussion by Jerry was intended to philosophise what would > be "better for the game" instead of the Laws as they are. > Yeah, that's right. But I am also interested in why the laws are as they are---i.e., What are the goals and principles behind the laws? And you cannot decently investigate or explain why something is a certain way without spending at least a little time imagining it a different way. Jerry Fusselman From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 29 09:59:50 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:59:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <004701c8620d$918357a0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <002401c86107$d3011cf0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><479DA671.9090302@skynet.be><94E31CD1-0776-410B-AA48-83C952D2647B@starpower.net> <479DFE07.6070006@skynet.be> <004701c8620d$918357a0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <479EEB06.9080107@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 11:08 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > > >> Eric Landau wrote: >>> On Jan 28, 2008, at 4:54 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>> Do you understand what I am trying to say? They are entitled to know >>>> "0123", they are not entitled to know "4NT was not Blackwood". >>> Which part of "partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, >>> must be fully and freely available to the opponents" says that they >>> are "not entitled" to know that 4NT, by partnership agreement, was >>> not Blackwood? >>> >> They are entitled to know it was "minor asking", but once that mistake >> has been given, they are no longer entitled to know that it wasn't >> Blackwood. >> L20F5. >> Also, they are not entitled to know that we are having a bidding >> misunderstanding. So once the MI has been given, they shall get a >> correction for the damage this has caused, but nothing more. >> > > What they are entitled to know is all information as described in L40B6a. > If that information allows them to infer that you're having a bidding > misunderstanding, so be it. The Law does not entitle them to know that. It > does entitle them to the information stated above by Eric. > The problem with that argument is that you are adding two things that should not be added. By the explanation given, the opponents know what one player thinks the system is. Also, by the MI laws, they are entitled to know what the real system is. You add those two and come up with the conclusion that they should know that there is a misunderstanding. But that is simply wrong. They are entitled to know the system, but if they don't, an AS will put them into the correct situation. That correct system will be found by imagining what would happen if they had received the correct explanation _in stead of_ the wrong one, not _in addition to_ it. If you imagine what would happen with screens, you'll see far better what I mean. > If dWs is simply being used to conceal a bidding misunderstanding, please > read L73C. Not to mention L72B3. > But bidding misunderstandings are never meant to be told. So concealing them cannot be an infraction! > But we've been over this ad infinitum. > Indeed we have. > Hirsch > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 29 10:07:19 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:07:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <07A9A3CC-AA29-42BD-A6E7-EDEA31D9A5BE@starpower.net> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> <467AEB5D-A3B8-47BD-80FB-4875FB9E6A13@starpower.net> <479E0192.20806@skynet.be> <07A9A3CC-AA29-42BD-A6E7-EDEA31D9A5BE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <479EECC7.2070901@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 28, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> Herman has yet to offer an interpretation of L20F5 by which "nor may >>> he indicate in any manner" would prohibit one from correcting the >>> misunderstanding by means of a subsequent explanation yet not >>> prohibit one from correcting the misunderstanding by means of a >>> subsequent call. Nor has he been prepared to defend the position >>> that calls are subject to the same DWS principles as explanations. >>> Until he does one or the other, we can logically ignore any arguments >>> for the DWS that depend on L20F5. >> I have answered that one too. I'm not going to look it up to paste and >> copy. > > It seems I owe Herman an apology, as I am unable to find his answer > anywhere. I would humbly abjure him to reconsider, and, as a > personal boon, to look it up to paste and copy. > There are too many messages to go look it up. I'll answer it here. We're discussing what the hierarchy of the laws is. We need to figure out what laws restrict ones actions. You think that not giving MI is a stronger law than not correcting MI. I think the reverse. Whatever we think however, there are still laws governing what one can bid. I'm sure you'll agree that the laws regarding insufficient bids are stronger than those about not correcting MI. I also believe the UI laws are stronger than this law. So if there is any LA left that clears up the misinformation, a player should take that one. But when all the LA's clear up the misinformation, that should be allowed. This whole discussion is about taking an otherwise illegal action in order to avoid breaking some other law, so why should one more dilemma bother us? > > 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 Tue Jan 29 10:10:27 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:10:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <001901c861d5$5cd17ba0$167472e0$@com> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> <467AEB5D-A3B8-47BD-80FB-4875FB9E6A13@starpower.net> <479E0192.20806@skynet.be> <07A9A3CC-AA29-42BD-A6E7-EDEA31D9A5BE@starpower.net> <001901c861d5$5cd17ba0$167472e0$@com> Message-ID: <479EED83.7040604@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > I have answered that one too. I'm not going to look it up to paste and copy. > > [EL] > > It seems I owe Herman an apology, as I am unable to find his answer > anywhere. I would humbly abjure him to reconsider, and, as a personal boon, > to look it up to paste and copy. > > [DALB] > > I think he (or it may have been someone else) said that since you have to do > something at your turn, and since your call might indicate that a mistaken > explanation has been given by someone or other, L20F5 may be superseded by > the requirements of L17C. > > For example, South opens 1S and North bids 2NT, explained by South as a > game-forcing raise. The actual methods are that 2NT shows a limit raise or > better, and North actually has a limit raise. South bids 3S, which a DWS > North will explain as forcing and then pass it. A MS North will explain it > as a sign-off facing a limit raise and then pass it, but in either case > North's pass will indicate that South's explanation was an error, and thus > be in breach of L20F5. > > Of course, the DWS creates yet another avoidable difficulty: all East knows > against a DWS player is that North has passed a forcing bid. East may decide > on this basis to re-enter an auction in which he does not belong, for fear > that North has psyched his 2NT response on an awful hand. No doubt any > damage East-West suffer can be remedied by the director - but why should the > director (particularly if he is a playing director at a club) have this > extra burden imposed upon him? > Because it won't stop there: the DWS bidder also does not know why his partner passed a forcing bid. He may re-enter the auction as well (of course only if East does so). The MS bidder cannot re-enter the auction for UI reasons - the TD has more work there! > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 29 10:15:02 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:15:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> <467AEB5D-A3B8-47BD-80FB-4875FB9E6A13@starpower.net> <479E0192.20806@skynet.be> <07A9A3CC-AA29-42BD-A6E7-EDEA31D9A5BE@starpower.net> <001901c861d5$5cd17ba0$167472e0$@com> Message-ID: <479EEE96.5030703@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 28, 2008, at 12:43 PM, David Burn wrote: > >> I think he (or it may have been someone else) said that since you >> have to do >> something at your turn, and since your call might indicate that a >> mistaken >> explanation has been given by someone or other, L20F5 may be >> superseded by >> the requirements of L17C. > > For the DWS to apply, you must know what your partner mistakenly > thinks the auction has meant up to the point of explaining his call, > as that is the basis on which the "DWS explanation" is selected over > the "L75 explanation". If you do, you will always be able to choose > a "DWS call", from the same basis, which will prevent both your > partner and your opponents from knowing that you're having a mixup. > L17C merely requires you to make a call; it doesn't require that it > be a sensible one, or suited to your hand. > If you believe that such a call is always possible, then you have answered my question: yes, I do believe that L20F5 restricts your choices to such a call that does not clear up that there has been a mistake. However, it seems to me more logical to assume that such a call is not always available, or would be based on UI. In that case, making the call is still required (you are not allowed to sit there until hell freezes over), and that breaking of L20F5 must be deemed acceptable. >> For example, South opens 1S and North bids 2NT, explained by South >> as a >> game-forcing raise. The actual methods are that 2NT shows a limit >> raise or >> better, and North actually has a limit raise. South bids 3S, which >> a DWS >> North will explain as forcing and then pass it. A MS North will >> explain it >> as a sign-off facing a limit raise and then pass it, but in either >> case >> North's pass will indicate that South's explanation was an error, >> and thus >> be in breach of L20F5. > > Right! Under the DWS interpretaton of L20F5, if the DWSist explains > it as forcing and then passes it, he completely undoes the effect of > his just-given explanation, indicating that South's explanation was > in error, passing UI to partner, and informing the opponents that he > is in the midst of a partnership misunderstanding. Well, either that or he psyched the previous bid. > I thought the > whole point of the DWS was to avoid doing that, even, indeed, by > violating L75 if necessary. So why does the DWS not require that he > bid 4S in David's example? 4S conceals the fact that South's > explanation was in error, avoids giving UI to partner, avoids > informing the opponents about the mixup, and directly breaks no other > law. > except L16. Which I do consider to be stronger than L20F5. > > 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 Tue Jan 29 10:19:01 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:19:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <003501c8620b$312ec490$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie><479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be><080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie><479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be><084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie><479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479E003D.2020901@skynet.be> <003501c8620b$312ec490$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <479EEF85.7060803@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 11:18 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > > > >> When a question is asked, one answers it truthfully. >> Where in the Bridge Laws does it say that? Nowhere. You are again >> guilty of using outside laws inside the game. That's not a valid argument. >> > > L40B6a tells you what to say in response to a question posed under L20. If > your answer does not meet those standards, it is a Law violation. > > This IS a valid argument. Yes it is. But it's facts that I agree with. And it's not an argument agains the DWS. We are not discussing whether my actions are in violation of bridge laws. We are discussing whether my violation is more or less acceptable than yours. Just repeating that I have made a violation does not offer anything in argument. What Stefanie did, however, was take my violation outside of the game and apply every-day rules to it: "it's lying" (said in a oice that strongly condemns lying). That is NOT a valid argument. > > Hirsch > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 29 10:21:40 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:21:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <003c01c8620c$c7b95280$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie><479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie><4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be><000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com><000701c85d51$a1aa5d10$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><037b01c85d61$0190b210$0100a8c0@stefanie><4796FD74.9070300@skynet.be><08ca01c85eac$72b1f430$0100a8c0@stefanie><4798D4C2.5080109@skynet.be><0bff01c85f0a$314423c0$0100a8c0@stefanie><4799B0AA.6070506@skynet.be> <00e301c85f6c$42bbf4e0$0100a8c0@stefanie><9805CA45-B31D-44FC-9CB5-376E71195C00@starpower.net> <479DEB58.5070909@skynet.be> <003c01c8620c$c7b95280$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <479EF024.6020501@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:48 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> Far be it from me to suggest that it would be absurd to argue >>> (hypothetically) about the fundamental nature of full disclosure. On >>> the contrary; I was suggesting that those who would argue that the >>> DWS would be good for bridge must be prepared to do so. It does seem >>> a bit absurd, however, to argue that full disclosure is less than a >>> fundamental principle of the current laws, or that that wouldn't have >>> to change before the DWS could be considered for future laws. >>> >>> >> You find it absurd, but it is! >> >> Full disclosure is not the main purpose of the laws - if it were, >> L20F5 would be reversed. As it stands, the WBF is happy with just less >> than "full" disclosure, if that means an important piece of UI is not >> given. And if you cannot see that, then you're blind and I'll keep >> hammering until you have read it in Braille! >> > > Herman, > > The main purpose of the Laws is expressed in the first paragraph of the > Introduction. Everything else is simply instructions on how to do it. > > There are some general principles that apply throughout. > > Full disclosure is one of them. Exactly! One of them. > Not making use of UI provided by partner, particularly for your own > advantage, is another. > And not giving UI is also one. And now we need to decide which of these general principles is strongest, if and when they clash. L20F5 is the prime example of such a clash. Without that law, the player has a choice between clearing up the misexplanation and leaving it be. The WBF have decided that he should leave it be. Thus, they appear to think that not giving UI in this case is the stronger law! > Hirsch > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 29 10:27:58 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:27:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <200801290642.AA12237@geller204.nifty.com> References: <000301c86241$2fceafd0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> <200801290642.AA12237@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <479EF19E.6090000@skynet.be> Robert Geller wrote: > Jerry is certainly correct that sometimes, especially in > lower level games, there can be problems. if you > are familiar with the opponents systems then you can > help yourself by almost never asking questions during > the auction. I agree this is less than desirable. > But unless we're using screens this seems unavoidable. > > But it's certainly not (IMO) a reason for throwing out the > laws as they now are. > But that's not what we are doing. We are not trying to change the laws, we are trying to help you understand them in a consistent manner. YOU are the one that is trying to change the laws, by making something unacceptable which, despite all the talk, is still acceptable. And, BTW, if the laws are unreasonable, that does sound to me like a reason to throw them out. > -Bob > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 29 11:22:40 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:22:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double disclosure In-Reply-To: <479E8275.6070602@ntlworld.com> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be><080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be><084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DF1C5.2090400@ulb.ac.be> <479E8275.6070602@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <479EFE70.4030608@ulb.ac.be> > [nige1] > As I understand EBU regulations, below 3N, I think we are meant to > alert doubles of > [A] Natural suit bids unless they are take-out. > [B] Notrump and artificial bids unless they penalty. > > As expected, apart from simple cases, few players get this right. > > AG : that's OK, there are the EBU regulations. Belgian regulations are that no double shall be alerted. Players get it right, but the rule is bad. Not only because some meanings would pass unnoticed. Would you equire about a double of a weak 2-bid ? Yet I play it as allowing a leave-in (Weiss). But also because enquiring would create UI, e.g. enquiring after 1D-D-RD would create UI that you own some values (else you wouldn't even imagine that it pight be uncommon). As many of you will have understood, I hate rules that create gatuitous UI. Best regards Alain From mustikka at charter.net Tue Jan 29 11:30:17 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:30:17 -0800 Subject: [blml] "Acceptable" References: <000301c86241$2fceafd0$fd145e47@DFYXB361><200801290642.AA12237@geller204.nifty.com> <479EF19E.6090000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000f01c86261$f1980240$fd145e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS > Robert Geller wrote: >> Jerry is certainly correct that sometimes, especially in >> lower level games, there can be problems. if you >> are familiar with the opponents systems then you can >> help yourself by almost never asking questions during >> the auction. I agree this is less than desirable. >> But unless we're using screens this seems unavoidable. >> >> But it's certainly not (IMO) a reason for throwing out the >> laws as they now are. >> > Herman writes: > But that's not what we are doing. We are not trying to change the > laws, we are trying to help you understand them in a consistent > manner. YOU are the one that is trying to change the laws, by making > something unacceptable which, despite all the talk, is still acceptable. Raija: If you mean by "acceptable" the 4NT-5D/one ace case, you have made it clear that it is acceptable to you to not explain the partnership agreement. It is unacceptable to a great many others, who will consider that action premeditated concealment of partnership agreement. I don't want to continue the arguments, just wanted to comment on the "acceptable". From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 29 10:05:20 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:05:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004f01c86262$6c9cc6b0$d9d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Slightly off-topic is this anecdote. An expert Canberra pair > had differing agreements for defensive bidding against strong > NT openings and weak 1NT openings. I opened a 14-16 1NT, > which one expert deemed to be a strong NT, while his partner > deemed it to be a weak NT, and the eventual number was 800. > > ;-) > +=+ Er, which way? +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 29 10:05:20 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:05:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004f01c86262$6c9cc6b0$d9d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Slightly off-topic is this anecdote. An expert Canberra pair > had differing agreements for defensive bidding against strong > NT openings and weak 1NT openings. I opened a 14-16 1NT, > which one expert deemed to be a strong NT, while his partner > deemed it to be a weak NT, and the eventual number was 800. > > ;-) > +=+ Er, which way? +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 29 10:52:35 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:52:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Double disclosure References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be><080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be><084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie><479DF1C5.2090400@ulb.ac.be> <479E8275.6070602@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <005001c86262$6d9e3120$d9d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:33 AM Subject: [blml] Double disclosure > > [nige1] > As I understand EBU regulations, below 3N, I think we > are meant to alert doubles of > [A] Natural suit bids unless they are take-out. > [B] Notrump and artificial bids unless they penalty. > > As expected, apart from simple cases, few players get > this right. > +=+ An interesting concept has been floated - that of only alerting 'highly unusual' doubles. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 29 11:30:38 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:30:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0801281903i7c8cf2c8k2f32c9802819c0bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005101c86262$6eb79060$d9d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:03 AM Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > I am still hoping for a wise example of how to explain when you are > unsure. Again, this ABF regulation has provided nothing of that. > > Careful readers of my previous posts (if any) will note that I asked > the same question about a week ago to Grattan, and he counselled > patience without promising any answer. I admit that I really doubt > that an answer will be forthcoming from the TPTB. They do not enjoy > dabbling in probability when the subject is partnership agreements. > It is just not their style to think in such terms. How I would like > to be proven wrong in this case! > +=+ Ah, Jerry, that I could respond so simply. I am one of the members of the WBFLC who thinks it right to comment on major subjects when they are discussed on blml. The first requirement if I do so is to know how much of the ground I stand on is firm, and how much needs to be qualified as personal opinion. So I do sometimes hold back while I consult colleagues. Consultation can be a difficult exercise - there are a number who consider it is unproductive, unnecessary, perhaps even undesirable, at best that there is no obligation, to get involved with the 'chatter' (sic) on here. Of late the intensive efforts of the subcommittee have been directed away from the dWS question - which is regarded as a waste of time to talk about because the answer is still what it has been for over 20 years (an answer that will occasion HDW no joy since it does not support his opinion.) We are deeply into debating 2007 Law 27C, and up to now unresolved upon it. The subject is consuming our time. Turning to the question mentioned in your paragraph above, the official position internationally is in line* with the ACBL text. A player is under an obligation to know his agreements. If he is "unsure", the position is that either he does not have an agreement or he does have an agreement and has forgotten it. If he does not have an agreement he should say so. If he persuades himself he has an agreement but has forgotten it he is in a difficult position because he is under an obligation to say what his agreement is and failure to do so is a violation of law. He should definitely not volunteer a statement as to how he is taking it; this is extraneous information. His best course of action, in my opinion, is to summon the Director and tell him his difficulty. Inter alia, the Director will then take care of the UI situations. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [*more or less, if I have read them correctly] . From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 29 15:21:54 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:21:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801281903i7c8cf2c8k2f32c9802819c0bf@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0801281903i7c8cf2c8k2f32c9802819c0bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 28, 2008, at 10:03 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Jerry Fusselman asked:] > >> 1. Is it good or okay in MS to say, "I'm taking it as....?" >> For example, a 2NT call that "I'm taking it as Lebensohl" or >> "I'm taking it as strong." Or can you give a better example >> of a good-style statement to make in this situation under MS? > > [Paraphrase of Law in ABF Alert Regulation, clause 9.2:] > >>> If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a >>> call, you must say so (by saying, "Undiscussed", for >>> example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. >>> When, however, as a result of partnership experience and >>> style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely >>> meaning of an undiscussed call, that information should be >>> given to opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, you should >>> not offer statements such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm >>> treating it as...". Such a response is improper as it gives >>> unauthorised information to partner. > > Thanks so much, Richard, this is certainly to the point! > > I want to focus on the ABF's last two sentences. First I note they > say *how* *not* to do it, but not *how* to do it. Is it possible to > achieve what the ABF desires? They say it is wrong to say, "I take it > to mean X." What do they want someone to say? "Perhaps "I think it > is X." or "It is probably X" or "I am almost sure it is X." ? Are > these better in light of the regulation? I don't see how. To me, > they convey the same information. Both are just as much UI to > partner. > > Do we really think he is going to say "I think it is X" and then play > it as something else? > > Perhaps the ABF wants the announcement to be something truly lacking > in UI to partner, such as "Mostly likely it is A or B, and I refuse to > say which is more likely, and it might even be C or something I have > not thought of. I will not say how I am playing it." Would this > satisfy the ABF in terms of little or no UI to partner. The problem, > which I hope is obvious, is that little or no AI is provided to the > opponents. > > I don't believe that the ABF alert-explanation regulations have solved > the problem of how to get useful AI to the opponents without giving UI > to partner. It looks to me like they are deceiving themselves into > thinking that it is possible. > > I am still hoping for a wise example of how to explain when you are > unsure. Again, this ABF regulation has provided nothing of that. > > Careful readers of my previous posts (if any) will note that I asked > the same question about a week ago to Grattan, and he counselled > patience without promising any answer. I admit that I really doubt > that an answer will be forthcoming from the TPTB. They do not enjoy > dabbling in probability when the subject is partnership agreements. > It is just not their style to think in such terms. How I would like > to be proven wrong in this case! "We don't have an agreement, but..." What more do you tell them? You think it's probably X. Why? Ask yourself, What is there about the agreements you do have that makes you think it's probably X? Tell them that. And if your own uncertainty is enough to affect your subsequent call(s), ask yourself what is there about your agreements that make you uncertain, and tell them that too. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 29 15:47:36 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:47:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801282156q59e0b537oeae05c0ae5652d41@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0801282004qd3e248fv76eca455a154f99d@mail.gmail.com> <200801290515.AA12231@geller204.nifty.com> <2b1e598b0801282156q59e0b537oeae05c0ae5652d41@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <23F8A5F8-7340-43C3-9036-22B8806EFBEC@starpower.net> On Jan 29, 2008, at 12:56 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Robert Geller writes: >> Jerry Fusselman writes: >>> I just want you and David to admit that giving UI is sometimes >>> harmful, >> >> Yes, but UI is harmless unless it could have affected partner's >> bidding or play, and in that case score adjustments can rectify >> the harm. So there are ample mechanisms in place for dealing >> with the problems created by UI. >> >> If David or Matthias say "UI is harmless" IMO they really don't >> mean mean this literally, but rather they are using this as >> a shorthand for what I wrote in the above paragraph (which >> everyone here knows, so we don't have to write it out in >> full every single time). > > Ample mechanisms, you say? Then why not repeal Law 20F5a? Why not > allow perusing your own convention card and system notes to give a > definitive answer to an opponent's question? Seriously, I want to > know. > > I think the reason is that UI is difficult to recognize and deal with. > That's why Law 20F5a was born, and it is why you cannot look at your > own convention card during the hand. > > Here is one example of how difficult UI is to handle. Sometimes I am > declarer and before the opening lead, the opponents explain that there > has been a misexplanation on their side. They are not supposed to, > but they believe in full disclosure and want to remove the MI. And it > helps them avoid a later MI ruling! Probably, we have all had that > experience. > > The director usually tells the defenders not to do it next time, and > leaves before the hand is played. Has that been your experience, if > the director is called at all? Has anyone on BLML *ever* seen any > adjustment for the benefit of the NOS in response to this violation of > clearing up the MI too soon? Probably not. How could anyone prove > that the resulting UI was helpful for the defense? Unless clear, > blatant, and on the opening lead, it is generally beyond my > capabilities. > > I just think that "ample mechanisms to deal with UI" is an overbid, > and I think our laws recognize that---in Law 20F5a as well as the > usual regulation that you cannot look at your own convention card and > the time at which defenders are supposed to confess about MI during > the auction. > > So even if David and Matthias are merely saying that we have ample > mechanisms for dealing with UI, I would question that. And neither > has said that's what they meant. > > Also, sometimes, such as Herman's classic 4NT confusion case, the MI > is rather obviously innocuous compared to the UI. That is to say, MI > during the remainder of the auction won't cause problems if it is > cleared up before the opening lead, but UI may well cause huge > problems. > > I just do not think that blanket statements about the relative badness > of MI vs. UI are accurate, and they are not supported by our laws, > which, as I have mentioned in the three cases above, sometimes require > MI to remain present in order to reduce UI. > > That's three cases I have listed in the laws where UI is considered > worse than MI. Think about it. Three is a lot. > > Another way of looking at it is this: What percentage of the UI that > happens at the table is eventually revealed to the opponents? Perhaps > 30%? What percentage of the MI that happens at the table is > eventually revealed to the opponents? Perhaps 80%? Are both > difficult for the director to handle? Yes. Do both lead to appeals? > I think so. It seems obvious to me that UI and MI are both problems, > and to pretend that one is always light and the other is always heavy > cannot be right. The current disclosure laws are built to the "Kaplan paradigm"; their objective is to simulate as closely as possible an ideal situation in which each of one's opponents has a correct and complete copy of one's bidding agreements which they are able to consult privately without their partner or opponents knowing they have done so. Jerry's seems to be suggesting an extended paradigm, in which the laws would be adjusted (see his first paragraph) to simulate an ideal situation in which one's opponents not only were in possession of such a magic document, as Kaplan would have it, but were required to consult it at every call. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 29 15:55:42 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:55:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801282349l26033e2eud4ff960f67b262d9@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0801282004qd3e248fv76eca455a154f99d@mail.gmail.com> <200801290515.AA12231@geller204.nifty.com> <2b1e598b0801282156q59e0b537oeae05c0ae5652d41@mail.gmail.com> <000301c86241$2fceafd0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> <2b1e598b0801282349l26033e2eud4ff960f67b262d9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 29, 2008, at 2:49 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Style question: Why do most or all of the MI advocates write quotes > around "what is better for the game"? Are they casting doubt on > whether the concept has meaning? Do they think the subject should be > ignored? Or is it some other reason? Because they know that it's a mysterious and ineffable quality that can't be defined, that everyone has a slightly different notion of despite an intuitive confidence that they know it when they see it. It has nothing to do with MI, or any particular advocacy. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 29 16:37:02 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:37:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <479EECC7.2070901@skynet.be> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> <467AEB5D-A3B8-47BD-80FB-4875FB9E6A13@starpower.net> <479E0192.20806@skynet.be> <07A9A3CC-AA29-42BD-A6E7-EDEA31D9A5BE@starpower.net> <479EECC7.2070901@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jan 29, 2008, at 4:07 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Jan 28, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>> Herman has yet to offer an interpretation of L20F5 by which "nor >>>> may >>>> he indicate in any manner" would prohibit one from correcting the >>>> misunderstanding by means of a subsequent explanation yet not >>>> prohibit one from correcting the misunderstanding by means of a >>>> subsequent call. Nor has he been prepared to defend the position >>>> that calls are subject to the same DWS principles as explanations. >>>> Until he does one or the other, we can logically ignore any >>>> arguments >>>> for the DWS that depend on L20F5. >>> I have answered that one too. I'm not going to look it up to >>> paste and >>> copy. >> >> It seems I owe Herman an apology, as I am unable to find his answer >> anywhere. I would humbly abjure him to reconsider, and, as a >> personal boon, to look it up to paste and copy. > > There are too many messages to go look it up. > I'll answer it here. > > We're discussing what the hierarchy of the laws is. We need to figure > out what laws restrict ones actions. You think that not giving MI is a > stronger law than not correcting MI. I think the reverse. Whatever we > think however, there are still laws governing what one can bid. I'm > sure you'll agree that the laws regarding insufficient bids are > stronger than those about not correcting MI. > > I also believe the UI laws are stronger than this law. > > So if there is any LA left that clears up the misinformation, a player > should take that one. But when all the LA's clear up the > misinformation, that should be allowed. > > This whole discussion is about taking an otherwise illegal action in > order to avoid breaking some other law, so why should one more dilemma > bother us? Not my side of the discussion. The whole *DWS* -- the *whole* DWS -- is about taking an "otherwise illegal" action in order to avoid breaking some other law. What I do not understand is how Herman can advocate taking an "otherwise illegal" action -- deliberately offering a misexplanation that doesn't "give the show away" -- in order to avoid breaking some other law, but refuse to advocate taking a *perfectly legal* action -- deliberately choosing an inferior call that doesn't give the show away -- in order to avoid breaking that same law. Herman avoids answering the question by trying to restrict the discussion to "what the hierarchy of the laws is". But that is completely irrelevant to his refusal to advocate an action that is patently legal. I don't see how "the hierarchy of the laws", whatever Herman might think it is, can justify an "otherwise illegal" action yet not an entirely legal one that accomplishes the same purpose! While we know that they would be mistaken, some people just might think that it has something to do with the fact that a "DWS explanation", as Herman himself has admitted, rates to produce a better score for Herman, while a "DWS bid" rates to produce a worse one. If nothing else, that "dilemma" should bother Herman. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Jan 29 16:45:54 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:45:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Double disclosure References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be><080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be><084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie><479DF1C5.2090400@ulb.ac.be><479E8275.6070602@ntlworld.com> <005001c86262$6d9e3120$d9d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <0b9801c8628e$0875b8f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> [nige1] >> As I understand EBU regulations, below 3N, I think we >> are meant to alert doubles of >> [A] Natural suit bids unless they are take-out. >> [B] Notrump and artificial bids unless they penalty. >> >> As expected, apart from simple cases, few players get >> this right. >> > +=+ An interesting concept has been floated - that of > only alerting 'highly unusual' doubles. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > My experience has been entirely different from Nigel's. I have found that people do get this right (including alerting doubles that are "values") and that they seem to prefer the simplicity, even though it sometimes results in quite silly alerts for doubles that are clearly penalty. Stefanie Rohan London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 29 17:14:22 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:14:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> <467AEB5D-A3B8-47BD-80FB-4875FB9E6A13@starpower.net> <479E0192.20806@skynet.be> <07A9A3CC-AA29-42BD-A6E7-EDEA31D9A5BE@starpower.net> <479EECC7.2070901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <479F50DE.8050900@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Not my side of the discussion. The whole *DWS* -- the *whole* DWS -- > is about taking an "otherwise illegal" action in order to avoid > breaking some other law. What I do not understand is how Herman can > advocate taking an "otherwise illegal" action -- deliberately > offering a misexplanation that doesn't "give the show away" -- in > order to avoid breaking some other law, but refuse to advocate taking > a *perfectly legal* action -- deliberately choosing an inferior call > that doesn't give the show away -- in order to avoid breaking that > same law. > Oh, but I do, did I not make myself clear? I thought you were talking of making any call that gave the show away, and I said that I did not believe one could take a call that was suggested by UI. But when there are more than one calls, neither suggested by the UI, I absolutely believe one should choose the one that is least likely to "give the game away". Sorry if that was unclear. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 29 17:25:27 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:25:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0801282004qd3e248fv76eca455a154f99d@mail.gmail.com> <200801290515.AA12231@geller204.nifty.com> <2b1e598b0801282156q59e0b537oeae05c0ae5652d41@mail.gmail.com> <000301c86241$2fceafd0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> <2b1e598b0801282349l26033e2eud4ff960f67b262d9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <479F5377.4040508@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 29, 2008, at 2:49 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> Style question: Why do most or all of the MI advocates write quotes >> around "what is better for the game"? Are they casting doubt on >> whether the concept has meaning? Do they think the subject should be >> ignored? Or is it some other reason? > > Because they know that it's a mysterious and ineffable quality that > can't be defined, that everyone has a slightly different notion of > despite an intuitive confidence that they know it when they see it. > It has nothing to do with MI, or any particular advocacy. > Well Eric, I give you the choice between two sets of laws: - one set has an internal inconsistency, making a player required to do one thing at one moment, completely the opposite the next; - the other one does not have that inconsistency - one set makes that it is to opponents' benefit to ask all sorts of questions; - the other one is neutral as to the asking of questions - one set leaves players in the dark as to what to do when they are uncertain of some things; - the other one provides a solution independent on the level of certainty - one set requires the TD to make a decision based on what he thinks the player thought at the time; - the other one needs no mind reading; - one set contains a law that is impossible to police, even if players break that law, it is unclear how one should punish them (DALB suggested 90IMPs PP) - the other has a law which it is to the players' benefit not to break, it does not need a penalty as the forbidden action already carries penalties (of the UI kind) - one set of laws makes for a game in which bidding misunderstandings are almost always made known to the opponents, who can make good use of them and inflict heavy penalties; - the other one is very much more like the game behind screens or on-line, in which bidding misunderstandings are punished by reaching inferior contracts but not silly ones, and in which it is possible for pairs to land on their feet (unaided by UI, of course) - one set of laws contains lots of UI; - the other one far less These are not "mysterious and ineffable qualities that can't be defined" No-one has "slightly different notions about these things". These are true advantages. You can take them or leave them. You can find them more or less important than "telling lies". But you cannot say that they are not verifiably advantageous. > > 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 ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 29 17:33:02 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:33:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <479EEE96.5030703@skynet.be> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> <467AEB5D-A3B8-47BD-80FB-4875FB9E6A13@starpower.net> <479E0192.20806@skynet.be> <07A9A3CC-AA29-42BD-A6E7-EDEA31D9A5BE@starpower.net> <001901c861d5$5cd17ba0$167472e0$@com> <479EEE96.5030703@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jan 29, 2008, at 4:15 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Jan 28, 2008, at 12:43 PM, David Burn wrote: >> >>> I think he (or it may have been someone else) said that since you >>> have to do >>> something at your turn, and since your call might indicate that a >>> mistaken >>> explanation has been given by someone or other, L20F5 may be >>> superseded by >>> the requirements of L17C. >> >> For the DWS to apply, you must know what your partner mistakenly >> thinks the auction has meant up to the point of explaining his call, >> as that is the basis on which the "DWS explanation" is selected over >> the "L75 explanation". If you do, you will always be able to choose >> a "DWS call", from the same basis, which will prevent both your >> partner and your opponents from knowing that you're having a mixup. >> L17C merely requires you to make a call; it doesn't require that it >> be a sensible one, or suited to your hand. > > If you believe that such a call is always possible, then you have > answered my question: yes, I do believe that L20F5 restricts your > choices to such a call that does not clear up that there has been a > mistake. > > However, it seems to me more logical to assume that such a call is not > always available, or would be based on UI. In that case, making the > call is still required (you are not allowed to sit there until hell > freezes over), and that breaking of L20F5 must be deemed acceptable. > >>> For example, South opens 1S and North bids 2NT, explained by South >>> as a >>> game-forcing raise. The actual methods are that 2NT shows a limit >>> raise or >>> better, and North actually has a limit raise. South bids 3S, which >>> a DWS >>> North will explain as forcing and then pass it. A MS North will >>> explain it >>> as a sign-off facing a limit raise and then pass it, but in either >>> case >>> North's pass will indicate that South's explanation was an error, >>> and thus >>> be in breach of L20F5. >> >> Right! Under the DWS interpretaton of L20F5, if the DWSist explains >> it as forcing and then passes it, he completely undoes the effect of >> his just-given explanation, indicating that South's explanation was >> in error, passing UI to partner, and informing the opponents that he >> is in the midst of a partnership misunderstanding. > > Well, either that or he psyched the previous bid. > >> I thought the >> whole point of the DWS was to avoid doing that, even, indeed, by >> violating L75 if necessary. So why does the DWS not require that he >> bid 4S in David's example? 4S conceals the fact that South's >> explanation was in error, avoids giving UI to partner, avoids >> informing the opponents about the mixup, and directly breaks no other >> law. > > except L16. > Which I do consider to be stronger than L20F5. Herman continues to obfuscate the issue by failing to understand that by making this an issue of "the hierarchy of the laws" he assumes his desired conclusion. The MS has a different reading of L20F5, by which the question of where it "fits" in some "hierarchy" is meaningless. Here, though, even on Herman's terms this doesn't make sense. The DWS chooses explanations that fit the context of partner's misunderstanding of the auction rather than of one's own correct understanding. The same difference in context is equally determinative of the set of logical calls, so for consistency it would seem as thought the DWS should use the same context to make that determination. Only then does L16, which constrains one's choice from one's available set of logical calls to those that are not suggested by any available UI, become relevant, and applies with equal force to either context. The majority position in the DWS debate depends on interpreting the laws to be internally self-consistent. If we allow Herman to convince us that the subject of the debate is which laws are "weaker" or "stronger" than L20F5, he will have already won. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Jan 29 17:41:24 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:41:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lingua Franca Message-ID: <0bf001c86295$c96f1a90$0100a8c0@stefanie> BLML is conducted in English, and I realise that this is very inconvenient for those who are not native English speakers. It does not help matters that English is more idiomatic than most other languages. So when "lying about one's agreements" is used as a shorthand for "answering opponents' questions about your system according to some other principle than full and free disclosure", it is understandable that there may be some confusion, especially if "lying" is translated into a person's native language in some weird way or with unexpected connotations. This person then might assume that the word was used as an appeal to some other authority (such as the Bible, which as far as I know contains no prohibitions of lying). However, the misunderstanding was cleared up, or so I thought. Yet when I once again used the word "lying" it was again pounced upon by the same correspondent as before. This leads me to believe that the misunderstanding was not in good faith, and that the palaver about the use of the word was simply a red herring meant to draw attention from the paucity of the correspondent's arguments. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 29 18:18:06 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:18:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <479EEF85.7060803@skynet.be> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie><479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be><080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie><479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be><084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie><479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479E003D.2020901@skynet.be> <003501c8620b$312ec490$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479EEF85.7060803@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Jan 29, 2008, at 4:19 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > We are not discussing whether my actions are in violation of bridge > laws. We are discussing whether my violation is more or less > acceptable than yours. Just repeating that I have made a violation > does not offer anything in argument. Herman: That is what YOU WISH we were discussing. You may even have fooled yourself into thinking that *is* what we are discussing. It is certainly the only thing YOU have been discussing. What the rest of us -- including the minority that favor the DWS -- are discussing is whether what you refer to above as "Hirsch's violation" is in fact real or merely a figment of your imagination. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Tue Jan 29 18:21:45 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:21:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0801281903i7c8cf2c8k2f32c9802819c0bf@mail.gmail.com> <005101c86262$6eb79060$d9d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <006201c8629b$6c17a140$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Grattan Endicott> >> >> I am still hoping for a wise example of how to explain when you are >> unsure. Again, this ABF regulation has provided nothing of that. >> >> Careful readers of my previous posts (if any) will note that I asked >> the same question about a week ago to Grattan, and he counselled >> patience without promising any answer. I admit that I really doubt >> that an answer will be forthcoming from the TPTB. They do not enjoy >> dabbling in probability when the subject is partnership agreements. >> It is just not their style to think in such terms. How I would like >> to be proven wrong in this case! >> > +=+ Ah, Jerry, that I could respond so simply. I am one of the > members of the WBFLC who thinks it right to comment on major > subjects when they are discussed on blml. The first requirement > if I do so is to know how much of the ground I stand on is firm, > and how much needs to be qualified as personal opinion. So I do > sometimes hold back while I consult colleagues. Consultation can > be a difficult exercise - there are a number who consider it is > unproductive, unnecessary, perhaps even undesirable, at best that > there is no obligation, to get involved with the 'chatter' (sic) on here. > Of late the intensive efforts of the subcommittee have been > directed away from the dWS question - which is regarded as a > waste of time to talk about because the answer is still what it has > been for over 20 years (an answer that will occasion HDW no > joy since it does not support his opinion.) We are deeply into > debating 2007 Law 27C, and up to now unresolved upon it. The > subject is consuming our time. > Turning to the question mentioned in your paragraph above, > the official position internationally is in line* with the ACBL text. > A player is under an obligation to know his agreements. If he is > "unsure", the position is that either he does not have an agreement > or he does have an agreement and has forgotten it. If he does not > have an agreement he should say so. If he persuades himself he has > an agreement but has forgotten it he is in a difficult position because > he is under an obligation to say what his agreement is and failure to > do so is a violation of law. He should definitely not volunteer a > statement as to how he is taking it; this is extraneous information. > His best course of action, in my opinion, is to summon the Director > and tell him his difficulty. Inter alia, the Director will then take care > of the UI situations. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > [*more or less, if I have read them correctly] I think your take is correct, Grattan. John > > . > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 29 18:22:20 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:22:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Double disclosure In-Reply-To: <005001c86262$6d9e3120$d9d4403e@Mildred> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be><080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be><084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie><479DF1C5.2090400@ulb.ac.be> <479E8275.6070602@ntlworld.com> <005001c86262$6d9e3120$d9d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Jan 29, 2008, at 4:52 AM, wrote: > From: "Guthrie" > >> As I understand EBU regulations, below 3N, I think we >> are meant to alert doubles of >> [A] Natural suit bids unless they are take-out. >> [B] Notrump and artificial bids unless they penalty. >> >> As expected, apart from simple cases, few players get >> this right. > > +=+ An interesting concept has been floated - that of > only alerting 'highly unusual' doubles. One hopes that whoever floating such an interesting concept also floated an interesting definition to go with it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 29 18:24:03 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:24:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <200801290642.AA12237@geller204.nifty.com> References: <000301c86241$2fceafd0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> <200801290642.AA12237@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <479F6133.4000603@ntlworld.com> [Robert Geller] Jerry is certainly correct that sometimes, especially in lower level games, there can be problems. if you are familiar with the opponents systems then you can help yourself by almost never asking questions during the auction. I agree this is less than desirable. But unless we're using screens this seems unavoidable. But it's certainly not (IMO) a reason for throwing out the laws as they now are. [nige1] Bob feels that these problem arise mainly in "low level" games. That is the level at which most of us play and the problem seems to be getting worse. For example, at the EBU Brighton Congress, year on year, "no agreement" is a mantra that is increasingly heard. Jerry Fusselman is correct. Players are increasingly taking on board the wisdom received from legal officials on BLML and RGB ... [A] If you don't know for sure then *you mustn't guess*. [B] Even if you do know, there's no need to disclose *general knowledge* and experience. IMO, a lethal cocktail, as far as disclosure is concerned :( From john at asimere.com Tue Jan 29 18:26:27 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:26:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0801281903i7c8cf2c8k2f32c9802819c0bf@mail.gmail.com><001201c8622e$1ee76d00$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <2b1e598b0801282202y43c5e440ve047614230508b5d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <006701c8629c$14407d10$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 6:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Hirsch Davis answered:] >> >> If you know the >> agreement, then you state it directly. If you believe that you know the >> agreement, but have some small doubt, you still state it directly. If >> you >> have no idea what the agreement is, but know that there is in fact an >> agreement, this would be a good time to call the TD, before you commit an >> infraction. >> > > Thanks so much for understanding my confusion, and for helping the > discussion with such a clear answer! > > I like your answer. It is totally different from a previous answer to > the effect that all doubt must be disclosed. There is seemingly no > overlap with that position. I like your position much better. You > gave no case in which any doubt is expressed. If I may, your position > is expressible as follows: > > 1. If you know the agreement, then you state it directly. "10/10, excellent" as my arithmetic teacher used to write on my papers. > > 2. If you believe that you know the agreement, but have some small > doubt, you still state it directly. "I'm not certain but believe it to be 'X'" > > 4. If you have no idea what the agreement is, but know that there is > in fact an agreement, this would be a good time to call the TD, before > you commit an infraction. "We have agreed this, and I can't remember" > > I would like your thoughts on how to complete this algorithm with two > more cases I am adding below, if you would be so kind: > > 3. If you have medium doubt (i.e., more doubt than small doubt but > less doubt that "no idea"), then you ___ We have discussed this ; I think it's 'X' but it could be 'Y'; would you like me to leave the table?" > > 5. If you have no obvious agreement, but you are pretty sure that both > of you are both on the same wavelength of how to extend your > agreements to the current case, then you ____ "Whilst we have no agreement; our peer group plays it as 'X' and I'd expect partner would know this" > > Would you be willing to fill in the blanks, or maybe express the > sentences better than I have? How about telling opponents the truth; seditious material - in the light of other threads :) John > > Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Tue Jan 29 18:29:12 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:29:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0801281903i7c8cf2c8k2f32c9802819c0bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007201c8629c$768fe0a0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:03 AM Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Jerry Fusselman asked:] > >>1. Is it good or okay in MS to say, "I'm taking it as....?" >>For example, a 2NT call that "I'm taking it as Lebensohl" or >>"I'm taking it as strong." Or can you give a better example >>of a good-style statement to make in this situation under MS? By stating you will take it as something, you fall into the dWS trap. You have made a statement about your own hand, because your reply will (and you can't help it) be based on your own holdings. Why don't you just say "haven't a friggin clue!" ? > > [Paraphrase of Law in ABF Alert Regulation, clause 9.2:] > >>>If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a >>>call, you must say so (by saying, "Undiscussed", for >>>example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. >>>When, however, as a result of partnership experience and >>>style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely >>>meaning of an undiscussed call, that information should be >>>given to opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, you should >>>not offer statements such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm >>>treating it as...". Such a response is improper as it gives >>>unauthorised information to partner. > > Thanks so much, Richard, this is certainly to the point! > > I want to focus on the ABF's last two sentences. First I note they > say *how* *not* to do it, but not *how* to do it. Is it possible to > achieve what the ABF desires? They say it is wrong to say, "I take it > to mean X." What do they want someone to say? "Perhaps "I think it > is X." or "It is probably X" or "I am almost sure it is X." ? Are > these better in light of the regulation? I don't see how. To me, > they convey the same information. Both are just as much UI to > partner. > > Do we really think he is going to say "I think it is X" and then play > it as something else? > > Perhaps the ABF wants the announcement to be something truly lacking > in UI to partner, such as "Mostly likely it is A or B, and I refuse to > say which is more likely, and it might even be C or something I have > not thought of. I will not say how I am playing it." Would this > satisfy the ABF in terms of little or no UI to partner. The problem, > which I hope is obvious, is that little or no AI is provided to the > opponents. > > I don't believe that the ABF alert-explanation regulations have solved > the problem of how to get useful AI to the opponents without giving UI > to partner. It looks to me like they are deceiving themselves into > thinking that it is possible. > > I am still hoping for a wise example of how to explain when you are > unsure. Again, this ABF regulation has provided nothing of that. > > Careful readers of my previous posts (if any) will note that I asked > the same question about a week ago to Grattan, and he counselled > patience without promising any answer. I admit that I really doubt > that an answer will be forthcoming from the TPTB. They do not enjoy > dabbling in probability when the subject is partnership agreements. > It is just not their style to think in such terms. How I would like > to be proven wrong in this case! > > Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 29 19:19:32 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:19:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Double disclosure References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be><080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be><084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie><479DF1C5.2090400@ulb.ac.be><479E8275.6070602@ntlworld.com><005001c86262$6d9e3120$d9d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <010701c862a3$867d77a0$70cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 5:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Double disclosure > On Jan 29, 2008, at 4:52 AM, > wrote: > >> From: "Guthrie" >> >>> As I understand EBU regulations, below 3N, I think we >>> are meant to alert doubles of >>> [A] Natural suit bids unless they are take-out. >>> [B] Notrump and artificial bids unless they penalty. >>> >>> As expected, apart from simple cases, few players get >>> this right. >> >> +=+ An interesting concept has been floated - that of >> only alerting 'highly unusual' doubles. > > One hopes that whoever floating such an interesting > concept also floated an interesting definition to go > with it. > +=+ Ah, you have anticipated my question at next week's meeting. More particularly I want to know the point at which doubles cease to be 'unusual' and become 'highly unusual'. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 29 20:40:53 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:40:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> <467AEB5D-A3B8-47BD-80FB-4875FB9E6A13@starpower.net> <479E0192.20806@skynet.be> <07A9A3CC-AA29-42BD-A6E7-EDEA31D9A5BE@starpower.net> <001901c861d5$5cd17ba0$167472e0$@com> <479EEE96.5030703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <479F8145.4040506@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Herman continues to obfuscate the issue by failing to understand that > by making this an issue of "the hierarchy of the laws" he assumes his > desired conclusion. Something the MS is of course not guilty of ;) > The MS has a different reading of L20F5, by > which the question of where it "fits" in some "hierarchy" is > meaningless. No, rather than assume that law is stronger or weaker than some other law, the MS assumes the law reads something that is not there in the language. Of course a far more sensible solution ;) > Here, though, even on Herman's terms this doesn't make > sense. The DWS chooses explanations that fit the context of > partner's misunderstanding of the auction rather than of one's own > correct understanding. The same difference in context is equally > determinative of the set of logical calls, so for consistency it > would seem as thought the DWS should use the same context to make > that determination. Only then does L16, which constrains one's > choice from one's available set of logical calls to those that are > not suggested by any available UI, become relevant, and applies with > equal force to either context. > Read that one agains and see if you can make sense of it. I cannot. rather surprising, since most of Eric's postings are far more lucid than this one. > The majority position in the DWS debate depends on interpreting the > laws to be internally self-consistent. If we allow Herman to > convince us that the subject of the debate is which laws are "weaker" > or "stronger" than L20F5, he will have already won. > OK, let's get this straight - if you allow me to bring arguments to the table, rather than just assume that you are right because you are right, then I might "win"? Seems to me like you're just not interested in the debate, you just want to discredit my points and not listen to sensible arguments. I don't know why I bother. > > 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 Tue Jan 29 20:43:28 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:43:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie><479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be><080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie><479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be><084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie><479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479E003D.2020901@skynet.be> <003501c8620b$312ec490$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479EEF85.7060803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <479F81E0.6000903@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 29, 2008, at 4:19 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> We are not discussing whether my actions are in violation of bridge >> laws. We are discussing whether my violation is more or less >> acceptable than yours. Just repeating that I have made a violation >> does not offer anything in argument. > > Herman: That is what YOU WISH we were discussing. You may even have > fooled yourself into thinking that *is* what we are discussing. It > is certainly the only thing YOU have been discussing. > > What the rest of us -- including the minority that favor the DWS -- > are discussing is whether what you refer to above as "Hirsch's > violation" is in fact real or merely a figment of your imagination. > Yes Eric, I was under the impression that I was holding a discussion with people who wanted to find out which of the two positions is the "better" one. Even I was still interested in that question a few weeks ago. By now, I have realized that some of you have no real arguments other than that they know they are right because they have always been right, and that those same some of you have no intention of listening to interpretation and reason. Sad. > > 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 Tue Jan 29 20:45:51 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:45:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007201c8629c$768fe0a0$0701a8c0@john> References: <2b1e598b0801281903i7c8cf2c8k2f32c9802819c0bf@mail.gmail.com> <007201c8629c$768fe0a0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <479F826F.7010809@skynet.be> John Probst wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:03 AM > Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> [Jerry Fusselman asked:] >> >>> 1. Is it good or okay in MS to say, "I'm taking it as....?" >>> For example, a 2NT call that "I'm taking it as Lebensohl" or >>> "I'm taking it as strong." Or can you give a better example >>> of a good-style statement to make in this situation under MS? > > By stating you will take it as something, you fall into the dWS trap. You > have made a statement about your own hand, because your reply will (and you > can't help it) be based on your own holdings. Why don't you just say > "haven't a friggin clue!" ? Because that's not true - you do have a clue! And if you happen to guess right, you will have to convince the TD that you had no friggin clue, but still managed to get it right. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jan 29 20:52:50 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:52:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lingua Franca In-Reply-To: <0bf001c86295$c96f1a90$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <0bf001c86295$c96f1a90$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <479F8412.9090409@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > BLML is conducted in English, and I realise that this is very inconvenient > for those who are not native English speakers. It does not help matters that > English is more idiomatic than most other languages. > Stefanie, you must realize that my English is well up to the point. > So when "lying about one's agreements" is used as a shorthand for "answering > opponents' questions about your system according to some other principle > than full and free disclosure", it is understandable that there may be some > confusion, especially if "lying" is translated into a person's native > language in some weird way or with unexpected connotations. This person then > might assume that the word was used as an appeal to some other authority > (such as the Bible, which as far as I know contains no prohibitions of > lying). > > However, the misunderstanding was cleared up, or so I thought. Yet when I > once again used the word "lying" it was again pounced upon by the same > correspondent as before. This leads me to believe that the misunderstanding > was not in good faith, and that the palaver about the use of the word was > simply a red herring meant to draw attention from the paucity of the > correspondent's arguments. > My original question was (paraphrased) "What is so bad about giving MI?". Raija's answer was "because it is lying". You have said something similar, and I pointed out the flaws in your arguments. Now you tell me that you used "lying" as a synonym for "giving MI". If that is the case then your answer to my question "what is so bad about giving MI?" is "because it is giving MI". Forgive me for making this seem silly - but that's what it is. Either you are using an external frame of comparison (which I think you should not do), or you are simply saying "the dws is wrong because its actions are illegal". But since we have established that fact for ten years already, this argument is not very valid, is it? Again Stefanie, I am merely pointing out the fallacies of your argumentation, this says nothing about the validity of the dws directly. Except by showing that there is one less argument against dws. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From mustikka at charter.net Tue Jan 29 21:55:13 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:55:13 -0800 Subject: [blml] Quote References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> <467AEB5D-A3B8-47BD-80FB-4875FB9E6A13@starpower.net> <479E0192.20806@skynet.be> <07A9A3CC-AA29-42BD-A6E7-EDEA31D9A5BE@starpower.net> <001901c861d5$5cd17ba0$167472e0$@com> <479EEE96.5030703@skynet.be> <479F8145.4040506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301c862b9$3e7ed370$fd145e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" Herman responded to Eric L.: > Seems to me like you're just not interested in the debate, you just > want to discredit my points and not listen to sensible arguments. > > I don't know why I bother. Raija writing: I don't think anyone wants to listen much more, it has all been said many times. If you continue the discussion afterall, you might consider using *WBFLC* instead of *MS* in the future, in light of Grattan's recent post, cut and pasted here: QUOTE BEGIN Of late the intensive efforts of the subcommittee [of WBFLC] have been directed away from the dWS question - which is regarded as a waste of time to talk about because the answer is still what it has been for over 20 years (an answer that will occasion HDW no joy since it does not support his opinion.) QUOTE END Raija From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 29 22:20:40 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:20:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> <467AEB5D-A3B8-47BD-80FB-4875FB9E6A13@starpower.net> <479E0192.20806@skynet.be> <07A9A3CC-AA29-42BD-A6E7-EDEA31D9A5BE@starpower.net> <001901c861d5$5cd17ba0$167472e0$@com><479EEE96.5030703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001e01c862bc$d3217ca0$3cd3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible >> The majority position in the DWS debate depends on interpreting the laws to be internally self-consistent. If we allow Herman to convince us that the subject of the debate is which laws are "weaker" or "stronger" than L20F5, he will have already won. > +=+ I would hesitate to discuss what the 'majority' position might be. However, the orthodox 'official' position is that no violation of law occurs if a player when responding as the law requires to a question asked, conveys UI to partner as a by-product of his compliance with law. HDW would argue, maybe, that he cannot find the justification for this. TPTB would simply respond 'this is how it is, we are telling you and we don't have to spend time on your heresies'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Tue Jan 29 22:21:28 2008 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:21:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double disclosure In-Reply-To: References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47988596.1070406@skynet.be> <0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net> <4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be> <001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be> <008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be> <003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DF1C5.2090400@ulb.ac.be> <479E8275.6070602@ntlworld.com> <005001c86262$6d9e3120$d9d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:22:20 +0100, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 29, 2008, at 4:52 AM, > wrote: > >> From: "Guthrie" >> >>> As I understand EBU regulations, below 3N, I think we >>> are meant to alert doubles of >>> [A] Natural suit bids unless they are take-out. >>> [B] Notrump and artificial bids unless they penalty. >>> >>> As expected, apart from simple cases, few players get >>> this right. >> >> +=+ An interesting concept has been floated - that of >> only alerting 'highly unusual' doubles. > > One hopes that whoever floating such an interesting concept also > floated an interesting definition to go with it. Why? What is "usual", "unusual" or "highly unusual" in a given context is best known to those playing there. I should leave it as a question of fact to be decided by the TD or the TAC. Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From mustikka at charter.net Tue Jan 29 22:42:02 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:42:02 -0800 Subject: [blml] Lingua Franca References: <0bf001c86295$c96f1a90$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479F8412.9090409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001b01c862bf$c8d3abd0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lingua Franca > Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> BLML is conducted in English, and I realise that this is very >> inconvenient >> for those who are not native English speakers. It does not help matters >> that >> English is more idiomatic than most other languages. >> > > Stefanie, you must realize that my English is well up to the point. > >> So when "lying about one's agreements" is used as a shorthand for >> "answering >> opponents' questions about your system according to some other principle >> than full and free disclosure", it is understandable that there may be >> some >> confusion, especially if "lying" is translated into a person's native >> language in some weird way or with unexpected connotations. This person >> then >> might assume that the word was used as an appeal to some other authority >> (such as the Bible, which as far as I know contains no prohibitions of >> lying). >> >> However, the misunderstanding was cleared up, or so I thought. Yet when I >> once again used the word "lying" it was again pounced upon by the same >> correspondent as before. This leads me to believe that the >> misunderstanding >> was not in good faith, and that the palaver about the use of the word was >> simply a red herring meant to draw attention from the paucity of the >> correspondent's arguments. >> > > My original question was (paraphrased) "What is so bad about giving MI?". > Raija's answer was "because it is lying". You have said something > similar, and I pointed out the flaws in your arguments. You mention my name again. I would like to set things straight, just in case a newcomer reads your post and is misled. The original question in discussion was not any old MI, it was a specific and premeditated choice of giving MI in the form of *not correctly explaining one's partnership agreement* - which in one word is *lying* because the answer [one ace] is not the truth [partnership agreement]. I could have just quoted the Law but you had already said you will choose to break that law in order to not break another law. All this is water under the bridge now and mere chatter (as someone called it) since the argument was settled by the WBFLC in the past, and WBFLC has settled it, again, as I understand. Raija From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 29 22:38:01 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:38:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie><479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be><080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie><479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be><084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie><479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479E003D.2020901@skynet.be> <003501c8620b$312ec490$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479EEF85.7060803@skynet.be> <479F81E0.6000903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003b01c862bf$4a87d2b0$3cd3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 7:43 PM Subject: Re: >. By now, I have realized that some of you have no real arguments > other than that they know they are right because they have always been > right, and that those same some of you have no intention of listening > to interpretation and reason. Sad. > +=+ Just indeed as Herman will not listen to an interpretation of what 'to indicate' does not mean - a player does not 'indicate' when he passes information without purpose to do so but rather as a side effect of a compliance with law. Once you grasp this there is no conflict of one law with another and no priority to be established. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Tue Jan 29 22:52:02 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:52:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <23F8A5F8-7340-43C3-9036-22B8806EFBEC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c862c1$2ee74de0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............... > The current disclosure laws are built to the "Kaplan paradigm"; their > objective is to simulate as closely as possible an ideal situation in > which each of one's opponents has a correct and complete copy of > one's bidding agreements which they are able to consult privately > without their partner or opponents knowing they have done so. > Jerry's seems to be suggesting an extended paradigm, in which the > laws would be adjusted (see his first paragraph) to simulate an ideal > situation in which one's opponents not only were in possession of > such a magic document, as Kaplan would have it, but were required to > consult it at every call. I don't think we can give Kaplan any credit (or blame) for the current disclosure laws. They are essentially unchanged from long time before his influence on bridge began. As I have already documented we live with the same fundamental principles that have been obvious to every bridge player for at least 75 years now: Opponents are entitled to know at least as much of the system used as partner, no player should receive any aid to his memory and he must not use any extraneous information that he might receive from his partner. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 29 23:08:03 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:08:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: WBF Laws Committee Minutes, 1st September 1998 Item 8: If a player knows that his partner's call is conventional but says he cannot recall what was actually agreed the Director may in his discretion send the player away from the table and allow the partner to tell opponents in his absence what the agreement is. The Director must be called and no action may be taken before he arrives. The partner continues in the action on the basis that the player has understood his call, and does not use the unauthorized information that his partner is uncertain of the meaning. The Director is strongly urged to remain at the table whilst the hand is completed. This procedure is only for the exact circumstances described; it does not apply when the player says that the position is undiscussed or there is no agreement. Item 14: The Committee's attention was drawn to an internet discussion as to whether it is legitimate for a player to address a question to the player who has made the call asked about. This abnormal procedure can only be followed with the consent of the Director, who must be called, and at an appropriate time in the absence of the player's partner. Furthermore the Director must be persuaded that the circumstances require it: it is to be avoided absolutely that a player should be allowed to verify from player A (who made the bid) whether the explanation of his partner B was correct. Players must correct their partner's explanations voluntarily at the due time specified in the Laws. Richard Hills: Earlier this month I was playing in a significant Aussie championship (The Last Train) with a less-than-expert friend as my partner. In the middle of a 3NT contract declarer summoned the Director in charge, and then had a chat with him away from the table. The Director in charge then ordered my partner to leave the table. Declarer then asked me if I followed the normal expert practice in 3NT, when returning partner's suit, of giving count by leading top from a doubleton or lowest from three small. I replied that I did. Presumably declarer's motive was to avoid a potential mess if my less-than-expert partner gave MI when answering the same question. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Graduates 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 Wed Jan 30 00:59:49 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:59:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lingua Franca In-Reply-To: <001b01c862bf$c8d3abd0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> References: <0bf001c86295$c96f1a90$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479F8412.9090409@skynet.be> <001b01c862bf$c8d3abd0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <479FBDF5.4090901@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 11:52 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Lingua Franca > > >> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> BLML is conducted in English, and I realise that this is very >>> inconvenient >>> for those who are not native English speakers. It does not help matters >>> that >>> English is more idiomatic than most other languages. >>> >> Stefanie, you must realize that my English is well up to the point. >> >>> So when "lying about one's agreements" is used as a shorthand for >>> "answering >>> opponents' questions about your system according to some other principle >>> than full and free disclosure", it is understandable that there may be >>> some >>> confusion, especially if "lying" is translated into a person's native >>> language in some weird way or with unexpected connotations. This person >>> then >>> might assume that the word was used as an appeal to some other authority >>> (such as the Bible, which as far as I know contains no prohibitions of >>> lying). >>> >>> However, the misunderstanding was cleared up, or so I thought. Yet when I >>> once again used the word "lying" it was again pounced upon by the same >>> correspondent as before. This leads me to believe that the >>> misunderstanding >>> was not in good faith, and that the palaver about the use of the word was >>> simply a red herring meant to draw attention from the paucity of the >>> correspondent's arguments. >>> >> My original question was (paraphrased) "What is so bad about giving MI?". >> Raija's answer was "because it is lying". You have said something >> similar, and I pointed out the flaws in your arguments. > > You mention my name again. I would like to set things straight, just in case > a newcomer reads your post and is misled. > > The original question in discussion was not any old MI, it was a specific > and premeditated choice of giving MI in the form of *not correctly > explaining one's partnership agreement* - which in one word is *lying* > because the answer [one ace] is not the truth [partnership agreement]. I > could have just quoted the Law but you had already said you will choose to > break that law in order to not break another law. > But either your argument relies on lying being some outside sin that I don't recognize counts within the bridge laws, or your argument is simply "the dws is wrong because it gives MI". Since that second sentence is not under debate (I agree with it) I assumed you were taking an argument of the first kind. I tried explaining that such an argument is invalid, since outside ethics do not apply within a game. I needn't have bothered. > All this is water under the bridge now and mere chatter (as someone called > it) since the argument was settled by the WBFLC in the past, and WBFLC has > settled it, again, as I understand. > You may think that. > Raija > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 hirsch9000 at verizon.net Wed Jan 30 01:02:47 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:02:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie><479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie><4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be><000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com><000701c85d51$a1aa5d10$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><037b01c85d61$0190b210$0100a8c0@stefanie><4796FD74.9070300@skynet.be><08ca01c85eac$72b1f430$0100a8c0@stefanie><4798D4C2.5080109@skynet.be><0bff01c85f0a$314423c0$0100a8c0@stefanie><4799B0AA.6070506@skynet.be><00e301c85f6c$42bbf4e0$0100a8c0@stefanie><9805CA45-B31D-44FC-9CB5-376E71195C00@starpower.net><479DEB58.5070909@skynet.be> <003c01c8620c$c7b95280$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479EF024.6020501@skynet.be> Message-ID: <009001c862d3$72f13110$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > Hirsch Davis wrote: >> >> Herman, >> >> The main purpose of the Laws is expressed in the first paragraph of the >> Introduction. Everything else is simply instructions on how to do it. >> >> There are some general principles that apply throughout. >> >> Full disclosure is one of them. > > Exactly! > One of them. > >> Not making use of UI provided by partner, particularly for your own >> advantage, is another. >> > > And not giving UI is also one. > No. In fact, I encourage you to find any Law that supports this argument. I'll be interested to see what you come up with. There are restrictions on the use of UI, not its creation. The exception would be the creation of UI in a deliberate attempt to communicate with partner, which would be a violation of L73B. However, in most cases, UI is governed by L73C or L16B1a. These Laws do not prohibit creating UI, which is impossible in a face to face game in any event. However, they do impose a duty on partner to handle the UI in a particular matter. > And now we need to decide which of these general principles is > strongest, if and when they clash. > > L20F5 is the prime example of such a clash. Without that law, the > player has a choice between clearing up the misexplanation and leaving > it be. The WBF have decided that he should leave it be. Thus, they > appear to think that not giving UI in this case is the stronger law! > L20F5 has been explained to you many times by people such as Grattan, Ton, and Kojak, all of whom are more expert than I. The brief version; it does not apply to actions required by other Laws. While such actions may make partner aware of his MI, it is an incidental byproduct of your compliance with the Laws, not a violation. If such should happen, partner will of course summon the TD immediately. I'll repeat it again, read the Introduction to the Laws. You don't have to guess which Law is strongest. The Lawmakers have told you how to interpret the language used in writing the Laws to make this determination. The Laws that you break that include the word "must", which defines the highest imperative in the Laws, include 72A, 72B1, 73C,, and, of course, 20F4. Violation of these Laws is a serious infraction. Older versions of the Laws suggest ostracism for the habitual offender. Hirsch From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Jan 30 01:49:22 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:49:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] old posting Message-ID: <479FC992.2050501@aol.com> Some time ago there was a posting in blml (I think from one of the "Johns".) in which it was recommended to dispense with commas, write in short sentences (I think no message exceeding 22 words) and perhaps in words of one or few syllables. Unfortunately I didn't conserve it so can't quote precisely or say exactly from whom it came. I wonder if he has ever read Proust and what his reaction was. Ciao, JE From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 30 02:05:01 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:05:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] old posting References: <479FC992.2050501@aol.com> Message-ID: <0cf301c862dc$23e18ad0$0100a8c0@stefanie> This was Probst (note the similarity in spelling with "Proust".) Anyway, I could not agree with him more. I know that many have a sentimental attachment to "Kaplanese", but dispensing with it could have made the Laws so much clearer to understand. There is a book I saw, I think in the United States, that had these Bridge-Rulings Flowcharts. For every situation for which a director might be called to the table, there was a flowchart. Very simple questions were asked, needing only yes/no answers... well, you know how a flowchart works. The DSC should have had access to this book... Stefanie Rohan London, England ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "blml bridge" Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 12:49 AM Subject: [blml] old posting > Some time ago there was a posting in blml (I think from one of the > "Johns".) in which it was recommended to dispense with commas, write in > short sentences (I think no message exceeding 22 words) and perhaps in > words of one or few syllables. Unfortunately I didn't conserve it so > can't quote precisely or say exactly from whom it came. > > I wonder if he has ever read Proust and what his reaction was. Ciao, JE > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jan 30 03:17:39 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:17:39 -0600 Subject: [blml] Double disclosure In-Reply-To: <010701c862a3$867d77a0$70cb403e@Mildred> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DF1C5.2090400@ulb.ac.be> <479E8275.6070602@ntlworld.com> <005001c86262$6d9e3120$d9d4403e@Mildred> <010701c862a3$867d77a0$70cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801291817s53ea81ebk6f9b1caf11f929b8@mail.gmail.com> [Eric] > > > > One hopes that whoever floating such an interesting > > concept also floated an interesting definition to go > > with it. [Grattan] > +=+ Ah, you have anticipated my question at next > week's meeting. More particularly I want to know > the point at which doubles cease to be 'unusual' > and become 'highly unusual'. ~ G ~ +=+ > [Jerry] The ACBL says to alert doubles with highly unusual and unexpected meanings: There is this to help explain what that means from the ACBL Alert Procedures document: "This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure. "Highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage. To ensure full disclosure, however, at the end of the auction and before the opening lead declarers are encouraged to volunteer to explain the auction (including available inferences)." You see? Though admittedly fuzzy---or rather just "fuzzy"---it is the best practical solution. Clear now? And please remember that it *should be* determined by historical usage rather than local geographical usage. Now that I have helped you, can anyone explain to me "local geographical"---is it the national, state, or county geography that it isn't determined by? Do you think the ACBL keeps a list of what is deemed highly unusual and publishes it so people know? Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jan 30 03:23:20 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:23:20 -0600 Subject: [blml] Double disclosure In-Reply-To: References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DF1C5.2090400@ulb.ac.be> <479E8275.6070602@ntlworld.com> <005001c86262$6d9e3120$d9d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801291823v55e4c896o41ebda032dc0dd6f@mail.gmail.com> Petrus Schuster OSB: > Why? > What is "usual", "unusual" or "highly unusual" in a given context is best > known to those playing there. > I should leave it as a question of fact to be decided by the TD or the TAC. > Regards, > Petrus > You had me going there for a while. Now I am sure you mean it tongue-in-cheek. (Not your fault---my gullibility quotient is rather high.) Yes, every TD and TAC determines what is alertable after the fact---that is hilarious. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 30 03:49:50 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:49:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids Message-ID: <0f3e01c862ea$c8877910$0100a8c0@stefanie> Orange Book 6 A 2: A psychic bid is a legitimate ploy as long as it contains the same element of surprise for the psycher's partner as it does for the opponents. Orange Book 6 B 8 ... misbids may be classified as Red, Amber or Green A couple of weeks ago I played in a Swiss teams against a pair playing Ghestem. We went through the formality of playing out the cards before writing down our expected +1100, but I got to thinking... It would be hard to rule a misbid Red unless there is a history of it. Opponents of Ghestem players will rarely report the misbid; it seems a mite churlish to call the director while writing down +1100. Besides, everyone knows that "you are allowed to misbid." Misbids are never reported. But sometimes players ARE damaged by Ghestem. Sometimes the penalty they extract is less than the value of the game or slam they were due to make. Sometimes the opponents manage to play in the Ghestem bidder's "real" suit, and the NOS get a negative score. But they will not get a ruling in their favour, because their opponents' forgetting of Ghestem has not been previously reported, and is assumed to be a one-off. When does a convention that is frequently misbid become a misexplanation? When does it become a psyche? Should "psyching" Ghestem when you really have a weak hand and 6 of the suit you are bidding (ie, always) be regulated? I guess not, but on the other hand it is awkward. You have misbid, but partner knows what is actually in your hand. Is it OK as long as partner does not use this UI? At what point are you deemed to be playing a WJO in clubs but with Ghestem written on your card? According to 6 A 2, you are not permitted to psyche in a situation where partner will not be surprised. Even if it is not fielded. Is this the case for misbids too? Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 30 04:00:12 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:00:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] Double disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Ah, you have anticipated my question at next >week's meeting. More particularly I want to know >the point at which doubles cease to be 'unusual' >and become 'highly unusual'. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Lightner double of slam = unusual Negative double of overcall = usual Penalty double of overcall = highly unusual Undiscussed competitive double = highly usual ;-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Graduates 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 daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 30 04:02:54 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:02:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000><479C16BA.1060409@ntlworld.com><2b1e598b0801262150q28a4d576l91d82c06e961b5ed@mail.gmail.com><479C21EA.7020608@ntlworld.com><2b1e598b0801262234o4e0e99f6jc76bce5f4712bc6e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0f4001c862ec$9bb2f660$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> [Jerry] >> I agree with every sentence that you wrote above, but I think it is >> irrelevant to my main point, which is this: Nothing good comes from >> trying to determine whether the action taken at the table is a logical >> alternative. Treat it special. Assume it is an LA, and then continue >> your analysis in the usual way. You want to make sure that no one >> gets away with abusing UI to choose an action that improves their >> expected score over the other, not taken LAs that are contraindicated >> by the UI. I agree with this. >> >> Even if your polling of peers finds no one who considers the action >> taken to be a logical alternative, you should consider whether the >> action taken has a higher expected return than the UI-contraindicated >> LAs that you have identified. Proceeding this way, you are not going >> to miss a justified penalty to an OS player who took unusual action in >> order to avoid the danger of further confusion. Not convinced of this; see below. >> >> Part of what I am saying is that the laws are unclear here, and they >> surely should have mentioned that the action taken is considered an >> LA, for otherwise players get away with using UI to make expected >> gains simply by taking unusual actions. The Laws should indeed have made this clear, and maybe this is another instance in which we will need an official interpretation. >> >> But I again admit that if the unusual action has lower expected return >> than the lowest-returning LA, then you allow that action, even if it >> turned out lucky for the OS. I am not sure about this. Surely the bidder did not choose the bid in order to try to get a WORSE score for his side than he would have had with the LA that was not suggested by the UI. If he did, there are other laws to deal with him. It seems like the bidder intended to either take the zero he was expecting, or else hit the jackpot. Is this right? >> >> The main point is not to waste time thinking about whether or not the >> action taken is an LA. Assume it is, to avoid a bad decision that >> lets a UI abuser gain. Eric: > Isn't this an entirely semantic argument? "Logical alternative", in > this context, refers to an alternative bid to the one actually > chosen. The action the player took is not an "alternative" in any > relevant sense, logical or otherwise. > > We use "not an LA" when what we really mean is "so far out as not to > be capable of being suggested over anything logical". Of course this is a semantic argument, but there are people saying that, in the example given, 7S should be allowed because it is not logical. In my opinion, the bid actually chosen does not have to be logical. I think that people are assuming that there is some symmetry to the idea of logical alternatives. But I don't think that there is. A bid has to be logical before it is given to you as an adjustment; but this does not mean that you get to keep the bid you made simply because it is not logical. TM gave a good example when the chosen bid was 3NT instead of 7S. A line would have to be drawn somewhere. Where? I think that it is better to stay out of the whole mess. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 30 04:22:47 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:22:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Double disclosure References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <084d01c861b0$4c843410$0100a8c0@stefanie><479DE332.3030404@skynet.be> <08bd01c861be$09bfe2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie><479DF1C5.2090400@ulb.ac.be> <479E8275.6070602@ntlworld.com><005001c86262$6d9e3120$d9d4403e@Mildred><010701c862a3$867d77a0$70cb403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0801291817s53ea81ebk6f9b1caf11f929b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0f5d01c862ef$62ff1850$0100a8c0@stefanie> [Jerry] > > The ACBL says to alert doubles with highly unusual and unexpected > meanings: There is this to help explain what that means from the ACBL > Alert Procedures document: > > "This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly > unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying > the Alert Procedure. "Highly unusual and unexpected" should be > determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical > usage. To ensure full disclosure, however, at the end of the auction > and before the opening lead declarers are encouraged to volunteer to > explain the auction (including available inferences)." > > You see? Though admittedly fuzzy---or rather just "fuzzy"---it is the > best practical solution. Clear now? LOL. > And please remember that it > *should be* determined by historical usage rather than local > geographical usage. Now that I have helped you, can anyone explain to > me "local geographical"---is it the national, state, or county > geography that it isn't determined by? Baffling. Perhaps the "local geographic usage" refers to usage on Planet Earth. > > Do you think the ACBL keeps a list of what is deemed highly unusual > and publishes it so people know? Fat chance, isn't it, when they have even admitted that their language is fuzzy! But fear not, they have offered the cryptic "historical usage" as the method of determining the best "practical solution". Does anyone even know what "histoical usage" means? On a more serious note, I think that they have got it wrong here. Doubles can be problematic, and it seems to me that doubles that are just "mildly unusual" should be alerted, and in fact that there should be just one "unalerted" meaning, as in the EBU - takeout for naturally bid suits, lead directing/penalty for artificially bid suits, penalty for NT bids. Above 3NT, it is unusual doubles that need to be alerted - double of a splinter for the lead of a different specified suit, lead-inhibiting doubles... the sorts of things that, if you were playing them, you would know were alertable. This is easy to understand and use, and seems the most sensible way to effect "full disclosure" of doubles. Stefanie Rohan From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 30 04:25:46 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:25:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Double disclosure Message-ID: <0f6901c862ef$cdcf4d80$0100a8c0@stefanie> Thought this topic should have its own thread instead of being buried in one of the endless threads about you-know-what. [Jerry] > > The ACBL says to alert doubles with highly unusual and unexpected > meanings: There is this to help explain what that means from the ACBL > Alert Procedures document: > > "This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly > unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying > the Alert Procedure. "Highly unusual and unexpected" should be > determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical > usage. To ensure full disclosure, however, at the end of the auction > and before the opening lead declarers are encouraged to volunteer to > explain the auction (including available inferences)." > > You see? Though admittedly fuzzy---or rather just "fuzzy"---it is the > best practical solution. Clear now? LOL. > And please remember that it > *should be* determined by historical usage rather than local > geographical usage. Now that I have helped you, can anyone explain to > me "local geographical"---is it the national, state, or county > geography that it isn't determined by? Baffling. Perhaps the "local geographic usage" refers to usage on Planet Earth. > > Do you think the ACBL keeps a list of what is deemed highly unusual > and publishes it so people know? Fat chance, isn't it, when they have even admitted that their language is fuzzy! But fear not, they have offered the cryptic "historical usage" as the method of determining the best "practical solution". Does anyone even know what "historical usage" means? On a more serious note, I think that they have got it wrong here. Doubles can be problematic, and it seems to me that doubles that are just "mildly unusual" should be alerted, and in fact that there should be just one "unalerted" meaning, as in the EBU - takeout for naturally bid suits, lead directing/penalty for artificially bid suits, penalty for NT bids. Above 3NT, it is unusual doubles that need to be alerted - double of a splinter for the lead of a different specified suit, lead-inhibiting doubles... the sorts of things that, if you were playing them, you would know were alertable. This is easy to understand and use, and seems the most sensible way to effect "full disclosure" of doubles. Stefanie Rohan From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 30 04:30:01 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:30:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: <200801091545.m09FjFWu000838@cfa.harvard.edu><4786CE85.8050807@nhcc.net><478782D8.5070707@ulb.ac.be> <2b1e598b0801261335r29622a45t28bd7ddb75f1b43f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0f9101c862f0$65d91de0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > A great way to make sure you don't allow jumps to slam that expect to > gain given the UI is by a very simple device. Just assume that the > action at the table is another LA. It does not matter whether it is > or not; it is just an assumption that helps leads you to the correct > conclusion. I think that no time whatsoever need be wasted > determining whether the call that occurred at the table was a logical > alternative. The time spent in this thread on whether or not the jump > to slam that actually happened is a LA was time wasted. > > Jerry Fusselman And perhaps it is a waste of time for me to keep agreeing with you, but you express so well my own feelings about the issue. Stefanie Rohan London, England From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Wed Jan 30 05:59:56 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:59:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0801281903i7c8cf2c8k2f32c9802819c0bf@mail.gmail.com><001201c8622e$1ee76d00$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><2b1e598b0801282202y43c5e440ve047614230508b5d@mail.gmail.com> <006701c8629c$14407d10$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <004001c862fc$f56cfba0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> [Hirsch Davis answered:] >>> >>> If you know the >>> agreement, then you state it directly. If you believe that you know the >>> agreement, but have some small doubt, you still state it directly. If >>> you >>> have no idea what the agreement is, but know that there is in fact an >>> agreement, this would be a good time to call the TD, before you commit >>> an >>> infraction. >>> >> 1. If you know the agreement, then you state it directly. > > "10/10, excellent" as my arithmetic teacher used to write on my papers. >> >> 2. If you believe that you know the agreement, but have some small >> doubt, you still state it directly. > > "I'm not certain but believe it to be 'X'" >> I'm sorry if I was unclear. I do not state my uncertainty. However, if I'm reasonably sure that I've got it right, I'll go ahead and explain the agreement with no qualifications. I'll take the penalty if I'm wrong, but need to strongly believe that I'm right, and that my explanation will be correct. >> 4. If you have no idea what the agreement is, but know that there is >> in fact an agreement, this would be a good time to call the TD, before >> you commit an infraction. > > "We have agreed this, and I can't remember" Yes. > >> >> I would like your thoughts on how to complete this algorithm with two >> more cases I am adding below, if you would be so kind: >> >> 3. If you have medium doubt (i.e., more doubt than small doubt but >> less doubt that "no idea"), then you ___ > > We have discussed this ; I think it's 'X' but it could be 'Y'; would you > like me to leave the table?" >> No. My call is "Director please". >> 5. If you have no obvious agreement, but you are pretty sure that both >> of you are both on the same wavelength of how to extend your >> agreements to the current case, then you ____ > > "Whilst we have no agreement; our peer group plays it as 'X' and I'd > expect partner would know this" This may be different in our organizations. My background is ACBL. If we have never discussed an auction, but appear to be getting it right on the basis of general bridge knowledge, then the answer is "no partnership agreement". This is absolute truth if we're winging it. My expectations of partner are only those that we've discussed, or come to by playing together. Those agreements are explained. If partner is unfamiliar to me, the opponents may actually know his style better than I do. How would I know? If I start expounding on non-existent agreements, I may mislead the opponents with no reason to do so. >> >> Would you be willing to fill in the blanks, or maybe express the >> sentences better than I have? > > How about telling opponents the truth; seditious material - in the light > of other threads :) John > Precisely. Hirsch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 30 07:18:59 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:18:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004001c862fc$f56cfba0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: John Probst: >>"Whilst we have no agreement; our peer group plays it as 'X' and >>I'd expect partner would know this" Hirsch Davis: >This may be different in our organizations. My background is ACBL. >If we have never discussed an auction, but appear to be getting it >right on the basis of general bridge knowledge, then the answer is >"no partnership agreement". [snip] Richard Hills: I agree that Hirsch's answer is correct under the current ACBL definition of "implicit agreement". But John's answer is correct under the new 2007 Law 40A1(a): "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience **or awareness** of the players." Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Graduates Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jan 30 08:08:20 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:08:20 -0600 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <004001c862fc$f56cfba0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801292308y44f938a0o62267a43e066f647@mail.gmail.com> Richard Hills: > ... the new 2007 Law 40A1(a): > > "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a > partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly > through mutual experience **or awareness** of the players." > Now there's a law improvement. Jerry Fusselman From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 30 10:31:06 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:31:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids In-Reply-To: <0f3e01c862ea$c8877910$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <0f3e01c862ea$c8877910$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47A043DA.8070903@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > Should "psyching" Ghestem when you really have a > weak hand and 6 of the suit you are bidding (ie, always) be regulated? I > guess not, but on the other hand it is awkward. You have misbid, but partner > knows what is actually in your hand. AG : not quite. I've seen several cases of confusion between 1C -> 2D and 1C -> 3C, so that the actual hand is 2-suited, not 1-suited. > Is it OK as long as partner does not > use this UI? At what point are you deemed to be playing a WJO in clubs but > with Ghestem written on your card? > > According to 6 A 2, you are not permitted to psyche in a situation where > partner will not be surprised. Even if it is not fielded. Is this the case > for misbids too? > I'd say no. Sometimes, it's obvious partner misbid. For example, it might result from his alert. 1NT D 2Ha p 2S 2H is natural, but partner alerts and corrects to 2S. Of course you know what happened. However, I support specific rules that disallow playing Ghestem after the first error, since it is so disruptive. Or at least rules that decide it'll be misexplanation, not misbid, even if the CC says otherwise. Best regards Allain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 30 10:35:59 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:35:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47A044FF.4060300@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott: > > Lightner double of slam = unusual > Really ? I'd say it's one of the most universal conventions. > Negative double of overcall = usual > Penalty double of overcall = highly unusual > Undiscussed competitive double = highly usual > > I'd have thought that "very unusual doubles" were meanings other than takeout (including supoprt, responsive, snapdragon etc.), values, penalty, and lead (including Rosenkranz). For example, 1C - 1D - D as showing 4+ hearts (T-Walsh), or Polish doubles (do not lead the suit), or 2D (Multi)- double showing a long major (useful when it's opener's suit). Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 30 10:35:59 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:35:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47A044FF.4060300@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott: > > Lightner double of slam = unusual > Really ? I'd say it's one of the most universal conventions. > Negative double of overcall = usual > Penalty double of overcall = highly unusual > Undiscussed competitive double = highly usual > > I'd have thought that "very unusual doubles" were meanings other than takeout (including supoprt, responsive, snapdragon etc.), values, penalty, and lead (including Rosenkranz). For example, 1C - 1D - D as showing 4+ hearts (T-Walsh), or Polish doubles (do not lead the suit), or 2D (Multi)- double showing a long major (useful when it's opener's suit). Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 30 10:46:40 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:46:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids In-Reply-To: <0f3e01c862ea$c8877910$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000701c86325$04650c10$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan ................... > When does a convention that is frequently misbid become a misexplanation? > When > does it become a psyche? Should "psyching" Ghestem when you really have a > weak hand and 6 of the suit you are bidding (ie, always) be regulated? I > guess not, but on the other hand it is awkward. You have misbid, but > partner > knows what is actually in your hand. Is it OK as long as partner does not > use this UI? At what point are you deemed to be playing a WJO in clubs but > with Ghestem written on your card? > > According to 6 A 2, you are not permitted to psyche in a situation where > partner will not be surprised. Even if it is not fielded. Is this the case > for misbids too? By the definitions a misbid can never be intentional. If it is it will either be a true psyche or made according to a concealed partnership understanding. So the answer to your question is simply this: A (genuine) misbid can never be illegal. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 30 11:01:38 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:01:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <009001c862d3$72f13110$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie><479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie><4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be><000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com><000701c85d51$a1aa5d10$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><037b01c85d61$0190b210$0100a8c0@stefanie><4796FD74.9070300@skynet.be><08ca01c85eac$72b1f430$0100a8c0@stefanie><4798D4C2.5080109@skynet.be><0bff01c85f0a$314423c0$0100a8c0@stefanie><4799B0AA.6070506@skynet.be><00e301c85f6c$42bbf4e0$0100a8c0@stefanie><9805CA45-B31D-44FC-9CB5-376E71195C00@starpower.net><479DEB58.5070909@skynet.be> <003c01c8620c$c7b95280$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479EF024.6020501@skynet.be> <009001c862d3$72f13110$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <47A04B02.8020308@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" >> Hirsch Davis wrote: >>> There are some general principles that apply throughout. >>> Full disclosure is one of them. >> Exactly! >> One of them. >>> Not making use of UI provided by partner, particularly for your own >>> advantage, is another. >> And not giving UI is also one. > No. In fact, I encourage you to find any Law that supports this argument. I have snipped above everyting that is not important to this question. The original said "full disclosure is one of the general principles". My contribution, when written out, says "not giving UI is one of the general principles". Do you really need me to give examples of laws that support that as a general principle? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 30 11:04:57 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:04:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <009001c862d3$72f13110$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie><479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie><4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be><000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com><000701c85d51$a1aa5d10$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><037b01c85d61$0190b210$0100a8c0@stefanie><4796FD74.9070300@skynet.be><08ca01c85eac$72b1f430$0100a8c0@stefanie><4798D4C2.5080109@skynet.be><0bff01c85f0a$314423c0$0100a8c0@stefanie><4799B0AA.6070506@skynet.be><00e301c85f6c$42bbf4e0$0100a8c0@stefanie><9805CA45-B31D-44FC-9CB5-376E71195C00@starpower.net><479DEB58.5070909@skynet.be> <003c01c8620c$c7b95280$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479EF024.6020501@skynet.be> <009001c862d3$72f13110$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <47A04BC9.20203@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: >> >> L20F5 is the prime example of such a clash. Without that law, the >> player has a choice between clearing up the misexplanation and leaving >> it be. The WBF have decided that he should leave it be. Thus, they >> appear to think that not giving UI in this case is the stronger law! >> > > L20F5 has been explained to you many times by people such as Grattan, Ton, > and Kojak, all of whom are more expert than I. The brief version; it does > not apply to actions required by other Laws. While such actions may make > partner aware of his MI, it is an incidental byproduct of your compliance > with the Laws, not a violation. If such should happen, partner will of > course summon the TD immediately. > Hirsh, will you please try and see where this discussion is situated. This is not about whether I break L20F5. This is about what is best for the game. L20F5 proves that the WBF prefer MI over UI. I don't care what the new interpretation says, what the law itself says is "when you have the choice between clearing up MI and not, you should NOT clear it up". > I'll repeat it again, read the Introduction to the Laws. You don't have to > guess which Law is strongest. The Lawmakers have told you how to interpret > the language used in writing the Laws to make this determination. The Laws > that you break that include the word "must", which defines the highest > imperative in the Laws, include 72A, 72B1, 73C,, and, of course, 20F4. > Violation of these Laws is a serious infraction. Older versions of the Laws > suggest ostracism for the habitual offender. > And I'll also repeat it again, your reading is flawed. > Hirsch > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 30 11:35:47 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:35:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids References: <000701c86325$04650c10$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <103c01c8632b$e05b1bf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > By the definitions a misbid can never be intentional. If it is it will > either be a true psyche or made according to a concealed partnership > understanding. > > So the answer to your question is simply this: A (genuine) misbid can > never > be illegal. > > Regards Sven Yes... this is why I am wondering when misuse of Ghestem ceases to be classified as a "misbid" Stefanie Rohan London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 30 12:17:56 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:17:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Double disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47A044FF.4060300@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <007601c86332$46596f00$2ad4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Double disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > I'd have thought that "very unusual doubles" were meanings other than takeout (including support, responsive, snapdragon etc.), values, penalty, and lead (including Rosenkranz). For example, 1C - 1D - D as showing 4+ hearts (T-Walsh), or Polish doubles (do not lead the suit), or 2D (Multi)- double showing a long major (useful when it's opener's suit). < +=+ So you will not be totally astonished that I offered earlier a counter-suggestion that the only alertable doubles be those which are for takeout? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 30 13:05:42 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:05:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] LA References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000><479C16BA.1060409@ntlworld.com><2b1e598b0801262150q28a4d576l91d82c06e961b5ed@mail.gmail.com><479C21EA.7020608@ntlworld.com> <2b1e598b0801262234o4e0e99f6jc76bce5f4712bc6e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <107501c86338$703b1de0$0100a8c0@stefanie> [JF] > But I again admit that if the unusual action has lower expected return > than the lowest-returning LA, then you allow that action, even if it > turned out lucky for the OS. But perhaps the OP misjudged the relative expected returns. And also... see above. > > The main point is not to waste time thinking about whether or not the > action taken is an LA. Assume it is, to avoid a bad decision that > lets a UI abuser gain. Similarly, it could be a waste of time thinking about whether the selected action has a higher expected return. Or at least without considering another variable, which we can perhaps call the "getting-away-with-it factor". When moving on after 3S is suggested, 4S is certainly not going to be allowed, so its expected return multiplied by its GAWIF is zero. 5S is probably no different. 6S has a lower expected return but a higher GAWIF. 7S has a still lower expected return, but its GAWIF... well, we have seen how many people on BLML are willing to allow it. So in a sense, perhaps 7S has the greatest "adjusted" expected return. Stefanie Rohan London, England From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 30 13:15:23 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:15:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids In-Reply-To: <103c01c8632b$e05b1bf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000a01c86339$cb3bd1c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > > By the definitions a misbid can never be intentional. If it is it will > > either be a true psyche or made according to a concealed partnership > > understanding. > > > > So the answer to your question is simply this: A (genuine) misbid can > > never be illegal. > > > > Regards Sven > > Yes... this is why I am wondering when misuse of Ghestem ceases to be > classified as a "misbid" When partner from his experience with that player is aware that the possibility of a misuse can no longer be ignored. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 30 13:18:09 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:18:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids In-Reply-To: <000701c86325$04650c10$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000701c86325$04650c10$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47A06B01.9010300@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > By the definitions a misbid can never be intentional. If it is it will > either be a true psyche or made according to a concealed partnership > understanding. > > So the answer to your question is simply this: A (genuine) misbid can never > be illegal. > I agree with the conclusion, but not with the reasoning. Unintentional actions may be illegal, e.g. revokes. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 30 13:20:36 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:20:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids References: <000a01c86339$cb3bd1c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <109001c8633a$848e7240$0100a8c0@stefanie> Sven: >> On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan >> > By the definitions a misbid can never be intentional. If it is it will >> > either be a true psyche or made according to a concealed partnership >> > understanding. >> > >> > So the answer to your question is simply this: A (genuine) misbid can >> > never be illegal. >> > >> > Regards Sven >> >> Yes... this is why I am wondering when misuse of Ghestem ceases to be >> classified as a "misbid" > > When partner from his experience with that player is aware that the > possibility of a misuse can no longer be ignored. > But how is this determined/enforced? Stefanie Rohan London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 30 13:28:45 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:28:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007601c86332$46596f00$2ad4403e@Mildred> References: <47A044FF.4060300@ulb.ac.be> <007601c86332$46596f00$2ad4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47A06D7D.7030304@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > +=+ So you will not be totally astonished that I offered earlier > a counter-suggestion that the only alertable doubles be those > which are for takeout? > That's one possibility, although I still feel "very unusual doubles", should be alerted, too. But the limit is somewhat fuzzy : is 1C-1D-X (guaranteeing exactly 4 hearts, as opposed to 1H) a TO double ? On pure logic, it is, because it asks partner to bid once again. But the fact that one suit length is specified makes it somewhat more conventional. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 30 13:28:45 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:28:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Double disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007601c86332$46596f00$2ad4403e@Mildred> References: <47A044FF.4060300@ulb.ac.be> <007601c86332$46596f00$2ad4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47A06D7D.7030304@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > +=+ So you will not be totally astonished that I offered earlier > a counter-suggestion that the only alertable doubles be those > which are for takeout? > That's one possibility, although I still feel "very unusual doubles", should be alerted, too. But the limit is somewhat fuzzy : is 1C-1D-X (guaranteeing exactly 4 hearts, as opposed to 1H) a TO double ? On pure logic, it is, because it asks partner to bid once again. But the fact that one suit length is specified makes it somewhat more conventional. Best regards Alain From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Wed Jan 30 14:20:19 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:20:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie><479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie><4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be><000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com><000701c85d51$a1aa5d10$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><037b01c85d61$0190b210$0100a8c0@stefanie><4796FD74.9070300@skynet.be><08ca01c85eac$72b1f430$0100a8c0@stefanie><4798D4C2.5080109@skynet.be><0bff01c85f0a$314423c0$0100a8c0@stefanie><4799B0AA.6070506@skynet.be><00e301c85f6c$42bbf4e0$0100a8c0@stefanie><9805CA45-B31D-44FC-9CB5-376E71195C00@starpower.net><479DEB58.5070909@skynet.be><003c01c8620c$c7b95280$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479EF024.6020501@skynet.be><009001c862d3$72f13110$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <47A04B02.8020308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001b01c86342$dc800d30$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 5:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > Hirsch Davis wrote: >> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> Hirsch Davis wrote: >>>> There are some general principles that apply throughout. >>>> Full disclosure is one of them. >>> Exactly! >>> One of them. >>>> Not making use of UI provided by partner, particularly for your own >>>> advantage, is another. >>> And not giving UI is also one. >> No. In fact, I encourage you to find any Law that supports this >> argument. > > I have snipped above everyting that is not important to this question. > > The original said "full disclosure is one of the general principles". > My contribution, when written out, says "not giving UI is one of the > general principles". > > Do you really need me to give examples of laws that support that as a > general principle? > Based on your posting, yes I do. I base my position on the Laws of the game. I'm not sure where yours comes from. Hirsch From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 30 14:39:37 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:39:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <001e01c862bc$d3217ca0$3cd3403e@Mildred> References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> <467AEB5D-A3B8-47BD-80FB-4875FB9E6A13@starpower.net> <479E0192.20806@skynet.be> <07A9A3CC-AA29-42BD-A6E7-EDEA31D9A5BE@starpower.net> <001901c861d5$5cd17ba0$167472e0$@com><479EEE96.5030703@skynet.be> <001e01c862bc$d3217ca0$3cd3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Jan 29, 2008, at 4:20 PM, wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > > The majority position in the DWS debate depends > on interpreting the laws to be internally self-consistent. > If we allow Herman to convince us that the subject of > the debate is which laws are "weaker" or "stronger" > than L20F5, he will have already won. > > +=+ I would hesitate to discuss what the 'majority' > position might be. However, the orthodox 'official' > position is that no violation of law occurs if a player > when responding as the law requires to a question > asked, conveys UI to partner as a by-product of > his compliance with law. HDW would argue, maybe, > that he cannot find the justification for this. TPTB > would simply respond 'this is how it is, we are > telling you and we don't have to spend time on > your heresies'. What I hope to do is move the debate over the DWS into the broadest possible context. I ask myself, What is the most general assertion we can come up with such that agreeing or disagreeing with it would unamibiguously differentiate the anti-DWS majority from the pro-DWS minority, regardless of the specific arguments advanced by any of the participants. I suggest it is this: It is possible to play bridge without breaking any of its laws. I do not hesitate to assert, albeit without direct evidence, that TPTB would unanimously agree to that assertion. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 30 15:18:38 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:18:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids In-Reply-To: <47A06B01.9010300@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c8634b$02a6c500$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > By the definitions a misbid can never be intentional. If it is it will > > either be a true psyche or made according to a concealed partnership > > understanding. > > > > So the answer to your question is simply this: A (genuine) misbid can > never > > be illegal. > > > I agree with the conclusion, but not with the reasoning. Unintentional > actions may be illegal, e.g. revokes. On a point of order: I was specifically discussing misbids, not actions in general! Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 30 15:25:53 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:25:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <107501c86338$703b1de0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <00aa01c852c1$d2b32260$9d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000><479C16BA.1060409@ntlworld.com><2b1e598b0801262150q28a4d576l91d82c06e961b5ed@mail.gmail.com><479C21EA.7020608@ntlworld.com> <2b1e598b0801262234o4e0e99f6jc76bce5f4712bc6e@mail.gmail.com> <107501c86338$703b1de0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <7B8CA876-FC9A-4C41-93D3-941940FD42A9@starpower.net> On Jan 30, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > [JF] >> But I again admit that if the unusual action has lower expected >> return >> than the lowest-returning LA, then you allow that action, even if it >> turned out lucky for the OS. > > But perhaps the OP misjudged the relative expected returns. And > also... see > above. >> >> The main point is not to waste time thinking about whether or not the >> action taken is an LA. Assume it is, to avoid a bad decision that >> lets a UI abuser gain. > > Similarly, it could be a waste of time thinking about whether the > selected > action has a higher expected return. Or at least without > considering another > variable, which we can perhaps call the "getting-away-with-it factor". > > When moving on after 3S is suggested, 4S is certainly not going to be > allowed, so its expected return multiplied by its GAWIF is zero. 5S is > probably no different. 6S has a lower expected return but a higher > GAWIF. 7S > has a still lower expected return, but its GAWIF... well, we have > seen how > many people on BLML are willing to allow it. So in a sense, perhaps > 7S has > the greatest "adjusted" expected return. But the "GAWIF" of *3S* is 1 here. So the result of the multiplication must be higher for 3S than for any call with a lower expected return. By that analysis (with which I do not disagree), we cannot adjust unless we determine that 7S had a better a priori expectation than 3S. IIRC, in the original thread example it was stipulated that it did not (i.e. that 7S was a terrible contract made only by extraordinary luck). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 30 15:28:04 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:28:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids In-Reply-To: <109001c8633a$848e7240$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000101c8634c$53efd4f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > Sven: > > >> On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > >> > By the definitions a misbid can never be intentional. If it is it > will > >> > either be a true psyche or made according to a concealed partnership > >> > understanding. > >> > > >> > So the answer to your question is simply this: A (genuine) misbid can > >> > never be illegal. > >> > > >> > Regards Sven > >> > >> Yes... this is why I am wondering when misuse of Ghestem ceases to be > >> classified as a "misbid" > > > > When partner from his experience with that player is aware that the > > possibility of a misuse can no longer be ignored. > > > But how is this determined/enforced? As is the situation with all cases of partnership understanding created through partnership experience: You cannot with just one isolated case. But if this poses a difficulty the Regulating Authority is empowered to set rules for the use of conventions. So nothing prevents an RA from dictating that either you make no mistake at all when using Ghestem or you just don't use it. I am not familiar with Ghestem (maybe we know that convention under a different name?) so I have no idea of what the fuss is all about. Regards Sven. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 30 15:39:33 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:39:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: References: <000001c85e76$724b0490$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><47988596.1070406@skynet.be><0abd01c85eb4$4ff687a0$0100a8c0@stefanie><8D5A71A1-C47A-43F4-A66E-B346B559008B@starpower.net><4799AF01.1050902@skynet.be><001e01c85f53$0be2db00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479A0958.7070204@skynet.be><008801c85f82$c9a91df0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479C6EFD.3000600@skynet.be><003d01c86108$1747e740$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479DA6DC.20003@skynet.be> <080601c8619c$70d15aa0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479DC1F7.3010309@skynet.be> <000301c861ab$7d8e0360$78aa0a20$@com> <467AEB5D-A3B8-47BD-80FB-4875FB9E6A13@starpower.net> <479E0192.20806@skynet.be> <07A9A3CC-AA29-42BD-A6E7-EDEA31D9A5BE@starpower.net> <001901c861d5$5cd17ba0$167472e0$@com><479EEE96.5030703@skynet.be> <001e01c862bc$d3217ca0$3cd3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47A08C25.4000904@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > It is possible to play bridge without breaking any of its laws. > No it's not. Whenever someone forgets an agreement, you have broken a law. OK? > I do not hesitate to assert, albeit without direct evidence, that > TPTB would unanimously agree to that assertion. > TPTB would not be foolish enough to do that. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jan 30 15:41:58 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:41:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <001b01c86342$dc800d30$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be><2b1e598b0801200729w31b91f7blcd78761ab188c190@mail.gmail.com><0c8a01c85bba$9348b700$0100a8c0@stefanie><479453B8.8030307@skynet.be><0e6301c85c46$8dcd3080$0100a8c0@stefanie><4794CD7C.2070307@skynet.be><002901c85c6d$ab130440$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><4795BBBE.3010103@skynet.be><000701c85d29$bc321420$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><2b1e598b0801221409k752360c2jdffb50bdf0e21f37@mail.gmail.com><000701c85d51$a1aa5d10$0f5d5e47@DFYXB361><037b01c85d61$0190b210$0100a8c0@stefanie><4796FD74.9070300@skynet.be><08ca01c85eac$72b1f430$0100a8c0@stefanie><4798D4C2.5080109@skynet.be><0bff01c85f0a$314423c0$0100a8c0@stefanie><4799B0AA.6070506@skynet.be><00e301c85f6c$42bbf4e0$0100a8c0@stefanie><9805CA45-B31D-44FC-9CB5-376E71195C00@starpower.net><479DEB58.5070909@skynet.be><003c01c8620c$c7b95280$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <479EF024.6020501@skynet.be><009001c862d3$72f13110$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> <47A04B02.8020308@skynet.be> <001b01c86342$dc800d30$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <47A08CB6.8040309@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 5:01 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Bible > > >> Hirsch Davis wrote: >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>>> Hirsch Davis wrote: >>>>> There are some general principles that apply throughout. >>>>> Full disclosure is one of them. >>>> Exactly! >>>> One of them. >>>>> Not making use of UI provided by partner, particularly for your own >>>>> advantage, is another. >>>> And not giving UI is also one. >>> No. In fact, I encourage you to find any Law that supports this >>> argument. >> I have snipped above everyting that is not important to this question. >> >> The original said "full disclosure is one of the general principles". >> My contribution, when written out, says "not giving UI is one of the >> general principles". >> >> Do you really need me to give examples of laws that support that as a >> general principle? >> > > Based on your posting, yes I do. I base my position on the Laws of the > game. I'm not sure where yours comes from. > The laws of the game? It's clear we are talking at cross-purposes here. The question is not "what is obliged by law?" but "what is a general principle of the law?". Not giving UI is one of those general principles. But of course if you want to disagree with that - go right ahead. Need law numbers? I won't take L20F5 for once. I'll mention L73B instead. > Hirsch > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 30 15:57:19 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:57:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids In-Reply-To: <000001c8634b$02a6c500$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c8634b$02a6c500$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47A0904F.8090209@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner >> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> >>> By the definitions a misbid can never be intentional. If it is it will >>> either be a true psyche or made according to a concealed partnership >>> understanding. >>> >>> So the answer to your question is simply this: A (genuine) misbid can >>> >> never >> >>> be illegal. >>> >>> >> I agree with the conclusion, but not with the reasoning. Unintentional >> actions may be illegal, e.g. revokes. >> > > On a point of order: I was specifically discussing misbids, not actions in > general! > > I meant that "because it is unintentional, it can't be disallowed" doesn't hold. Be it for actions in general or misbids. From john at asimere.com Wed Jan 30 16:50:21 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:50:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] old posting References: <479FC992.2050501@aol.com> Message-ID: <003a01c86357$d1d08f30$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "blml bridge" Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 12:49 AM Subject: [blml] old posting > Some time ago there was a posting in blml (I think from one of the > "Johns".) in which it was recommended to dispense with commas, write in > short sentences (I think no message exceeding 22 words) and perhaps in > words of one or few syllables. Unfortunately I didn't conserve it so > can't quote precisely or say exactly from whom it came. > > I wonder if he has ever read Proust and what his reaction was. Ciao, JE twas I. Yeah Proust is fun. Also Bernard Levin once wrote a whole page in The Thunderer in a single sentence. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Jan 30 16:52:06 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:52:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lingua Franca References: <0bf001c86295$c96f1a90$0100a8c0@stefanie> <479F8412.9090409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004301c86358$10e23070$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lingua Franca > Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> BLML is conducted in English, and I realise that this is very >> inconvenient >> for those who are not native English speakers. It does not help matters >> that >> English is more idiomatic than most other languages. >> > > Stefanie, you must realize that my English is well up to the point. Sadly, we cannot give Herman the benefit of the doubt in terms of his use of English. He speaks it rather better than most native English speakers. John From john at asimere.com Wed Jan 30 16:56:36 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:56:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you arenot sure[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0801281903i7c8cf2c8k2f32c9802819c0bf@mail.gmail.com><001201c8622e$1ee76d00$2801a8c0@j7f84b1><2b1e598b0801282202y43c5e440ve047614230508b5d@mail.gmail.com><006701c8629c$14407d10$0701a8c0@john> <004001c862fc$f56cfba0$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> Message-ID: <006601c86358$b13d36f0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 4:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Advice on explaining when you arenot sure[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>> >>> 3. If you have medium doubt (i.e., more doubt than small doubt but >>> less doubt that "no idea"), then you ___ >> >> We have discussed this ; I think it's 'X' but it could be 'Y'; would you >> like me to leave the table?" >>> > > No. My call is "Director please". Yep, that's fine. I'm happy to save the time, but you're right of course. > >>> 5. If you have no obvious agreement, but you are pretty sure that both >>> of you are both on the same wavelength of how to extend your >>> agreements to the current case, then you ____ >> >> "Whilst we have no agreement; our peer group plays it as 'X' and I'd >> expect partner would know this" > > This may be different in our organizations. My background is ACBL. If we > have never discussed an auction, but appear to be getting it right on the > basis of general bridge knowledge, then the answer is "no partnership > agreement". This is absolute truth if we're winging it. My expectations > of > partner are only those that we've discussed, or come to by playing > together. > Those agreements are explained. If partner is unfamiliar to me, the > opponents may actually know his style better than I do. How would I know? > If I start expounding on non-existent agreements, I may mislead the > opponents with no reason to do so. > Yep, I was thinking of a one of a group of my friends, though not a regular partner, (I think opps are entitled to my knowledge of something they won't know about) playing against someone I don't know. Playing with someone I don't know, I'd obviously just shrug. John From john at asimere.com Wed Jan 30 16:58:30 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:58:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are notsure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0801281903i7c8cf2c8k2f32c9802819c0bf@mail.gmail.com><007201c8629c$768fe0a0$0701a8c0@john> <479F826F.7010809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006d01c86358$f56e2f50$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are notsure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > John Probst wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jerry Fusselman" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:03 AM >> Subject: [blml] Advice on explaining when you are not sure >> [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> [Jerry Fusselman asked:] >>> >>>> 1. Is it good or okay in MS to say, "I'm taking it as....?" >>>> For example, a 2NT call that "I'm taking it as Lebensohl" or >>>> "I'm taking it as strong." Or can you give a better example >>>> of a good-style statement to make in this situation under MS? >> >> By stating you will take it as something, you fall into the dWS trap. You >> have made a statement about your own hand, because your reply will (and >> you >> can't help it) be based on your own holdings. Why don't you just say >> "haven't a friggin clue!" ? > > Because that's not true - you do have a clue! > And if you happen to guess right, you will have to convince the TD > that you had no friggin clue, but still managed to get it right. Herman, really!. If I had a clue I'd tell my opponents. "No idea, but quite possibly 'X'" > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 30 17:29:14 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:29:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c8635d$414a5d00$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............... > > It is possible to play bridge without breaking any of its laws. > > I do not hesitate to assert, albeit without direct evidence, that > TPTB would unanimously agree to that assertion. Bridge is a game that is defined by its rules. These rules include specifications on normal procedures and consequences when a player deviates from such normal procedures. As such it can be asserted that bridge is played without breaking any of its laws provided all its rules (including the rules for rectifications) are obeyed. However, if "breaking a law" shall include any deviation from a specified "normal procedures" regardless of the circumstances then the mere fact that there are prescribed consequences for such deviations is sufficient evidence that deviations can occur. In other words that it is not possible to play bridge without breaking any of its laws. The bottom line is that the question itself is insufficiently defined and therefore improper. BTW. This conclusion is not specific for bridge; You can equally well ask if it is possible to play soccer, rugby (American) football etc without breaking any of the laws for that sport. The question is again improper for exactly the same reason. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 30 17:34:06 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:34:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids In-Reply-To: <47A0904F.8090209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000401c8635d$ef453e20$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sven Pran a ?crit : > >> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > >> Sven Pran a ?crit : > >> > >>> By the definitions a misbid can never be intentional. If it is it will > >>> either be a true psyche or made according to a concealed partnership > >>> understanding. > >>> > >>> So the answer to your question is simply this: A (genuine) misbid can > >>> > >> never > >> > >>> be illegal. > >>> > >>> > >> I agree with the conclusion, but not with the reasoning. Unintentional > >> actions may be illegal, e.g. revokes. > >> > > > > On a point of order: I was specifically discussing misbids, not actions > in > > general! > > > > > I meant that "because it is unintentional, it can't be disallowed" > doesn't hold. Be it for actions in general or misbids. A genuine misbid can only be disallowed if it is made illegal by a proper regulation (i.e. a regulation on the use of conventions). And a misbid is not genuine unless it is unintentional (e.g. based on a misunderstanding of agreements). Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 30 18:52:25 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:52:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000301c8635d$414a5d00$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000301c8635d$414a5d00$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Jan 30, 2008, at 11:29 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Eric Landau > ............... >> >> It is possible to play bridge without breaking any of its laws. >> >> I do not hesitate to assert, albeit without direct evidence, that >> TPTB would unanimously agree to that assertion. > > Bridge is a game that is defined by its rules. These rules include > specifications on normal procedures and consequences when a player > deviates > from such normal procedures. > > As such it can be asserted that bridge is played without breaking > any of its > laws provided all its rules (including the rules for > rectifications) are > obeyed. > > However, if "breaking a law" shall include any deviation from a > specified > "normal procedures" regardless of the circumstances then the mere > fact that > there are prescribed consequences for such deviations is sufficient > evidence > that deviations can occur. In other words that it is not possible > to play > bridge without breaking any of its laws. > > The bottom line is that the question itself is insufficiently > defined and > therefore improper. > > BTW. This conclusion is not specific for bridge; You can equally > well ask if > it is possible to play soccer, rugby (American) football etc without > breaking any of the laws for that sport. The question is again > improper for > exactly the same reason. Yes, of course, my error. What I intended was, "It is possible to play bridge without deliberately breaking any of its laws." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jan 30 19:33:15 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:33:15 -0600 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: References: <000301c8635d$414a5d00$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801301033y23c02d95l7d01a4c8fa268ae3@mail.gmail.com> [Eric] > > Yes, of course, my error. What I intended was, "It is possible to > play bridge without deliberately breaking any of its laws." > Sure, it's easy. Just don't know any of the laws. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 30 20:07:16 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:07:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c86373$546f7a80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> ................ > > The bottom line is that the question itself is insufficiently > > defined and > > therefore improper. > > > > BTW. This conclusion is not specific for bridge; You can equally > > well ask if > > it is possible to play soccer, rugby (American) football etc without > > breaking any of the laws for that sport. The question is again > > improper for > > exactly the same reason. > > Yes, of course, my error. What I intended was, "It is possible to > play bridge without deliberately breaking any of its laws." And the answer to that question is definitely: YES. I must add that as a Director I always assume that no player deliberately breaks any of the laws of bridge (See for instance Law 72B1). If I should ever find a player doing just that I shall be very severe. Luckily I have during my almost 30 years as Director never encountered such dishonorable attitude from any player. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 30 20:43:28 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:43:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801301033y23c02d95l7d01a4c8fa268ae3@mail.gmail.com> References: <000301c8635d$414a5d00$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <2b1e598b0801301033y23c02d95l7d01a4c8fa268ae3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 30, 2008, at 1:33 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Eric] > >> Yes, of course, my error. What I intended was, "It is possible to >> play bridge without deliberately breaking any of its laws." > > Sure, it's easy. Just don't know any of the laws. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Jan 30 20:48:10 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:48:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids References: <000101c8634c$53efd4f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <000701c86379$0b62dc00$225e9951@stefanie> SP: > I am not familiar with Ghestem (maybe we know that convention under a > different name?) so I have no idea of what the fuss is all about. > Ghestem is a peculiar treatment of weak jump overcalls wherein partner describes them as two-suited in the WJO suit and the opponents' suit. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 30 22:09:47 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:09:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: References: <000301c8635d$414a5d00$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <2b1e598b0801301033y23c02d95l7d01a4c8fa268ae3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6268B0CD-E634-4C07-B2A9-F0BC2A024F7C@starpower.net> Apologies for previous message, containing Jerry's comment and nothing else. Wrong button, not meant to be sent. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 30 23:01:24 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:01:24 +1100 Subject: [blml] Double disclosure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47A044FF.4060300@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Lightner double of slam = unusual Alain Gottcheiner: >Really? I'd say it's one of the most universal conventions. Richard Hills: Aha! Alain noticed my deliberate error. A problem with the EBU proposal to use undefined terms such as "unusual" and "highly unusual" is that "unusual" is ambiguous. An _agreement_ to play Lightner Double of a slam is "usual". But the actual _use_ of such a Lightner Double is "unusual". Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Graduates 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 Jan 30 23:39:30 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:39:30 +1100 Subject: [blml] Bible [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801301033y23c02d95l7d01a4c8fa268ae3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>Yes, of course, my error. What I intended was, "It is >>possible to play bridge without deliberately breaking >>any of its laws." Jerry Fusselman: >Sure, it's easy. Just don't know any of the laws. Richard Hills: If an expert has deliberately refused to learn a significant law of the game (for example Law 73C), then that refusal is a deliberate infraction of Law 74B1: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: paying insufficient attention to the game." Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Graduates 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 hirsch9000 at verizon.net Thu Jan 31 00:04:36 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:04:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bible References: <47A08CB6.8040309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00cf01c86394$7c52f420$2801a8c0@j7f84b1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bible >>> I have snipped above everyting that is not important to this question. >>> > > The question is not "what is obliged by law?" but "what is a general > principle of the law?". Not giving UI is one of those general principles. > > But of course if you want to disagree with that - go right ahead. > Need law numbers? I won't take L20F5 for once. I'll mention L73B instead. > >> Hirsch >> > Herman, Part of what you snipped that you deem unimportant was my mention of 73B. Hirsch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 31 00:38:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:38:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c8634c$53efd4f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Sven Pran asserted: [snip] >So nothing prevents an RA from dictating that either you >make no mistake at all when using Ghestem or you just don't >use it. [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: It seems to me that a Regulating Authority has the power to fully allow or fully prohibit Ghestem. But a RA partially allowing Ghestem on the condition of "zero misbids" seems to me to be unLawfully contrary to the first sentence of the 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." Note that while the 2007 Law 40B2(d) empowers the Regulating Authority to restrict artificial calls which are psychic, the RA has not been given a parallel power to restrict artificial calls which are misbid. Stefanie Rohan asked: >>Yes... this is why I am wondering when misuse of Ghestem >>ceases to be classified as a "misbid" 2007 Law 40C1 (continued): "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." Stefanie Rohan asked: >>But how is this determined/enforced? 2007 Law 40C1 (concluded): "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 & Graduates 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 Thu Jan 31 01:30:45 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:30:45 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47A116B5.3010401@ntlworld.com> [Richard Hills] It seems to me that a Regulating Authority has the power to fully allow or fully prohibit Ghestem. But a RA partially allowing Ghestem on the condition of "zero misbids" seems to me to be unLawfully contrary to the first sentence of the 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." Note that while the 2007 Law 40B2(d) empowers the Regulating Authority to restrict artificial calls which are psychic, the RA has not been given a parallel power to restrict artificial calls which are misbid. {nige1] Many pairs are "forgetful" about Ghestem, especially at favourable vulnerablity. The resulting chaos is familiar territory for Ghestem players. The misbid usually functions as an effective high level *random overcall*. The director often treats the favourable result for the "Guessed 'em" pair as "rub of the green". Anyway, to retain some chance of redress, their victims must teeter on a narrow tight-rope created by crazy rules ... - They are meant to ask questions "to protect their interests" :( - They must take care that these questions don't give UI :( - They must avoid any action that a director may judge "wild and gambling", however normal it may seem to them at the time :( For the last word on the subject, read ... [David Burn] http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brx_brn0.htm From john at asimere.com Thu Jan 31 01:55:54 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:55:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47A116B5.3010401@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000601c863a4$082814d0$0701a8c0@john> > > {nige1] > > Many pairs are "forgetful" about Ghestem, especially at favourable > vulnerablity. The resulting chaos is familiar territory for Ghestem > players. The misbid usually functions as an effective high level > *random overcall*. The director often treats the favourable result for > the "Guessed 'em" pair as "rub of the green". Anyway, to retain some > chance of redress, their victims must teeter on a narrow tight-rope > created by crazy rules ... > - They are meant to ask questions "to protect their interests" :( > - They must take care that these questions don't give UI :( > - They must avoid any action that a director may judge "wild and > gambling", however normal it may seem to them at the time :( > > For the last word on the subject, read ... > > [David Burn] > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brx_brn0.htm you might try this one too. Opponents who use these methods expose themselves not just by forgetting. http://www.asimere.com/BridgeArticles/2SuitOcalls.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 31 02:02:36 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:02:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c863a4$f8475570$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran asserted: > > [snip] > > >So nothing prevents an RA from dictating that either you > >make no mistake at all when using Ghestem or you just don't > >use it. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > It seems to me that a Regulating Authority has the power to > fully allow or fully prohibit Ghestem. But a RA partially > allowing Ghestem on the condition of "zero misbids" seems to > me to be unLawfully contrary to the first sentence of the 2007 > Law 40C1: Right so, I was too quick with my comment. Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 31 02:27:59 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:27:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lingua Franca References: <0bf001c86295$c96f1a90$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000c01c863a8$8b1d7c00$91cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:41 PM Subject: [blml] Lingua Franca > This person then > might assume that the word was used as an appeal to > some other authority (such as the Bible, which as far > as I know contains no prohibitions of lying). > +=+ What of the ninth commandment? +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 31 02:44:55 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:44:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lingua Franca References: <0bf001c86295$c96f1a90$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000c01c863a8$8b1d7c00$91cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <012401c863aa$e186ff10$225e9951@stefanie> Grattan Endicott >> This person then >> might assume that the word was used as an appeal to >> some other authority (such as the Bible, which as far >> as I know contains no prohibitions of lying). >> > +=+ What of the ninth commandment? +=+ > In my version of the Bible it reads: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. To me, this seems to prohibit character assassin, slander, the spreading of vicious rumours, etc. It does not seem to prohibit other forms of lying. But I am no Bible scholar, and lying may be prohibited elsewhere. Stefanie Rohan London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 31 02:49:01 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:49:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003b01c863ab$776081f0$91cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Sven Pran asserted: > > [snip] > >>So nothing prevents an RA from dictating that either you >>make no mistake at all when using Ghestem or you just don't >>use it. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > It seems to me that a Regulating Authority has the power to > fully allow or fully prohibit Ghestem. But a RA partially > allowing Ghestem on the condition of "zero misbids" seems to > me to be unLawfully contrary to the first sentence of the 2007 > Law 40C1: > +=+ Law 40B2(a) seems to authorize a condition that Ghestem may be used provided no misbid occurs? ~ G ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 31 03:10:04 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:10:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003b01c863ab$776081f0$91cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <013001c863ae$64d725e0$225e9951@stefanie> >> > +=+ Law 40B2(a) seems to authorize a condition that Ghestem > may be used provided no misbid occurs? ~ G ~ +=+ > How would this be enforced, though? A pair's future opponents will not know that they have been prohibited from playing Ghestem. And how long would the prohibition last? Would it apply to the players when playing with other partners? I think that a regulation of this sort would be impossible in practice. And other methods, such as penalising misbids (and indeed, psyches?) of Ghestem are of dubious legality, at best. And it will often appear to be a first offence, since the unlucky pair to have suffered at the hands of Ghestem will have been preceded by a number of other opponents who have enjoyed four-figure penalties in their favour. Although maybe Ghestem damages the opponents more frequently than anyone knows, since people don't call the TD when someone misbids. By the way, many pairs seem to play the modified form in which one of the suits 3C shows is clubs. "Just in case"? Partner may have a hand which is unsuitable for a preference to the other suit. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 31 03:18:40 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:18:40 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47A116B5.3010401@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Many pairs are "forgetful" about Ghestem.....The director often >treats the favourable result for the "Guessed 'em" pair as "rub >of the green"..... Richard Hills: An EBU Director is currently hamstrung by this dubious EBU regulation -> EBU Orange Book, clause 3B10: If a player has knowledge that partner tends to forget a particular agreement that tendency must neither be disclosed..... Richard Hills: However, while clause 3B10 is of debatable legality under the 1997 Lawbook, it is clearly unLawfully contrary to the 2007 Law 40, so 3B10 will no doubt be rewritten during this year's revision of the Orange Book. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Graduates 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 Jan 31 03:46:03 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:46:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <013001c863ae$64d725e0$225e9951@stefanie> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Law 40B2(a) seems to authorize a condition that Ghestem >may be used provided no misbid occurs? ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: In my opinion, the operative word is "seems". 2007 Law 75C: .....the mistake was in South's call. Here there is no infraction of Law..... Richard Hills: In my opinion, if the specific Law 75C defines a misbid as not an infraction, then the general Law 40B2(a) cannot be used as a basis to redefine a misbid as an infraction. Anyway, in practice, Ghestem "forgets" are so frequent that almost always it is not a question of misbidding but rather a question of an implicit partnership understanding. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Graduates 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 Jan 31 04:52:05 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:52:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ Law 40B2(a) seems to authorize a condition that Ghestem >>may be used provided no misbid occurs? ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills (first thoughts): >In my opinion, if the specific Law 75C defines a misbid as >not an infraction, then the general Law 40B2(a) cannot be >used as a basis to redefine a misbid as an infraction. Richard Hills (second thoughts): A cunning ploy by a Regulating Authority could be to define a misbid not as an _infraction_ but rather as a _trigger_. For example, when a pair misbids Ghestem for the first time, the Regulating Authority does not define the misbid as illegal, but rather requires the TD to strike out Ghestem from the partnership's system cards. But it seems to me that the RA's punning cloy remains contrary to Law 75C since it inflicts a sanction on a pair for taking a legal action. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Graduates 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 geller at nifty.com Thu Jan 31 05:21:42 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:21:42 +0900 Subject: [blml] L55A ambiguity? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200801310421.AA12270@geller204.nifty.com> L55A reads as follows: ***************************************************** LAW 55 - DECLARER?S LEAD OUT OF TURN A. Declarer?s Lead Accepted If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy?s hand, either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently the option expressed by the player next in turn shall prevail. **************************************************** My question is, who is the "player next in turn"? Let's take a concrete example. South is the declarer, and he has the lead, but he calls for a card from dummy (North). East says he wants to accept the LOOT, but West says he wants to refuse it. West is the "player next in turn" after the proper leader (South), whereas East is the "player next in turn" after the hand from which the LOOT was made (dummy). My question is, which defender (E or W) is the "player next in turn" specified in L55A? My next question is, why couldn't the Law Lords have written, for example, "player next in turn after the correct leader" rather than the ambiguous "player next in turn"? (The answer is that if all ambiguities in the Laws were eliminated BLML would be all DWS all the time, so we should be thankful once in a while we have something besides DWS to discuss. :-) ) -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From geller at nifty.com Thu Jan 31 05:21:42 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:21:42 +0900 Subject: [blml] L55A ambiguity? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200801310421.AA12270@geller204.nifty.com> L55A reads as follows: ***************************************************** LAW 55 - DECLARER?S LEAD OUT OF TURN A. Declarer?s Lead Accepted If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy?s hand, either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently the option expressed by the player next in turn shall prevail. **************************************************** My question is, who is the "player next in turn"? Let's take a concrete example. South is the declarer, and he has the lead, but he calls for a card from dummy (North). East says he wants to accept the LOOT, but West says he wants to refuse it. West is the "player next in turn" after the proper leader (South), whereas East is the "player next in turn" after the hand from which the LOOT was made (dummy). My question is, which defender (E or W) is the "player next in turn" specified in L55A? My next question is, why couldn't the Law Lords have written, for example, "player next in turn after the correct leader" rather than the ambiguous "player next in turn"? (The answer is that if all ambiguities in the Laws were eliminated BLML would be all DWS all the time, so we should be thankful once in a while we have something besides DWS to discuss. :-) ) -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From geller at nifty.com Thu Jan 31 05:31:56 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:31:56 +0900 Subject: [blml] L60A question In-Reply-To: <200801310421.AA12270@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200801310421.AA12270@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <200801310431.AA12272@geller204.nifty.com> L60A reads as follows: *********************************************** LAW 60 - PLAY AFTER AN ILLEGAL PLAY A. Play of Card after Irregularity 1. A play by a member of the non-offending side after his RHO has led or played out of turn or prematurely, and before rectification has been assessed, forfeits the right to rectification of that offence. *********************************************** My question is, suppose there is a LOOT by the LHO of the a member of the NOS, and he plays out of turn after the LOOT. Under what law(s) should this be handled? -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 31 07:43:30 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:43:30 +1100 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Three highly unusual Directors (highly unusual expertise) gave a seminar on the new Lawbook at the recently concluded Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge. Director in charge Laurie Kelso must have drawn the short straw, as he was the one tasked with explaining the 2007 Law 27C. Laurie was forced to draw Venn diagrams on the whiteboard in order to describe the official South Pacific Zone interpretation of the key Law 27C1 word "incorporates". He stated that if the replacement call for an insufficient bid contained more information than the insufficient bid it would still be legal, provided that all the information given by the insufficient bid was included (and provided that the replacement call met the other criteria of Law 27C1). A matter for debate was Laurie's revelation that the withdrawn insufficient bid was authorised information for both sides. A perceptive Little Old Lady posed this tricky scenario: WEST NORTH EAST 1S 2C 1NT = 6-9 hcp, replaced by Pass = 0-9 hcp The hcp range of the Pass "incorporates" the hcp range of the 1NT, but West now has authorised information that East is denying a yarborough, which might make it easier for West to choose a successful rebid of 4S. I suppose a solution to this scenario would be to interpret the Law 27C2 phrase "without assistance from the insufficient bid" as including "without assistance from any difference in meaning between the insufficient bid and its replacement call". In my opinion there is also a lacuna in Law 27C2. It caters for possible damage caused by the _contract_ being different, but not for possible damage caused by the partner of the insufficient bidder _defending_ like Zia. The official recommendation of the South Pacific Zone, as described by Laurie Kelso, was that if there was no other way for Directors to rectify damage then ANZAC TDs should use Law 12A1 to give indemnity to the non-offending side. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Graduates 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 Thu Jan 31 07:54:32 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:54:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c863d6$22592d80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Grattan Endicott: > > >>+=+ Law 40B2(a) seems to authorize a condition that Ghestem > >>may be used provided no misbid occurs? ~ G ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills (first thoughts): > > >In my opinion, if the specific Law 75C defines a misbid as > >not an infraction, then the general Law 40B2(a) cannot be > >used as a basis to redefine a misbid as an infraction. > > Richard Hills (second thoughts): > > A cunning ploy by a Regulating Authority could be to define a > misbid not as an _infraction_ but rather as a _trigger_. > > For example, when a pair misbids Ghestem for the first time, > the Regulating Authority does not define the misbid as illegal, > but rather requires the TD to strike out Ghestem from the > partnership's system cards. > > But it seems to me that the RA's punning cloy remains contrary > to Law 75C since it inflicts a sanction on a pair for taking a > legal action. Be aware that Law 40B2(a) is not directed against any particular partnership but rather against any particular convention as specified. (BTW I'm ashamed that I didn't remember L40B2(a) myself). What RA may do is to issue a general condition for using Ghestem in events under their jurisdiction that (for instance): - it is not used against players with less than a certain masterpoints rating - it is used only in its standard form (whatever that can be) - it is not misbid - etc. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 31 07:58:45 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:58:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] L55A ambiguity? In-Reply-To: <200801310421.AA12270@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000101c863d6$b907dab0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> I believe this alleged ambiguity is resolved by looking at Law 53A? Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > Sent: 31. januar 2008 05:22 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Cc: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] L55A ambiguity? > > L55A reads as follows: > ***************************************************** > LAW 55 - DECLARER'S LEAD OUT OF TURN > A. Declarer's Lead Accepted > If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, either > defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its > retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose > differently the option expressed by the player next in turn shall > prevail. > **************************************************** > > My question is, who is the "player next in turn"? Let's take a concrete > example. South is the declarer, and he has the lead, but he calls for > a card from dummy (North). East says he wants to accept the LOOT, > but West says he wants to refuse it. > > West is the "player next in turn" after the proper leader (South), whereas > East is the "player next in turn" after the hand from which the LOOT was > made (dummy). > > My question is, which defender (E or W) is the "player next in turn" > specified > in L55A? > > My next question is, why couldn't the Law Lords have written, for example, > "player next in turn after the correct leader" rather than the ambiguous > "player next in turn"? (The answer is that if all ambiguities in the > Laws were > eliminated BLML would be all DWS all the time, so we should be thankful > once in a while we have something besides DWS to discuss. :-) ) > > -Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From geller at nifty.com Thu Jan 31 08:07:35 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:07:35 +0900 Subject: [blml] L55A ambiguity? In-Reply-To: <000101c863d6$b907dab0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000101c863d6$b907dab0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <200801310707.AA12276@geller204.nifty.com> Thanks Sven, But........... 53A says "next in rotation to the irregular lead." If this is what the WBFLC meant in 55A also, then why didn't they also say this in L55A instead of just "next in turn" without adding "to the irregular lead"? Had they done so all ambiguity would have been eliminated. (and we'd have only the DWS to discuss, so we should thank the WBFLC, I suppose. :-) ) -Bob Sven Pran writes: >I believe this alleged ambiguity is resolved by looking at Law 53A? > >Regards Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] >> On Behalf Of Robert Geller >> Sent: 31. januar 2008 05:22 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Cc: blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: [blml] L55A ambiguity? >> >> L55A reads as follows: >> ***************************************************** >> LAW 55 - DECLARER'S LEAD OUT OF TURN >> A. Declarer's Lead Accepted >> If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, either >> defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its >> retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose >> differently the option expressed by the player next in turn shall >> prevail. >> **************************************************** >> >> My question is, who is the "player next in turn"? Let's take a concrete >> example. South is the declarer, and he has the lead, but he calls for >> a card from dummy (North). East says he wants to accept the LOOT, >> but West says he wants to refuse it. >> >> West is the "player next in turn" after the proper leader (South), whereas >> East is the "player next in turn" after the hand from which the LOOT was >> made (dummy). >> >> My question is, which defender (E or W) is the "player next in turn" >> specified >> in L55A? >> >> My next question is, why couldn't the Law Lords have written, for example, >> "player next in turn after the correct leader" rather than the ambiguous >> "player next in turn"? (The answer is that if all ambiguities in the >> Laws were >> eliminated BLML would be all DWS all the time, so we should be thankful >> once in a while we have something besides DWS to discuss. :-) ) >> >> -Bob >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- >> Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Jan 31 08:47:21 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:47:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?L60A_question?= In-Reply-To: <200801310431.AA12272@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200801310421.AA12270@geller204.nifty.com> <200801310431.AA12272@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <1JKU8n-0H32000@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> From: Robert Geller > L60A reads as follows: > *********************************************** > LAW 60 - PLAY AFTER AN ILLEGAL PLAY > A. Play of Card after Irregularity > 1. A play by a member of the non-offending side after his RHO has led > or played out of turn or prematurely, and before rectification has > been assessed, forfeits the right to rectification of that offence. > *********************************************** > > My question is, suppose there is a LOOT by the LHO of the a member of > the NOS, and he plays out of turn after the LOOT. ?Under what law(s) > should this be handled? Suppose South is declarer. 1. Declarer is NOS and West makes a LOOT ; South puts a card on the table after that LOOT. a) if it was declarer to lead, see Law 53 C, if declarer wanted to lead that card; see Law 57 C2, if declarer did not want to lead that card. b) if it was not declarer to lead, see Law 57 C2. 2. Declarer is OS and leads a card OOT from dummy (North); West puts a card on the table after that LOOT. a) if it was West to lead, see Law 53 C, if West wanted to lead that card; see Law 57 A, if West did not want to lead that card. b) if it was not West to lead, see Law 57 A. From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Jan 31 09:12:50 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:12:50 +1300 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a1c3a560801310012v709e5321ne8089f678b7f31ae@mail.gmail.com> On 31/01/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Laurie was forced to draw Venn diagrams on the > whiteboard in order to describe the official > South Pacific Zone interpretation of the key > Law 27C1 word "incorporates". He stated that if > the replacement call for an insufficient bid > contained more information than the insufficient > bid it would still be legal, provided that all > the information given by the insufficient bid > was included (and provided that the replacement > call met the other criteria of Law 27C1). > > A matter for debate was Laurie's revelation that > the withdrawn insufficient bid was authorised > information for both sides. A perceptive Little > Old Lady posed this tricky scenario: > > WEST NORTH EAST > 1S 2C 1NT = 6-9 hcp, replaced by > Pass = 0-9 hcp > > The hcp range of the Pass "incorporates" the hcp > range of the 1NT, but West now has authorised > information that East is denying a yarborough, > which might make it easier for West to choose a > successful rebid of 4S. > In my mind 0-9 hcp contains less information than 6-9 hcp. In general a more restrictive bid contains more information. Wayne From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 31 09:36:01 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:36:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560801310012v709e5321ne8089f678b7f31ae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000701c863e4$502a9380$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows ............... > > A matter for debate was Laurie's revelation that > > the withdrawn insufficient bid was authorised > > information for both sides. A perceptive Little > > Old Lady posed this tricky scenario: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST > > 1S 2C 1NT = 6-9 hcp, replaced by > > Pass = 0-9 hcp > > > > The hcp range of the Pass "incorporates" the hcp > > range of the 1NT, but West now has authorised > > information that East is denying a yarborough, > > which might make it easier for West to choose a > > successful rebid of 4S. > > > > In my mind 0-9 hcp contains less information than 6-9 hcp. > > In general a more restrictive bid contains more information. Careful here! As Richard correctly points out: The insufficient bid includes the information that East cannot have less than 6 HCP. The replacement call does not incorporate this information. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 31 08:14:40 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:14:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] L60A question In-Reply-To: <200801310431.AA12272@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000201c863d8$f27e0510$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > L60A reads as follows: > *********************************************** > LAW 60 - PLAY AFTER AN ILLEGAL PLAY > A. Play of Card after Irregularity > 1. A play by a member of the non-offending side after his RHO has led or > played out of turn or prematurely, and before rectification has been > assessed, forfeits the right to rectification of that offence. > *********************************************** > > My question is, suppose there is a LOOT by the LHO of the a member > of the NOS, and he plays out of turn after the LOOT. Under what law(s) > should this be handled? Law 53. Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 31 10:24:00 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:24:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000001c863d6$22592d80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <003f01c863eb$295d3da0$58d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Be aware that Law 40B2(a) is not directed against > any particular partnership but rather against any particular > convention as specified. (BTW I'm ashamed that I didn't > remember L40B2(a) myself). > > What RA may do is to issue a general condition for using > Ghestem in events under their jurisdiction that (for instance): > - it is not used against players with less than a certain > masterpoints rating > - it is used only in its standard form (whatever that can be) > - it is not misbid > - etc. << +=+ Regulations may be tournament specific. For example, tournaments for novice players can be highly restrictive as to permitted methods. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jan 31 10:32:17 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:32:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <000501c86373$546f7a80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000501c86373$546f7a80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47A195A1.2030301@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > I must add that as a Director I always assume that no player deliberately > breaks any of the laws of bridge (See for instance Law 72B1). > > If I should ever find a player doing just that I shall be very severe. > > Luckily I have during my almost 30 years as Director never encountered such > dishonorable attitude from any player. > So what do you do with a player who hears his partner misexplain and who says "sorry, opponents, that is not correct". I've seen it happen and it was a player who did not know that you should not do that. Of course people sometimes break laws "deliberately". That's what penalties are for! > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 31 10:31:03 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:31:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2a1c3a560801310012v709e5321ne8089f678b7f31ae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004f01c863ec$02b4e3a0$58d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > In my mind 0-9 hcp contains less information than 6-9 hcp. > > In general a more restrictive bid contains more information. > +=+ That observation has been made in the exchanges among members of the DSC in current discussions on Law 27C1. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 31 11:15:21 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:15:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] WBFLC consultation References: <20080120095708.461BE254002@maildelivery012.isp.belgacom.be> <47932063.5020003@skynet.be> <007d01c85b62$523c8640$88ca403e@Mildred> <4793912D.60902@ntlworld.com><479886E2.2030004@ntlworld.com> <082301c85ea2$62def170$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <004101c863f2$4d2401e0$78d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] WBFLC consultation > > It seems to me that there are loads of places where > people in this mailing list have completed the arduous > process of learning what a particular law "means". It > is truly a shame that the DSC spurned all of the free > assistance they could have had in tidying up the language. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > +=+ Stefanie, Would you care to email to me your London snailmail address? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Jan 31 11:44:34 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:44:34 +1300 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a1c3a560801310244qfb045j3c7b5c69a7e33c38@mail.gmail.com> On 31/01/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Three highly unusual Directors (highly unusual > expertise) gave a seminar on the new Lawbook at > the recently concluded Aussie Summer Festival > of Bridge. > > Director in charge Laurie Kelso must have drawn > the short straw, as he was the one tasked with > explaining the 2007 Law 27C. > > Laurie was forced to draw Venn diagrams on the > whiteboard in order to describe the official > South Pacific Zone interpretation of the key > Law 27C1 word "incorporates". He stated that if > the replacement call for an insufficient bid > contained more information than the insufficient > bid it would still be legal, provided that all > the information given by the insufficient bid > was included (and provided that the replacement > call met the other criteria of Law 27C1). > > A matter for debate was Laurie's revelation that > the withdrawn insufficient bid was authorised > information for both sides. A perceptive Little > Old Lady posed this tricky scenario: > > WEST NORTH EAST > 1S 2C 1NT = 6-9 hcp, replaced by > Pass = 0-9 hcp > > The hcp range of the Pass "incorporates" the hcp > range of the 1NT, but West now has authorised > information that East is denying a yarborough, > which might make it easier for West to choose a > successful rebid of 4S. > > I suppose a solution to this scenario would be > to interpret the Law 27C2 phrase "without > assistance from the insufficient bid" as including > "without assistance from any difference in > meaning between the insufficient bid and its > replacement call". > > In my opinion there is also a lacuna in Law 27C2. > It caters for possible damage caused by the > _contract_ being different, but not for possible > damage caused by the partner of the insufficient > bidder _defending_ like Zia. > > The official recommendation of the South Pacific > Zone, as described by Laurie Kelso, was that if > there was no other way for Directors to rectify > damage then ANZAC TDs should use Law 12A1 to give > indemnity to the non-offending side. > As usual I have no idea what the intention of this law was but it would seem to me that if the replaced bid or call gave more specific information then there was no advantage to the offending side whereas if it gave less specific information then there would be an advantage. This appears to be completely opposite to the example given by Laurie Kelso but as I stated earlier concurs with the idea of more information being allowed in the replacement bid. Another way to see the fallacy is to describe the bids in the example as both less than 10 hcp the first (insufficient) bid contains the additional information not 0-5 hcp. The replacement bid does not contain that additional information. What the law actually says is : "If the insufficient bid is replaced by a bid at the lowest legal level or double or pass that incorporates the information contained in the insufficient bid, the auction and play continues with the information arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides (Law 16D does not apply), but see 2 following." I would think that a replacement bid that showed 7-8 hcp should be allowed. It incorporates all of the information in the original (6-9 hcp) bid - less then 10 hcp and not 0-5 hcp and it includes additional information that it is not a six count and is not a nine count. The consequence is that there is no additional information in the replacement bid. Wayne From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 31 11:46:49 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:46:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids In-Reply-To: <000701c86379$0b62dc00$225e9951@stefanie> References: <000101c8634c$53efd4f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <000701c86379$0b62dc00$225e9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <47A1A719.8090002@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > SP: > > >> I am not familiar with Ghestem (maybe we know that convention under a >> different name?) so I have no idea of what the fuss is all about. >> >> > Ghestem is a peculiar treatment of weak jump overcalls wherein partner > describes them as two-suited in the WJO suit and the opponents' suit. > Not quite. Ghestem is a convention by which the cue-bid (sometimes jump-cue), 2NT and the most economical jump in a minor suit show the three possible 2-suiters not including "their" suit. Some play 1C-2C as clubs + another, but there is nothing said about other 2-suiters including "their" suit. The problem is that the 2D / 3C bis is used by most as a WJO, whence the frequent confusion, not to mention permuting the 2-suited types. Best regards Alain. From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Jan 31 11:49:06 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:49:06 +1300 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c863e4$502a9380$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <2a1c3a560801310012v709e5321ne8089f678b7f31ae@mail.gmail.com> <000701c863e4$502a9380$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560801310249u17eef7a5t102b189a88226d06@mail.gmail.com> On 31/01/2008, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > ............... > > > A matter for debate was Laurie's revelation that > > > the withdrawn insufficient bid was authorised > > > information for both sides. A perceptive Little > > > Old Lady posed this tricky scenario: > > > > > > WEST NORTH EAST > > > 1S 2C 1NT = 6-9 hcp, replaced by > > > Pass = 0-9 hcp > > > > > > The hcp range of the Pass "incorporates" the hcp > > > range of the 1NT, but West now has authorised > > > information that East is denying a yarborough, > > > which might make it easier for West to choose a > > > successful rebid of 4S. > > > > > > > In my mind 0-9 hcp contains less information than 6-9 hcp. > > > > In general a more restrictive bid contains more information. > > Careful here! > > As Richard correctly points out: > > The insufficient bid includes the information that East cannot have less > than 6 HCP. The replacement call does not incorporate this information. > Exactly and the law requires that it does incorporate that information - "that incorporates the information contained in the insufficient bid". Therefore either Kelso's interpretation or example are wrong. I think the example is wrong. Pass does not "incorporate" all of the information in a 1NT response to a level opening. Wayne From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 31 11:56:17 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:56:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bible In-Reply-To: <47A195A1.2030301@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01c863f7$e8209320$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > Of course people sometimes break laws "deliberately". That's what > penalties are for! I am aware of your attitude. So far I have encountered only honourable players at the tables. Sven From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 31 14:33:55 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:33:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000001c863d6$22592d80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <009e01c8640d$ed9cfc60$0100a8c0@stefanie> > What RA may do is to issue a general condition for using Ghestem in events > under their jurisdiction that (for instance): > - it is not used against players with less than a certain masterpoints > rating This is not permitted, is it? Changing one's system continuously during the event? It doesn't really help matters anyway. It is hard for a pair with any amount of experience to get to game or slam in one of the suits the two-suited overcaller has shown. > - it is used only in its standard form (whatever that can be) > - it is not misbid > - etc. The problem is that the misbids will not be detected. This is what worries me. Stefanie Rohan London, England From john at asimere.com Thu Jan 31 15:09:15 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:09:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003601c86412$dd47d380$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Nigel Guthrie: > >>Many pairs are "forgetful" about Ghestem.....The director often >>treats the favourable result for the "Guessed 'em" pair as "rub >>of the green"..... > > Richard Hills: > > An EBU Director is currently hamstrung by this dubious EBU > regulation -> > > EBU Orange Book, clause 3B10: > > If a player has knowledge that partner tends to forget a > particular agreement that tendency must neither be disclosed..... I view this to be an illegal regulation. It contravenes 75C. > > Richard Hills: > > However, while clause 3B10 is of debatable legality under the > 1997 Lawbook, it is clearly unLawfully contrary to the 2007 Law > 40, so 3B10 will no doubt be rewritten during this year's > revision of the Orange Book. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Governance & Graduates 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 31 15:28:37 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:28:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47A1DB15.9020705@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Note that while the 2007 Law 40B2(d) empowers the Regulating > Authority to restrict artificial calls which are psychic, the > RA has not been given a parallel power to restrict artificial > calls which are misbid. > > I think it's more general than that. Authorities, including TDs, are responsible for ensuring smoothness of bridge play, and convention disruption is, er, disruptive. Disallowing some behavior that spoils pleasure wuthout helping in any aspect is within the scope of their authority. > "If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that > has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may > award a procedural penalty." > > AG : agreed, but this concerns pieces of meaning that are part of the bid according to our system or style ; the sense the bid could have if and when I forget my system aren't included in the meaning the bid has in our system. Surely one wouldn't classify systemic errors as "matters of style" ? L75C, however, is general enough to cover this case. Adding "provided he remembered the system", with the underlying knowledge that "it happened before", comes within range of "knowledge of partner". Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 31 15:40:58 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:40:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47A116B5.3010401@ntlworld.com> References: <47A116B5.3010401@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <47A1DDFA.3040106@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > For the last word on the subject, read ... > > [David Burn] > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brx_brn0.htm > > I'm a trifle uncertain about David's claim that bidding again after a Ghestem error is cheating. After all, a change of suit over partne's preempt is forcing. Only, in David's first case, North's bid should hazve been 3NT, and now South isn't allowed to understand what happened if it happened before. But if 3NT is doubled, I'd say North may pull back to 4C. Because that's how he would bid over a natural (and strong) 3S after the overcall. Think about it : if you were playing WJOs, and were sure partner understood your 3C as WJO, would you pass partner's forcing 3S bid ? Nope ? Then you shouldn't pass here. Now you see, such situations often lead to the use of the C-word. Isn't that a good enuogh reason to disallow said convention ? Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 31 15:49:35 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:49:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6B84EBBB-C5D1-4C50-84D7-CDC37AB84059@starpower.net> On Jan 31, 2008, at 1:43 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Laurie was forced to draw Venn diagrams on the > whiteboard in order to describe the official > South Pacific Zone interpretation of the key > Law 27C1 word "incorporates". He stated that if > the replacement call for an insufficient bid > contained more information than the insufficient > bid it would still be legal, provided that all > the information given by the insufficient bid > was included (and provided that the replacement > call met the other criteria of Law 27C1). > > A matter for debate was Laurie's revelation that > the withdrawn insufficient bid was authorised > information for both sides. A perceptive Little > Old Lady posed this tricky scenario: > > WEST NORTH EAST > 1S 2C 1NT = 6-9 hcp, replaced by > Pass = 0-9 hcp > > The hcp range of the Pass "incorporates" the hcp > range of the 1NT, but West now has authorised > information that East is denying a yarborough, > which might make it easier for West to choose a > successful rebid of 4S. It sounds like the perceptive LOL misunderstood Mr. Kelso's explanation. That East holds at least 6 HCP is certainly "information", it was "given" by the 1NT IB, and it is not "included" in the replacement pass. The pass should not be allowed without penalty. Imagine (very silly example, but it works) that 1NT showed 0-9 and pass showed 6-9. Now it would be allowed without penalty. Note the difference. Keep in mind the axiom that if A incorporates B and B incorporates A, then A and B must be identical. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 31 16:01:03 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:01:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids In-Reply-To: <000001c863d6$22592d80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c863d6$22592d80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: On Jan 31, 2008, at 1:54 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Grattan Endicott: >> >>>> +=+ Law 40B2(a) seems to authorize a condition that Ghestem >>>> may be used provided no misbid occurs? ~ G ~ +=+ >> >> Richard Hills (first thoughts): >> >>> In my opinion, if the specific Law 75C defines a misbid as >>> not an infraction, then the general Law 40B2(a) cannot be >>> used as a basis to redefine a misbid as an infraction. >> >> Richard Hills (second thoughts): >> >> A cunning ploy by a Regulating Authority could be to define a >> misbid not as an _infraction_ but rather as a _trigger_. >> >> For example, when a pair misbids Ghestem for the first time, >> the Regulating Authority does not define the misbid as illegal, >> but rather requires the TD to strike out Ghestem from the >> partnership's system cards. >> >> But it seems to me that the RA's punning cloy remains contrary >> to Law 75C since it inflicts a sanction on a pair for taking a >> legal action. > > Be aware that Law 40B2(a) is not directed against any particular > partnership > but rather against any particular convention as specified. (BTW I'm > ashamed > that I didn't remember L40B2(a) myself). > > What RA may do is to issue a general condition for using Ghestem in > events > under their jurisdiction that (for instance): > - it is not used against players with less than a certain masterpoints > rating > - it is used only in its standard form (whatever that can be) > - it is not misbid > - etc. What the RA may do is whatever it darn well pleases. "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to... allow conditionally any special partnership understanding." I am confident that when our lawmakers wrote "without restriction", they meant it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jan 31 16:16:58 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:16:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C In-Reply-To: <6B84EBBB-C5D1-4C50-84D7-CDC37AB84059@starpower.net> References: <6B84EBBB-C5D1-4C50-84D7-CDC37AB84059@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47A1E66A.2000203@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> A matter for debate was Laurie's revelation that >> the withdrawn insufficient bid was authorised >> information for both sides. A perceptive Little >> Old Lady posed this tricky scenario: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST >> 1S 2C 1NT = 6-9 hcp, replaced by >> Pass = 0-9 hcp >> >> The hcp range of the Pass "incorporates" the hcp >> range of the 1NT, but West now has authorised >> information that East is denying a yarborough, >> which might make it easier for West to choose a >> successful rebid of 4S. >> > > It sounds like the perceptive LOL misunderstood Mr. Kelso's > explanation. That East holds at least 6 HCP is certainly > "information", it was "given" by the 1NT IB, and it is not "included" > in the replacement pass. The pass should not be allowed without > penalty. > > Imagine (very silly example, but it works) that 1NT showed 0-9 and > pass showed 6-9. Now it would be allowed without penalty. Note the > difference. Keep in mind the axiom that if A incorporates B and B > incorporates A, then A and B must be identical. > The fact is, we have here an interesting example of definitional inclusion. When the information in definition of A incorporates all information in definition of B, then the range of possible cases for B incorporates the rage of possible cases for A. So, the test should be that the range be narrower, not wider. The lol forgot to perform this reversal. An example : Mammal : any animal species whose females produce milk Proboscician : any animal species with a trunk and whose females produce milk Since P information includes M information, M includes P. For a replacement declaration to be allowed, the information it contains must contain all information in the relpaced bid, whence the range of possible hands should be narrower, not wider. Best regards Alain From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 31 16:41:33 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:41:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00dc01c8641f$c1a4b5a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Richard Hills: > > An EBU Director is currently hamstrung by this dubious EBU > regulation -> > > EBU Orange Book, clause 3B10: > > If a player has knowledge that partner tends to forget a > particular agreement that tendency must neither be disclosed..... > > Richard Hills: > > However, while clause 3B10 is of debatable legality under the > 1997 Lawbook, it is clearly unLawfully contrary to the 2007 Law > 40, so 3B10 will no doubt be rewritten during this year's > revision of the Orange Book. Yes, 3B10 is probably illegal. It is strange that so many dubious things appear in the book; it seems that the process of writing and approving it has to be changed. However, removing 3B10 will still provide little help for the opponents of Ghestem users, since the rate of forgetfulness will not be marked on the convention card, and may not be offered in the initial explanation of the bid's meaning. Asking "how often is it really a WJO in clubs?" is a question that gives far too much UI. When the opponents are properly informed, it still may not help unless they have previously discussed methods to deal with maybe-Ghestem. They can't simply assume that 3C is natural, will they? If they turn out to have guessed wrong, they will be left to suffer the consequences of not believing the opponents' system as it was revealed to them. So they will have to play as if 3C really was Ghestem. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 31 16:46:36 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:46:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47A1DB15.9020705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00f201c86420$76356140$0100a8c0@stefanie> RH : > > Note that while the 2007 Law 40B2(d) empowers the Regulating > Authority to restrict artificial calls which are psychic, the > RA has not been given a parallel power to restrict artificial > calls which are misbid. The problem might be solved simply by treating a misbid exactly as a psyche. > > AG: I think it's more general than that. Authorities, including TDs, are responsible for ensuring smoothness of bridge play, and convention disruption is, er, disruptive. Disallowing some behavior that spoils pleasure wuthout helping in any aspect is within the scope of their authority. SR: Yes. Working out "how" is tricky though. AG: L75C, however, is general enough to cover this case. Adding "provided he remembered the system", with the underlying knowledge that "it happened before", comes within range of "knowledge of partner". SR: Yes, and of course this should be disclosed, illegal EBU regulations notwithstanding. But currently it is not disclosed, and I can't imagine how players can be educated. And as I have mentioned in another post, the NOS may not be able to protect themselves even after this disclosure. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 31 16:53:00 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:53:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Nothing more remains to be said Message-ID: <00fa01c86421$5b5059b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> A poster who shall remain anonymous wrote: > Of course people sometimes break laws "deliberately". That's what > penalties are for! There is not much to be said to someone who thinks that this is the way bridge is intended to be played, rather than knowing that breaking a law deliberately is not subject to "penalty" as described in the Laws for infractions, but is grounds for expulsion from the event and the NBO. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 31 17:02:33 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:02:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids References: <000001c863d6$22592d80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <012d01c86422$b10d8ca0$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> - it is used only in its standard form (whatever that can be) This is interesting. I seem to remember that originally, the suits included in Ghestem 3C would never include clubs. This rule would help matters a bit, because the bid would not be passed out. I wonder how many times 3C has been passed out after which inexperienced opponents collected a small penalty, never noticing that they had missed game in the Ghestem bidder's supposed second suit. Stefanie Rohan London, England From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 31 18:42:36 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:42:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560801310244qfb045j3c7b5c69a7e33c38@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560801310244qfb045j3c7b5c69a7e33c38@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47A2088C.6070704@ntlworld.com> [Wayne Burrows] I would think that a replacement bid that showed 7-8 hcp should be allowed. It incorporates all of the information in the original (6-9 hcp) bid - less then 10 hcp and not 0-5 hcp and it includes additional information that it is not a six count and is not a nine count. The consequence is that there is no additional information in the replacement bid. [Nige1] What Wayne suggests seems sensible and logical :) Players may be able to understand it! :) Can it really be the law? :( From svenpran at online.no Thu Jan 31 18:44:49 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:44:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000e01c86430$fb0ead30$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au .............. > Note that while the 2007 Law 40B2(d) empowers the Regulating > Authority to restrict artificial calls which are psychic, the > RA has not been given a parallel power to restrict artificial > calls which are misbid. The relevant law is 2007 40B2(a), not 40B2(d) ! Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 31 18:56:54 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:56:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47A1DDFA.3040106@ulb.ac.be> References: <47A116B5.3010401@ntlworld.com> <47A1DDFA.3040106@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47A20BE6.2060006@ntlworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] I'm a trifle uncertain about David's claim that bidding again after a Ghestem error is cheating. After all, a change of suit over partne's preempt is forcing. Only, in David's first case, North's bid should hazve been 3NT, and now South isn't allowed to understand what happened if it happened before. But if 3NT is doubled, I'd say North may pull back to 4C. Because that's how he would bid over a natural (and strong) 3S after the overcall. Think about it : if you were playing WJOs, and were sure partner understood your 3C as WJO, would you pass partner's forcing 3S bid ? Nope ? Then you shouldn't pass here. Now you see, such situations often lead to the use of the C-word. Isn't that a good enuogh reason to disallow said convention ? [Nige1] In David's example, Pierre Ghestem allegedly held ... S:xx H:xx D:Qx C:QTxxxxx And the auction was ... 1H 3C (1) Pass 3S _X ?? When partner's ostensibly natural and forcing bid is *doubled* and you hold two cards better support than you might have, it is hard to justify any further action. Except, perhaps redouble :) From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 31 19:37:01 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:37:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] Nothing more remains to be said In-Reply-To: <00fa01c86421$5b5059b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <00fa01c86421$5b5059b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47A2154D.60204@ntlworld.com> [Stefanie Rohan] A poster who shall remain anonymous wrote: > > Of course people sometimes break laws "deliberately". That's what > > penalties are for! There is not much to be said to someone who thinks that this is the way bridge is intended to be played, rather than knowing that breaking a law deliberately is not subject to "penalty" as described in the Laws for infractions, but is grounds for expulsion from the event and the NBO. [Nige1] Stefanie is in tune with the law-makers, whose prime purpose is merely to *rectify reported infractions* (to restore the status quo -- rather than to penalize or to deter law-breakers). Until long term records are kept, it will be hard to detect and deal adequately with repeat offenders. Habitual law-breakers reap a large net profit because few infractions are reported and ruled against. When a competition is half-way through, many of the field are out of contention. Hence few victims will consider it worth the hassle to report an infraction. Thus "Equity" rules encourage rather than deter infraction. Few players who regularly break the law fit Stefanie's description. None would admit to cheating deliberately. Many are unsure of the law. Some are careless. Others rationalize their behaviour. (We all know people who falsify tax returns and break speed limits). Obviously, rules with a higher penalty element would encourage conformance :) and increase the enjoyment of law-abiding players :) Unfortunately, such rules would result in fewer director calls :( If the rules were more simple and objective there would also be fewer intriguing cases for discussion on BLML :( From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jan 31 19:56:59 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:56:59 -0600 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C In-Reply-To: <6B84EBBB-C5D1-4C50-84D7-CDC37AB84059@starpower.net> References: <6B84EBBB-C5D1-4C50-84D7-CDC37AB84059@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801311056k64b6ea95o408da513ec0c3347@mail.gmail.com> On Jan 31, 2008 8:49 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > It sounds like the perceptive LOL misunderstood Mr. Kelso's > explanation. That East holds at least 6 HCP is certainly > "information", it was "given" by the 1NT IB, and it is not "included" > in the replacement pass. The pass should not be allowed without > penalty. > > Imagine (very silly example, but it works) that 1NT showed 0-9 and > pass showed 6-9. Now it would be allowed without penalty. Note the > difference. Keep in mind the axiom that if A incorporates B and B > incorporates A, then A and B must be identical. > This analysis appeals. I wonder if another way I thought of looking at it always gives the right answer: If the insufficient bid and the corrected call together give the same information as the corrected call would by itself, then allow the correction without penalty. or maybe this way If the original insufficient bid provides no extra information about the hand when the corrected call replaces it, then allow the correction without penalty. or maybe this this way If in terms of information, A + B = B, then allow the correction of insufficient bid A to call B without penalty. Maybe it is my dyslexia, but I find the way the law uses the word "incorporates" almost permanently confusing. What Venn diagram symbolizes "incorporating information"? I don't think an information theorist would be sure what is meant, so a rewording or a clarification is in order. Then there is the question of how perfect the incorporation must be. Absolutely perfect A + B = B is probably quite rare, but the law makers gave us a glimpse of their intention (a few weeks ago) that the new law should allow more corrections than the old law. (That kind of glimpse is both rare and helpful.) This apparently means that A + B = B is not a strict requirement. Again, a rewording or a clarification is in order. Jerry Fusselman From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Jan 31 21:02:18 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:02:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000e01c86430$fb0ead30$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <009a01c86444$2f0d1780$0100a8c0@stefanie> .............. >> Note that while the 2007 Law 40B2(d) empowers the Regulating >> Authority to restrict artificial calls which are psychic, the >> RA has not been given a parallel power to restrict artificial >> calls which are misbid. > > The relevant law is 2007 40B2(a), not 40B2(d) ! > > 40C1 does not mention that a deviation must be deliberate. Does it say anywhere else in the Laws that a misbid may not be treated as identical to a psyche? Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 31 22:44:12 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:44:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801311056k64b6ea95o408da513ec0c3347@mail.gmail.com> References: <6B84EBBB-C5D1-4C50-84D7-CDC37AB84059@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0801311056k64b6ea95o408da513ec0c3347@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <815843EF-361D-4789-9342-CE48DACCBDD3@starpower.net> On Jan 31, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Jan 31, 2008 8:49 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> It sounds like the perceptive LOL misunderstood Mr. Kelso's >> explanation. That East holds at least 6 HCP is certainly >> "information", it was "given" by the 1NT IB, and it is not "included" >> in the replacement pass. The pass should not be allowed without >> penalty. >> >> Imagine (very silly example, but it works) that 1NT showed 0-9 and >> pass showed 6-9. Now it would be allowed without penalty. Note the >> difference. Keep in mind the axiom that if A incorporates B and B >> incorporates A, then A and B must be identical. >> > This analysis appeals. I wonder if another way I thought of looking > at it always gives the right answer: > > If the insufficient bid and the corrected call together give the same > information as the corrected call would by itself, then allow the > correction without penalty. > > or maybe this way > > If the original insufficient bid provides no extra information about > the hand when the corrected call replaces it, then allow the > correction without penalty. > > or maybe this this way > > If in terms of information, A + B = B, then allow the correction of > insufficient bid A to call B without penalty. Yup. Any of those works. > Maybe it is my dyslexia, but I find the way the law uses the word > "incorporates" almost permanently confusing. What Venn diagram > symbolizes "incorporating information"? I don't think an information > theorist would be sure what is meant, so a rewording or a > clarification is in order. Think of the "information" from a call as being the set of potential hands that could be held for that call. Then set theory works too. See Alain's post to this thread. > Then there is the question of how perfect the incorporation must be. > Absolutely perfect A + B = B is probably quite rare, but the law > makers gave us a glimpse of their intention (a few weeks ago) that the > new law should allow more corrections than the old law. (That kind of > glimpse is both rare and helpful.) This apparently means that A + B = > B is not a strict requirement. Again, a rewording or a clarification > is in order. It would seem apparent from the discussions leading up to the new laws that they were thinking of replacement calls that would not have been permitted (without penalty) previously, and wanted to allow them (e.g. the "insufficient transfer" case). The cases that work the other way -- and there are plenty of them -- were more likely to have been unintended consequences. So it would have "felt like" they were allowing more cases, but it will probably be a while before we can really make a quantitative comparison. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net