From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Feb 1 04:23:40 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:23:40 -0800 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080131191609.01dc1988@mail.optusnet.com.au> RHH: >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the withdrawn insufficient bid was authorised 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. One has the impression that the new L27 was supposed to ease several of the restrictions which made the old L27 so easy to administer and explain to the punters. I had not noticed that "pass" could be a legal change of call which might allow partner to continue in the auction..I suppose I have difficulty coming to grips with what "incorporates" means. There is no way I can explain what is permitted and what is authorised to an offender. I have been getting around it by administering a very slack version of the old L27 and hoping for the best. Whatever, it now seems that I should carefully examine the final contract under L27C2 in each case. Tony (Sydney) From henk at amsterdamned.org Fri Feb 1 01:01:00 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 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 Fri Feb 1 01:01:01 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:01:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for January 2008 Posts From ----- ---- 184 hermandw (at) skynet.be 125 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 119 svenpran (at) online.no 102 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 100 ehaa (at) starpower.net 74 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 74 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 64 ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com 60 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 59 guthrie (at) ntlworld.com 40 geller (at) nifty.com 38 hirsch9000 (at) verizon.net 35 john (at) asimere.com 30 swillner (at) nhcc.net 29 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 28 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 27 mustikka (at) charter.net 22 cibor (at) poczta.fm 17 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 14 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 13 adam (at) tameware.com 13 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 11 twm (at) cix.co.uk 9 schoderb (at) msn.com 9 Gampas (at) aol.com 8 martino (at) bridgenz.co.nz 7 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 7 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 6 adam (at) irvine.com 5 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 5 hirsch9000 (at) gmail.com 5 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 5 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 4 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 4 nancy (at) dressing.org 3 vitoldbr (at) yandex.ru 3 tsvecfob (at) iol.ie 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 emu (at) fwi.net.au 2 bmeadows666 (at) gmail.com 2 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 2 andre.steffens (at) hccnet.nl 1 petrus (at) stift-kremsmuenster.at 1 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr 1 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 1 jeffford (at) gmail.com 1 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 1 francis.wolff (at) estvideo.fr 1 ccw.in.nc (at) gmail.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 1 01:01:43 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:01:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01c86430$fb0ead30$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: 2007 Law 40B2(a): >The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction >to ..... allow conditionally, any special partnership >understanding ..... Richard Hills: Under a literal reading of "without restriction" it seems that a Regulating Authority could perpetrate this rule: "You may use the Ghestem convention on the condition that you never claim, never misbid, and also never bid a slam." So I still argue that "without restriction" should be read as "without restriction, unless contrary to another more specific Law". That is, I prefer the Kojak rule-of-the-thumb, "a specific Law takes priority over a more general Law" to another more arbitrary policy, "if you do not like what a Law says, find another Law". Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Graduates Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 1 01:23:06 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:23:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009e01c8640d$ed9cfc60$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: >>- it is not used against players with less than a certain masterpoints >>rating Stefanie Rohan: >This is not permitted, is it? Changing one's system continuously during >the event? Richard Hills: In my opinion, Stefanie has got the legal situation backwards. The 2007 Law 40B2(a) has a default that both members of a pair play the same methods, but that Law does not necessarily preclude both members of the pair simultaneously changing to a set of new methods during a session. On the other hand, a Regulating Authority is empowered to specify when and how one may change one's methods during a session or event. So in some ABF matchpoint pairs events my partnership's conditional approval to use "Brown Sticker" two-bids is dependent on whether our opponents for the round are "Orange Sticker" novices. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Graduates Section National Training Branch Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8439 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 01:51:36 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 13:51:36 +1300 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000e01c86430$fb0ead30$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560801311651l7a211cdex4e9a78d41b9e5571@mail.gmail.com> On 01/02/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 2007 Law 40B2(a): > > >The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction > >to ..... allow conditionally, any special partnership > >understanding ..... > > Richard Hills: > > Under a literal reading of "without restriction" it seems > that a Regulating Authority could perpetrate this rule: > > "You may use the Ghestem convention on the condition that > you never claim, never misbid, and also never bid a slam." > > So I still argue that "without restriction" should be read > as "without restriction, unless contrary to another more > specific Law". > > That is, I prefer the Kojak rule-of-the-thumb, "a specific > Law takes priority over a more general Law" to another more > arbitrary policy, "if you do not like what a Law says, find > another Law". > This would be a major philosophical change we have just had 20 or more years in which the laws are interpreted to mean whatever the director or Sponsoring Organization or National Authority want them to mean even if plainly contrary to the written laws. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 02:28:08 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:28:08 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00f201c86420$76356140$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A1DB15.9020705@ulb.ac.be> <00f201c86420$76356140$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560801311728xeaced30p2b8dfbb6e1ac3d45@mail.gmail.com> On 01/02/2008, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > 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. > If this is really true we have stumbled across a brilliant new two way convention that is near impossible to defend against. However I doubt this and this Ghestem problem I believe is just a storm in a teacup. The real problem if there is one is that directors do not rigorously enforce MI and UI infractions against the misbidders. MI when in fact an implicit agreement has been created and UI when a bid has been explained or misexplained. In a similar situation I was once dumbfounded when my opponents bid as follows: (1D*) 2NT** (Pass) 3C (Pass) 3H ... * Symmetric - 2 or 3 suited unbalanced no five-card major (not necessarily diamonds) ** explained as both minors but the actual holding was both majors The 2NT bidder had 5=5=1=2 and would have had an easy pass or raise of 3C but chose instead to try and correct the misinformation by bidding 3H. Amazingly the director and appeal committee allowed this blatant use of UI. Coincidentally the director was in a personal relationship with one of the opponents. While there are directors and committees willing to allow this blatant use of UI we will continue to have problems. As soon as directors disallow this blatant use of UI and resolve doubtful points in favour of the non-offenders then the majority of the problems will go away. Occasionally there will be a rub of the green situation where a misbid produces an unexpected windfall but these will be far out numbered by the -1100s. I want my opponents to make mistakes so let them use Ghestem and the like but punish them appropriately when they use UI to wriggle out of their problems. Wayne From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Feb 1 02:31:53 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:31:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] When both players are dWSists In-Reply-To: <200801242128.m0OLSLiM027737@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801242128.m0OLSLiM027737@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47A27689.6060902@nhcc.net> [As I wrote some time ago, my BLML postings will be irregular. Sorry not to have responded to these earlier.] > From: Eric Landau > [someone could] use a DWS-like approach as a means to cheat, ... > "Getting away with cheating", were one so inclined, > would be as simple as "forgetting" to follow through with [an > accurate explanation at the proper time]. I'm > cynical enough to think that this might prove tempting even to some > who would never cheat proactively. All agree that "school" doesn't matter to outright cheats; the question here is a player who might be tempted if he thought he could get away with it. In the MS, all such a player has to do is convince himself that "Yes, of course it's partner's explanation that is correct." That seems to me quite a lot easier to do, and a lot harder to penalize, than "forgetting to correct." [MI may go unnoticed, Eric again:] > 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? MI is a lot easier to recognize than "use of UI." That's one of the strengths of the dWS. Of course if the players are cheats, they will get away with it for awhile in either school. [The "general case" of the dWS] > 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. I could quibble about the question -- alert rules may not be as you say -- but I know what you mean. The person we need now is Marvin French, who would remind us that it's wrong to ask about one call. What the 3C bidder might do is say "2NT was natural, 16-19," and then gesture to partner, who will explain 3C. The real point is that this position only arises because the opponents have breached proper procedure, and even when they do, in the real world players will nearly always know what partner's bid means. > Premise: It is possible to play bridge without violating any of its > laws. Sure. Just don't ever give MI. The question is what to do after MI is already given. From: "Sven Pran" > Remember that it is not illegal to give an incorrect explanation > accidentally because you believe that your explanation is correct Huh?! This may be the most bizarre statement yet. Of course MI is illegal, regardless of why you are giving it. Otherwise there would be no reason for score adjustment in ordinary MI cases. > 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. I couldn't believe Sven meant this, but he confirmed in a subsequent message. I think he's in a minority of one on this one. Let's say South makes a bid inconsistent with his hand, either misbid or psych. North gives the correct systemic explanation, and subsequently all of North's and South's explanations are consistent with the system as verified to the satisfaction of the TD. Further, South never "uses UI" (which we on BLML know means "never violates L16 or 73C"). North of course has no UI, and all his actions are entirely normal (no "fielding"). Is anyone besides Sven even slightly tempted to consider that there's been an infraction? From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Feb 1 02:34:21 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:34:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] L42A1 question In-Reply-To: <200801252200.m0PM0Sq6015590@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801252200.m0PM0Sq6015590@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47A2771D.5010500@nhcc.net> > From: Robert Geller > Could someone please explain to me how dummy, or, for that matter, > ANY player, could give information to the Director "as to law"? Why do I suspect Robert hasn't played much in the ACBL? :-( We do have some fine directors here (including the ones at clubs I play at -- not a coincidence!), but you can't rely on finding them at a typical tournament. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 1 02:36:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:36:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009a01c86444$2f0d1780$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan: >Does it say anywhere else in the Laws that a misbid >may not be treated as identical to a psyche? Richard Hills: The Lawbook's Definitions distinguish a psyche as being "deliberate". An erstwhile EBU regulation permitted a misbid of an artificial game force 2C, but prohibited a psyche of that bid. 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 swillner at nhcc.net Fri Feb 1 02:38:05 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:38:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] LA In-Reply-To: <200801252210.m0PMA5U6017923@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801252210.m0PMA5U6017923@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47A277FD.40501@nhcc.net> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] LA > > 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. In general, bids that were actually made will be LAs, but this problem is why I prefer to use L73C when a player does something "crazy." If the TD judges he could reasonably have done it trying somehow to take advantage of the UI, even indirectly, then adjust the score. If that could not reasonably have been the motive, then don't. This sort of case must be very rare if it has ever happened at all. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Feb 1 03:03:10 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:03:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <200801242129.m0OLTQ7k028095@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801242129.m0OLTQ7k028095@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47A27DDE.50903@nhcc.net> >>[Is temporary MI a problem...] >>Even if the opponents are never going to be in the auction? > From: Eric Landau > 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; ... > Does this not discommode the opponents to the potential advantage of > the DWSists? It certainly can't be good for them. No doubt there's an indirect effect, but the main damage has already occurred when the initial MI was given. At least in principle, the opponents have time to reconsider the auction before the opening lead. Against that, the MS has the extra UI, which is sure to cause at least some problem. How long will it take the opponents to decide whether they were possibly damaged? (Yes, it's the TD's job, but don't rely on that in the ACBL!) From: "David Burn" > 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. I hope Jerry's question "Why not clear up MI at once" (i.e., the instant it was given) has become clear, but I have yet to see an answer. At least in the specific case mentioned at the beginning, and despite Eric's response, it is far from clear to me that the MS is "better bridge." Whoever wrote L20F5 didn't think MI is always worse than UI. [in the MS] >>> 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: "Stefanie Rohan" > Yes, this happens sometimes. Players who are in receipt of UI often suffer > therefrom. Poor dears. David Burn's objection (one of them) to the dWS was that it makes more work for TDs and ACs. The point was that the MS is worse than the dWS in that respect. (I know the various threads are a bit confusing, but I thought the context was clear.) [asking questions to put opponents in a UI position] > 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. I suppose this is a matter of personal ethics. Some people would consider not asking to be a form of dumping, which is often prohibited. > 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. I've seen it at least twice in the last year, and I don't play all that often (one session most weeks plus the occasional tournament day or two). From: Robert Geller > 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. Compare with: "Yes, but MI is harmless unless it could have affected an opponent'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 MI." MI is generally easier to recognize than UI -- a hand is grossly different than expected -- and I'd say it's generally easier to figure out what the adjusted score ought to be. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Feb 1 03:07:30 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:07:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] L55A ambiguity? In-Reply-To: <200801312259.m0VMxYXn015814@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801312259.m0VMxYXn015814@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47A27EE2.8010407@nhcc.net> Steve Willner wrote: > From: Robert Geller > My question is, who is the "player next in turn"? The Law is irretrievably ambiguous. If you are asking in your capacity as translator, I'm afraid you will have to find a way to keep the ambiguity in your translation. If you are asking how a TD should rule at the table, I think Sven has correctly stated the intent, but unless there's an official interpretation, we have no way to be certain. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 1 03:40:42 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 13:40:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00dc01c8641f$c1a4b5a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan: >.....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..... Richard Hills: In my opinion while "will not be marked" on the System Card may be what mostly happens in practice, "should be marked" on the System Card is what is required for such an implicit partnership understanding by the 2007 Law 40B2(a). Stefanie Rohan: >.....the NOS may not be able to protect themselves even after >this disclosure. Richard Hills: I agree that the NOS could be disadvantaged if they are advised in the middle of a live auction that 3C shows either clubs or both red suits. But the 2007 Law 40A1(b) requires _advance_ disclosure of partnership understandings, thus giving the NOS time to discuss a defence to the Two-Way Ghestem convention. 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 Fri Feb 1 04:00:25 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:00:25 +0000 Subject: [blml] L55A ambiguity? In-Reply-To: <47A27EE2.8010407@nhcc.net> References: <200801312259.m0VMxYXn015814@cfa.harvard.edu> <47A27EE2.8010407@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <47A28B49.90708@ntlworld.com> [TNLB L55A] 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. [Robert Geller] 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 ... My question is, which defender (E or W) is the "player next in turn" specified in L55A? [Sven Pran] I believe this alleged ambiguity is resolved by looking at Law 53A? [TNLB 53A] "next in rotation to the irregular lead." [Robert Geller] 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"? [Steve Willner] The Law is irretrievably ambiguous. If you are asking in your capacity as translator, I'm afraid you will have to find a way to keep the ambiguity in your translation. If you are asking how a TD should rule at the table, I think Sven has correctly stated the intent, but unless there's an official interpretation, we have no way to be certain. [Nige1] Once more, most players will be kept ignorant of the law-maker's intentions, until c. 2017, when the relevant text in the law-book is corrected. I reckon, however, that Sven is probably right. Rather than attempt to translate perplexing but apparently meaningless phrases, would it be better to omit them altogether? :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 1 04:08:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:08:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560801311651l7a211cdex4e9a78d41b9e5571@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>>That is, I prefer the Kojak rule-of-the-thumb, "a specific >>>Law takes priority over a more general Law" to another more >>>arbitrary policy, "if you do not like what a Law says, find >>>another Law". Wayne Burrows: >>This would be a major philosophical change we have just had >>20 or more years in which the laws are interpreted to mean >>whatever the director or Sponsoring Organization or National >>Authority want them to mean even if plainly contrary to the >>written laws. Richard Hills: In my opinion Wayne is a little bit too cynical, since I think that the Drafting Committee of the 2007 Lawbook has made a very significant number of improvements in aligning the letter of the Laws with the spirit of the Laws. I expect the 2018 Lawbook to be even better. Alain Gottcheiner: >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 behaviour that spoils pleasure without >helping in any aspect is within the scope of their authority. Richard Hills: When I execute a double squeeze, that spoils the pleasure of my opponents without helping them in any aspect. It is bad to follow the policy of "find another Law", but even worse to choose a policy of disallowing actions with no Lawful basis whatsoever. WBF Code of Practice: A procedural penalty may only be applied where there is a violation of the laws or of a regulation made under the laws. If an appeal committee awards a procedural penalty it should specify what law or regulation has been violated. In particular the WBF wishes to stress that a player who forgets his convention, misbids or misuses it, is not subject to automatic penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural penalty will only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as for example misuse several times repeated. Score adjustment is the way to redress damage. Best wishes Richard James Hills 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 1 04:55:48 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 03:55:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] L55A ambiguity? In-Reply-To: <47A28B49.90708@ntlworld.com> References: <200801312259.m0VMxYXn015814@cfa.harvard.edu> <47A27EE2.8010407@nhcc.net> <47A28B49.90708@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <000001c86486$54ae3f40$fe0abdc0$@com> [TNLB L55A] 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. [Robert Geller] 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 ... My question is, which defender (E or W) is the "player next in turn" specified in L55A? [DALB] If the lead comes from North and North is the player out of turn, then South is the player in turn and the player next in turn is West. Of course, that's not what the lawmakers want - they want East to be able just to play to the trick without consulting West. The law isn't ambiguous; it's just wrong. Callaghan and I have this habit: when declarer leads from the wrong hand, the player to the left of the wrong hand will either play to the trick or pause to allow partner to require declarer to lead from the correct hand. Now, is it authorised information to me that Brian doesn't want declarer to lead from the correct hand? Is it authorised information to him that I do want declarer to lead from the wrong hand, if I follow in tempo to the trick? (of course, he may have to guess whether I actually want this or whether I just haven't noticed that declarer has led from the wrong hand). Is my pause a "demonstrable bridge reason" for not following in tempo to the lead from the wrong hand, if Brian says nothing and I then play to the trick? Or have we just been cheating these past twenty years? David Burn London, England From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Feb 2 00:03:12 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:03:12 -0800 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080201145109.01cfae30@mail.optusnet.com.au> [RJH} CUT 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). In the olden days before the 1997 Laws, the Australian NA promulgated its interpretation of the old L27. We were invited to believe that in a sequence such as 4NT(Blackwood) 4D ( insuffiicient), that since there was no conventional meaning for the insufficient bid, a correction to 5D (1 Ace) was allowed without penalty. I trust that there is no loophole in the new L27 for an argument like "we have no agreement about insufficient bids, so partner's bid had zero information content" Just a thought Tony (Sydney) nfo that From mustikka at charter.net Fri Feb 1 06:17:46 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:17:46 -0800 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS References: <200801242129.m0OLTQ7k028095@cfa.harvard.edu> <47A27DDE.50903@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001801c86491$c7f99fc0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS >>>[Is temporary MI a problem...] >>>Even if the opponents are never going to be in the auction? > > > From: Eric Landau >> 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; > ... >> Does this not discommode the opponents to the potential advantage of >> the DWSists? It certainly can't be good for them. > > No doubt there's an indirect effect, but the main damage has already > occurred when the initial MI was given. At least in principle, the > opponents have time to reconsider the auction before the opening lead. > > Against that, the MS has the extra UI, which is sure to cause at least > some problem. How long will it take the opponents to decide whether > they were possibly damaged? (Yes, it's the TD's job, but don't rely on > that in the ACBL!) > > From: "David Burn" >> 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. > > I hope Jerry's question "Why not clear up MI at once" (i.e., the instant > it was given) has become clear, but I have yet to see an answer. At > least in the specific case mentioned at the beginning, and despite > Eric's response, it is far from clear to me that the MS is "better > bridge." Whoever wrote L20F5 didn't think MI is always worse than UI. > > [in the MS] > >>> 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: "Stefanie Rohan" >> Yes, this happens sometimes. Players who are in receipt of UI often >> suffer >> therefrom. Poor dears. > > David Burn's objection (one of them) to the dWS was that it makes more > work for TDs and ACs. The point was that the MS is worse than the dWS > in that respect. (I know the various threads are a bit confusing, but I > thought the context was clear.) > > [asking questions to put opponents in a UI position] >> 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. > > I suppose this is a matter of personal ethics. Some people would > consider not asking to be a form of dumping, which is often prohibited. > >> 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. > > I've seen it at least twice in the last year, and I don't play all that > often (one session most weeks plus the occasional tournament day or two). > > From: Robert Geller >> 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. > > Compare with: > "Yes, but MI is harmless unless it could have affected an opponent'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 MI." > > MI is generally easier to recognize than UI -- a hand is grossly > different than expected -- and I'd say it's generally easier to figure > out what the adjusted score ought to be. The trouble with this (as I see it) is that if a person is comfortable breaking the law by answering an opponent's question about agreements with a falsehood [ *one ace* when agreement is *diamond preference*], he might be equally comfortable covering it up, by not calling the TD at the appropriate time. Where does it all end and how many intentional law breaks should one be allowed in one hand? IMO, none. I also think the issue of what infractions are easier to recognize (intentional MI, or use of UI) should not be a factor. However, I think the intentional MI is near impossible to recognize unless the player calls attention to it himself at the appropriate time. But as said, one who can boldfaced answer an opponent's question about agreements by explaining something totally different than what the agreement is, is probably also one who chooses not to bring the whole thing out in the open, unless he somehow gets caught. This sort of cat and mouse game is no longer a game I would want to play. Raija Raija From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 06:17:53 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 18:17:53 +1300 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560801311651l7a211cdex4e9a78d41b9e5571@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560801312117n4f5d828cq2e1e694b0e5f9906@mail.gmail.com> On 01/02/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > >>>That is, I prefer the Kojak rule-of-the-thumb, "a specific > >>>Law takes priority over a more general Law" to another more > >>>arbitrary policy, "if you do not like what a Law says, find > >>>another Law". > > Wayne Burrows: > > >>This would be a major philosophical change we have just had > >>20 or more years in which the laws are interpreted to mean > >>whatever the director or Sponsoring Organization or National > >>Authority want them to mean even if plainly contrary to the > >>written laws. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion Wayne is a little bit too cynical, since I think > that the Drafting Committee of the 2007 Lawbook has made a very > significant number of improvements in aligning the letter of > the Laws with the spirit of the Laws. I expect the 2018 > Lawbook to be even better. > Why does it matter what the drafting committee write. The 1997 Laws constrained sponsoring organizations to regulate conventions. My national authority when I questioned their regulations said Law 40D was "*NEVER*" intended to constrain them - they chose to capitalize and bold this word. The changes in the new law seem to me to have moved towards the former illegal practices of the many sponsoring organizations and national authorities. Why would anyone expect that this liberalization will suddenly constrain these organizations to obeying the written law. My observation is that liberalization usually encourages individuals and groups to stretch the new boundaries. The 2007 laws constrain the Regulating Authority to regulate (allow, disallow or allow conditionally) 'Special Partnership Understandings'. 'Special Partnership Understandings' require that the Regulating Authority believes that the understanding "may not be readily understood and anticipated". This seems a severe restriction to me e.g. I can't believe that anyone would believe that a 8-10 1NT could not be readily understood so this would not meet the requirement for a "Special Partnership Understanding". I have had problems in the recent past with the regulators and my natural 1NT because it might contain a singleton - that seems easy enough to understand when disclosed so this surely is not a "Special Partnership Understanding". Even a Fert 0-8 any distribution seems like it would be easily understood by the masses. I guess these can no longer be constrained. In fact I struggle to think of something that might not be readily understood if properly disclosed but somehow I don't think the intention is to make all understandable methods instantly legal. Of course all of these bids will be anticipated when the players are simply told in advance that they are in use. I have no idea how these laws are going to be interpreted but the track record of the last 20+ years while I have been playing does not fill me with confidence in the Regulating Authorities world wide. Wayne From john at asimere.com Fri Feb 1 06:19:22 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:19:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] L55A ambiguity? References: <200801312259.m0VMxYXn015814@cfa.harvard.edu> <47A27EE2.8010407@nhcc.net><47A28B49.90708@ntlworld.com> <000001c86486$54ae3f40$fe0abdc0$@com> Message-ID: <002901c86492$00eb1bb0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 3:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L55A ambiguity? > [TNLB L55A] > > 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. > > [Robert Geller] > > 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 ... My question is, which > defender > (E or W) is the "player next in turn" specified in L55A? > > [DALB] > > If the lead comes from North and North is the player out of turn, then > South > is the player in turn and the player next in turn is West. Of course, > that's > not what the lawmakers want - they want East to be able just to play to > the > trick without consulting West. The law isn't ambiguous; it's just wrong. > > Callaghan and I have this habit: when declarer leads from the wrong hand, > the player to the left of the wrong hand will either play to the trick or > pause to allow partner to require declarer to lead from the correct hand. > Now, is it authorised information to me that Brian doesn't want declarer > to > lead from the correct hand? Is it authorised information to him that I do > want declarer to lead from the wrong hand, if I follow in tempo to the > trick? (of course, he may have to guess whether I actually want this or > whether I just haven't noticed that declarer has led from the wrong hand). > Is my pause a "demonstrable bridge reason" for not following in tempo to > the > lead from the wrong hand, if Brian says nothing and I then play to the > trick? Or have we just been cheating these past twenty years? That a player has led from the wrong hand is AI to both opponents. the pause is to allow partner to exercise his options. Playing quickly to stop him doing so is allowed as it's appropriate to take advantage of opps errors. think you're OK David :) john > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 06:57:21 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:57:21 -0600 Subject: [blml] Is "no agreement" like a get-out-of-jail-free card? Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801312157tff6a9fcyd158ad091601367a@mail.gmail.com> In the ACBL, though I have not played as often as I would like recently, it seems that when a player says "no agreement," the director is delighted, echos "no agreement!" as if his job is done, and leaves. My guess is that the phrase "no agreement" is one of the sweetest that a director hears, for it implies that there is going to be no irregularity, no trouble, no need for thought. I don't have enough data, but here is a possible hypothesis: 99% of the time the words "no agreement" are uttered with the director present, it means there will be no MI ruling against that pair. In the hypothesis, UI rulings are strangely rare too. Proof is rarely asked for. Followups rarely occur. It functions like a get-out-of-jail-free card. Do you think this hypothesis is right? If so, does anyone see this a weakness in how we rule the game? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 1 07:13:37 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:13:37 +1100 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080201145109.01cfae30@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: [snip] >I trust that there is no loophole in the new L27 >for an argument like "we have no agreement about >insufficient bids, so partner's bid had zero >information content" > >Just a thought Richard Hills: And a good thought. Take the perceptive Little Old Lady scenario -> WEST NORTH EAST 1S 2C 1NT The intended meaning of 1NT might have been 6-9 hcp without spade support (did not notice North's 2C bid), or the intended meaning of 1NT might instead have been 16-18 hcp balanced (did not notice West's 1S bid also). Ergo, as TD, I would not ask the insufficient bidder's _partner_ about the meaning. Instead, as TD, I would take the insufficient bidder away from the table and ask _the insufficient bidder_ about the meaning. 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 Fri Feb 1 07:19:25 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:19:25 -0600 Subject: [blml] Does L12B1 void some rub-of-the-green outcomes? Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801312219o79791748i3a1104379f13a748@mail.gmail.com> L12B1: 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). --------------- Had I written this, I would have inserted "expected" before "table result." Suppose my side commits an infraction and we end up in 3NT. It is expected to be really bad given that we have a nine-card spade fit, but it turns out that everyone will make nine tricks in either contract. 3NT is expected to be bad, but somehow, given some rare, weird quirks of how the cards lie, 3NT is a top. Is the director called upon to take away my rub-of-the-green top because of L12B1 due its focus on table result instead of expected table result? I am saying that, in this law, "Damage exists" is defined poorly. It should be in terms of expected results and not actual table results. My reading of this law, if correct, means that a NOS should never end up with a score below 50% as long as it plays bridge throughout. And, if I am reading it right, the OS should never get above 50% unless perhaps the NOS started the auction (or play) poorly before the irregularity. Why 50%?---it is the expectation. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 07:21:22 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:21:22 -0600 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080201145109.01cfae30@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0801312221h7eb3b602k2e5bf2338a6cd9e2@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 1, 2008 12:13 AM, wrote: > Tony Musgrove: > > [snip] > > >I trust that there is no loophole in the new L27 > >for an argument like "we have no agreement about > >insufficient bids, so partner's bid had zero > >information content" > > > >Just a thought > > Richard Hills: > > And a good thought. > > Take the perceptive Little Old Lady scenario -> > > WEST NORTH EAST > 1S 2C 1NT > > The intended meaning of 1NT might have been 6-9 > hcp without spade support (did not notice North's > 2C bid), or the intended meaning of 1NT might > instead have been 16-18 hcp balanced (did not > notice West's 1S bid also). > > Ergo, as TD, I would not ask the insufficient > bidder's _partner_ about the meaning. Instead, > as TD, I would take the insufficient bidder away > from the table and ask _the insufficient bidder_ > about the meaning. > Would you look at her hand? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 1 07:39:05 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:39:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560801312117n4f5d828cq2e1e694b0e5f9906@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >The changes in the new law seem to me to have moved >towards the former illegal practices of the many >sponsoring organizations and national authorities. Richard Hills: And popular practices of players which were formerly illegal have been legalised too. For example, see the 2007 Laws 20F3 and 65B3. When General Eisenhower was President of Columbia University, a subordinate asked him what punishment should be applied to the vast numbers of students who illegally walked diagonally over the grass quadrangle to reach their classes. Eisenhower replied, "Install a new path." If vast numbers of players and vast numbers of bridge bureaucrats were happily performing popular practices of dubious legality under the 1997 Laws, what is wrong with installing a new path in the 2007 Laws? Wayne Burrows: >'Special Partnership Understandings' require that >the Regulating Authority believes that the >understanding "may not be readily understood and >anticipated". This seems a severe restriction to >me e.g. I can't believe that anyone would believe >that a 8-10 1NT could not be readily understood >..... >Even a Fert 0-8 any distribution seems like it >would be easily understood by the masses. Richard Hills: And anticipated??? 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 07:44:41 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:44:41 +1300 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560801312117n4f5d828cq2e1e694b0e5f9906@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560801312244q3b26639cod46f7cd978b82063@mail.gmail.com> On 01/02/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Wayne Burrows: > > >The changes in the new law seem to me to have moved > >towards the former illegal practices of the many > >sponsoring organizations and national authorities. > > Richard Hills: > > And popular practices of players which were formerly > illegal have been legalised too. For example, see > the 2007 Laws 20F3 and 65B3. > > When General Eisenhower was President of Columbia > University, a subordinate asked him what punishment > should be applied to the vast numbers of students > who illegally walked diagonally over the grass > quadrangle to reach their classes. Eisenhower > replied, "Install a new path." > > If vast numbers of players and vast numbers of bridge > bureaucrats were happily performing popular practices > of dubious legality under the 1997 Laws, what is > wrong with installing a new path in the 2007 Laws? > > Wayne Burrows: > > >'Special Partnership Understandings' require that > >the Regulating Authority believes that the > >understanding "may not be readily understood and > >anticipated". This seems a severe restriction to > >me e.g. I can't believe that anyone would believe > >that a 8-10 1NT could not be readily understood > >..... > >Even a Fert 0-8 any distribution seems like it > >would be easily understood by the masses. > > Richard Hills: > > And anticipated??? > You seem to have snipped this: "Of course all of these bids will be anticipated when the players are simply told in advance that they are in use." Wayne From adam at tameware.com Fri Feb 1 08:15:09 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:15:09 -0800 Subject: [blml] nashville 12 In-Reply-To: <62FC675E-4F41-422E-A5F3-51EADC98E98E@starpower.net> References: <46B033DF.6090603@meteo.fr> <62FC675E-4F41-422E-A5F3-51EADC98E98E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <694eadd40801312315o23f160ddk2e452a3a1b4aedad@mail.gmail.com> On Aug 1, 2007 10:06 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Aug 1, 2007, at 3:18 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >> > >> This seems to me to be a misinterpretation of > >> the misinformation Laws by Adam Wildavsky and > >> the rest of the Committee. > >> > >> If West had been told by South the actual North- > >> South agreement, as required by Law - that 2D > >> showed hearts - then West would not have been > >> told by South the misinformation that 2D showed > >> diamonds. > > > > i think it's only a slight inaccuracy in the wording. ac's intent may > > have been to say that west was entitled to know the actual > > agreement and > > that he happened to have accidentally got AI about what south > > thought of > > 2D. what your are entitled doesn't restrict what else you have got > > without any fault of your own. > > For that intent to be consistent with the law, the committee would > have had to find that West could "have accidentally got AI about what > South thought of 2D" even "had the irregularity not occurred". Sorry to take such a long time to reply, Eric and Richard! I do not read every message posted to the list and I only just came across yours. The case and comments are now posted here: http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Nashville2007/NABC+12.pdf I would hate to think that our ruling was illegal. Here's one way to reconcile matters. South's initial misexplanation was MI. But he had several opportunities to give a correct explanation. In effect by not doing so he provided MI more than once. Suppose before West decided whether to pass the double he again asked about the meaning of 2d. South would have again said it was natural. We know this because if he thought otherwise he was obligated to correct his earlier explanation, with or without a second question from West. If we don't interpret the law this way how are we to interpret it? Should "Had the irregularity not occurred" mean had South bid 2D intending it as natural but explained it, correctly, as showing hearts? That seems nonsensical. If you don't buy the second question argument then suppose EW have a complete and well-indexed set of the NS system notes. West would still ask South about 2D, since he has the right to do so and it's more expeditious than looking up the sequence in the notes. The auction would have proceeded as it did through the double of 2H, but at that point West could look up the sequence in the notes. He would have learned of the NS bidding misunderstanding and had an easy pass. I think of the irregularity not simply as South's initial misexplanation, but of NS's failure to inform their opponents of their agreement through any legal means. If none of my arguments seem compelling consider that a NS pair committed to full disclosure could put this agreement on their convention card. Not many would, and I can't say I blame them, but we should be careful not to disadvantage a pair that provides written documentation of their methods over one that does not. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Fri Feb 1 08:15:37 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:15:37 -0800 Subject: [blml] nashville 12 In-Reply-To: <46AEEA71.9050307@meteo.fr> References: <46AEEA71.9050307@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <694eadd40801312315r32a8094cua78c6819309232f@mail.gmail.com> On Jul 30, 2007 11:53 PM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > we are often critical about ac decisions. i would like to signal case 12 > at nashville nabc: it was not obvious to ajudicate and i was ready to > disagree with the decision but after reading the report, it was so > clear, didactic and precise that i remained speechless. a great job imo. > url below. > > http://www.acbl.org/nabc/Nashville2007/bulletins/db10.pdf Thanks for the kind words! It's seldom that one has a chance to change someone's mind. For that matter there are few who are open to the possibility of reconsidering their views. My prose has been called didactic before, but this is the first time it was meant as a compliment. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Fri Feb 1 08:19:56 2008 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:19:56 -0800 Subject: [blml] nashville 12 In-Reply-To: <694eadd40801312315r32a8094cua78c6819309232f@mail.gmail.com> References: <46AEEA71.9050307@meteo.fr> <694eadd40801312315r32a8094cua78c6819309232f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40801312319p795d2bebk612074f503b3841e@mail.gmail.com> On Aug 1, 2007 4:05 PM, wrote: > WBF Laws Committee, 9th November 2003, item 3: > > "The committee considered the proposition that when > there has been misinformation and a damaged side is > to receive and adjusted score this should be > assessed on the basis that the non-offending side > is entitled to know the partnership understanding > and to draw logical conclusions, given the > information it received. The adjusted score, the > Chairman suggested, should be assessed on the > action likely to be taken by the non-offending side > in the circumstances. It was observed that if given > the correct information the partnership might or > might not be aware that a misunderstanding had > occurred, depending on the situation. There is, of > course, the possibility of backing up the auction > if declarer or dummy corrects an explanation as Law > 75D requires (see also Law 21B)." Thanks for tracking this down, Richard! I don't understand all of it, but to the extent that I do it seems to support the ruling in the case at hand. What do you think? -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Feb 1 08:31:30 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:31:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801282004qd3e248fv76eca455a154f99d@mail.gmail.com> 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$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2b1e598b0801242028g39f4452bse960fc6d2ebb3912@mail.gmail.com> <479991B1.2000309@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801261435l7e89b66au7dfd20f15dd76f33@mail.gmail.com> <479DF583.1090206@t-online.de> <2b1e598b0801282004qd3e248fv76eca455a154f99d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47A2CAD2.1080701@t-online.de> Jerry Fusselman schrieb: > [Jerry] > > Thus, two very smart guys, you and David, have asserted that UI is > harmful and MI is harmless. Had your two posts not happened, I would > have said nothing. Do you still deny that six days ago in this > thread, you agreed with David that UI is harmless? > > Jerry, I am sorry that circumstances beyond my control ( in this case a funeral) do not permit me to spend much time on this. So I make it short. UI is harmless * to my opponents*. It may well harm my partner, and through him me as well, but there is no harm done to my opps. In fact it is AI to them, whatever happened. Not that this makes it desirable, of course. MI is harmful to my opps, most of the time. Yes, there may be cases where describing partner's hand instead of describing the agreement does not harm them. But they are protected by the laws anyway. Matthias From geller at nifty.com Fri Feb 1 09:18:15 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:18:15 +0900 Subject: [blml] 0-10 points = how many imps? Message-ID: <200802010818.AA12288@geller204.nifty.com> Q. How many imps do you get for a differential of 0-10 points? A. If you want to know, don't bother looking at L78B of the new laws, as in their infinite wisdom the Law Lords and WBF decided this is info we peons don't need to know. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Feb 1 10:06:22 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:06:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Disposition of minor penalty card fourth player in trick Message-ID: <00b601c864b1$b7585e70$26091b50$@nl> I just had a case here where some aspiring TD's were taught by one of our TD teachers that when you are fourth in a trick the minor penalty card penalty does not apply. Example, South has the spade-7 as a minor penalty card. South also has the Spade A and 9. Spade trick goes 2,3,8 and now South to play. According to current(and new) law South can choose between 7 and A. According to this teacher, being fourth to play South could play the 9. His idea undoubtedly is that since the minor penalty card only leads to signaling penalties that should not apply at the last hand in the trick. Has this ever been discussed? I wonder how he got that idea. Hans van Staveren From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 10:30:40 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:30:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Disposition of minor penalty card fourth player in trick In-Reply-To: <00b601c864b1$b7585e70$26091b50$@nl> References: <00b601c864b1$b7585e70$26091b50$@nl> Message-ID: On 01/02/2008, Hans van Staveren wrote: > I just had a case here where some aspiring TD's were taught by one of our TD > teachers that when you are fourth in a trick the minor penalty card penalty > does not apply. > > Example, South has the spade-7 as a minor penalty card. South also has the > Spade A and 9. > > Spade trick goes 2,3,8 and now South to play. According to current(and new) > law South can choose between 7 and A. According to this teacher, being > fourth to play South could play the 9. His idea undoubtedly is that since > the minor penalty card only leads to signaling penalties that should not > apply at the last hand in the trick. > > Has this ever been discussed? I wonder how he got that idea. I've never heard of this before. It does in deed seem like a logical and interesting idea to me. But it's not according to Law. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Hans van Staveren > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Feb 1 10:31:34 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:31:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Disposition_of_minor_penalty_card_fourth_p?= =?iso-8859-15?q?layer_in_trick?= In-Reply-To: <00b601c864b1$b7585e70$26091b50$@nl> References: <00b601c864b1$b7585e70$26091b50$@nl> Message-ID: <1JKsFC-0qlBnk0@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> From: "Hans van Staveren" > I just had a case here where some aspiring TD's were taught by one of > our TD teachers that when you are fourth in a trick the minor penalty > card penalty does not apply. > > Example, South has the spade-7 as a minor penalty card. South also has > the Spade A and 9. > > Spade trick goes 2,3,8 and now South to play. According to current(and > new) law South can choose between 7 and A. According to this teacher, > being fourth to play South could play the 9. His idea undoubtedly is > that since the minor penalty card only leads to signaling penalties > that should not apply at the last hand in the trick. > > Has this ever been discussed? I wonder how he got that idea. Although I can imagine this (disturbing the signalling procedure) to be a true (and primary) point, it is (was) not worded as such in the Laws and IMHO it was never intended in the way your teacher tells his students. Therefore he should be told that he's teaching nonsens. I regard the intend and wording of Law 50 C incontrovertible: "When a defender has a minor penalty card, he may not play any other card of the same suit below the rank of an honour until he has first played the penalty card, but he is entitled to play an honour card instead." Peter Eidt Warendorf, Germany From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 1 11:11:49 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:11:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <47A2CAD2.1080701@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> <2b1e598b0801282004qd3e248fv76eca455a154f99d@mail.gmail.com> <47A2CAD2.1080701@t-online.de> Message-ID: <47A2F065.2040202@skynet.be> Hello Matthias, Condolences if the loss was personal, and short is good ... Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Jerry Fusselman schrieb: >> [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? >> >> > Jerry, > > I am sorry that circumstances beyond my control ( in this case a > funeral) do not permit me to spend much time on this. So I make it > short. UI is harmless * to my opponents*. It may well harm my partner, > and through him me as well, but there is no harm done to my opps. In > fact it is AI to them, whatever happened. Not that this makes it > desirable, of course. MI is harmful to my opps, most of the time. Yes, > there may be cases where describing partner's hand instead of describing > the agreement does not harm them. But they are protected by the laws anyway. > Matthias, the question Jerry was asking was not whether the one or other action was better for the opponents, or for the offenders, but whether they were better for the game of bridge. In that sense, both UI and MI are harmless, because the TD will make certain that any harm be rectified. And then Jerry poses two questions: do you believe MI is worse for the game than UI? And if so, why then did the lawmakers write L20F5 in the direction they did - leaving the MI be and preventing the UI. If MI were worse than UI, would you not expect the law to say that misexplanations be corrected immediately? > Matthias > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 1 11:21:52 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:21:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <001801c86491$c7f99fc0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> References: <200801242129.m0OLTQ7k028095@cfa.harvard.edu> <47A27DDE.50903@nhcc.net> <001801c86491$c7f99fc0$fd145e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <47A2F2C0.8000503@skynet.be> raija wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:03 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS > > >>>> [Is temporary MI a problem...] >>>> Even if the opponents are never going to be in the auction? >>> From: Eric Landau >>> 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; >> ... >>> Does this not discommode the opponents to the potential advantage of >>> the DWSists? It certainly can't be good for them. >> No doubt there's an indirect effect, but the main damage has already >> occurred when the initial MI was given. At least in principle, the >> opponents have time to reconsider the auction before the opening lead. >> >> Against that, the MS has the extra UI, which is sure to cause at least >> some problem. How long will it take the opponents to decide whether >> they were possibly damaged? (Yes, it's the TD's job, but don't rely on >> that in the ACBL!) >> >> From: "David Burn" >>> 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. >> I hope Jerry's question "Why not clear up MI at once" (i.e., the instant >> it was given) has become clear, but I have yet to see an answer. At >> least in the specific case mentioned at the beginning, and despite >> Eric's response, it is far from clear to me that the MS is "better >> bridge." Whoever wrote L20F5 didn't think MI is always worse than UI. >> >> [in the MS] >>>>> 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: "Stefanie Rohan" >>> Yes, this happens sometimes. Players who are in receipt of UI often >>> suffer >>> therefrom. Poor dears. >> David Burn's objection (one of them) to the dWS was that it makes more >> work for TDs and ACs. The point was that the MS is worse than the dWS >> in that respect. (I know the various threads are a bit confusing, but I >> thought the context was clear.) >> >> [asking questions to put opponents in a UI position] >>> 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. >> I suppose this is a matter of personal ethics. Some people would >> consider not asking to be a form of dumping, which is often prohibited. >> >>> 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. >> I've seen it at least twice in the last year, and I don't play all that >> often (one session most weeks plus the occasional tournament day or two). >> >> From: Robert Geller >>> 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. >> Compare with: >> "Yes, but MI is harmless unless it could have affected an opponent'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 MI." >> >> MI is generally easier to recognize than UI -- a hand is grossly >> different than expected -- and I'd say it's generally easier to figure >> out what the adjusted score ought to be. > > The trouble with this (as I see it) is that if a person is comfortable > breaking the law by answering an opponent's question about agreements with a > falsehood [ *one ace* when agreement is *diamond preference*], he might be > equally comfortable covering it up, by not calling the TD at the appropriate > time. Where does it all end and how many intentional law breaks should one > be allowed in one hand? IMO, none. > But Raija, it's only and intentional law break if you consider it a law break. What Steve and I are trying to make happen is that the dws is accepted as not breaking the law, and maybe even obligatory. Then, your argument makes not more sense. We are trying to figure out what the best law is, so saying that our actions break existing law brings nothing to this discussion! > I also think the issue of what infractions are easier to recognize > (intentional MI, or use of UI) should not be a factor. However, I think the > intentional MI is near impossible to recognize unless the player calls > attention to it himself at the appropriate time. But as said, one who can > boldfaced answer an opponent's question about agreements by explaining > something totally different than what the agreement is, is probably also one > who chooses not to bring the whole thing out in the open, unless he somehow > gets caught. This sort of cat and mouse game is no longer a game I would > want to play. > But the first MI is still there, and a dead give-away. The dws'er does not have to draw attention to his infraction, it's immediately clear when he calls the td for the first MI. If MS win the day, whenever a player explains consistently, he has to maintain that his partner has explained correctly. He will not call the TD before the lead, and does not even have to call him after the hand. OTOH a dws-er can explain consistently, call before the opening lead, and accept the MI ruling. Which is better for bridge? > Raija > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 1 11:37:26 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:37:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Disposition of minor penalty card fourth player in trick In-Reply-To: <00b601c864b1$b7585e70$26091b50$@nl> References: <00b601c864b1$b7585e70$26091b50$@nl> Message-ID: <47A2F666.7070900@ulb.ac.be> Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > I just had a case here where some aspiring TD's were taught by one of our TD > teachers that when you are fourth in a trick the minor penalty card penalty > does not apply. > > Example, South has the spade-7 as a minor penalty card. South also has the > Spade A and 9. > > Spade trick goes 2,3,8 and now South to play. According to current(and new) > law South can choose between 7 and A. According to this teacher, being > fourth to play South could play the 9. His idea undoubtedly is that since > the minor penalty card only leads to signaling penalties that should not > apply at the last hand in the trick. > IMHO this isn't a good idea. Consider two situations : a) South holds A62, the 2 a mpc. b) South holds the A86, the 8 a mpc. If South is allowed to play the 6 in both cases, partner will now in a) that the 6 is a high card, and in b) a low card. This means the mpc helps parner understand the signal. The fact that South is 4th-in-hand doesn't change anything about it. Okay, the case you mentioned is a case where South should take the trick. But even so there remains a problem. Say the highest card in the trick so far is a 6. Then taking with the 9, while partner knows you hold the 7, can have a meaning. But partner shouldn't have known, at first, that you hold the 7. There are cases where one could allow playing another small card, because it won't help partner, but the frontier of this set of cases is difficult to describe, so that we'd rather not allow this at all. Best regards Alain From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 1 14:37:10 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 13:37:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] L55A ambiguity? References: <200801312259.m0VMxYXn015814@cfa.harvard.edu> <47A27EE2.8010407@nhcc.net><47A28B49.90708@ntlworld.com><000001c86486$54ae3f40$fe0abdc0$@com> <002901c86492$00eb1bb0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <008a01c864d7$8bfeb190$0100a8c0@stefanie> > That a player has led from the wrong hand is AI to both opponents. the > pause is to allow partner to exercise his options. Playing quickly to stop > him doing so is allowed as it's appropriate to take advantage of opps > errors. think you're OK David :) john Good, because I have been doing this too. I assume that it is also OK for fourth hand to say "I accept it" before partner, thinking there is no difference, plays to the trick? Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 1 15:08:08 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:08:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BBBB6CE-842C-40A1-AF68-BC85E5C0B9E3@starpower.net> On Jan 31, 2008, at 7:01 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 2007 Law 40B2(a): > >> The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction >> to ..... allow conditionally, any special partnership >> understanding ..... > > Richard Hills: > > Under a literal reading of "without restriction" it seems > that a Regulating Authority could perpetrate this rule: > > "You may use the Ghestem convention on the condition that > you never claim, never misbid, and also never bid a slam." > > So I still argue that "without restriction" should be read > as "without restriction, unless contrary to another more > specific Law". > > That is, I prefer the Kojak rule-of-the-thumb, "a specific > Law takes priority over a more general Law" to another more > arbitrary policy, "if you do not like what a Law says, find > another Law". As would I. But we clearly established in a thread of a couple of years ago that, per WBF interpretation, the power to regulate conventions granted by the 1997 L40D was absolute, to the point where a perverse RA could perpetrate something like, "You may use the Ghestem convention only if you are left-handed and under 50." I don't see anything in the new L40 that would change this. What the new L40 clearly does is expand the RA's 1997 authority over "conventions" to apply to "partnership understandings" of any kind. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 1 15:48:24 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:48:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] nashville 12 In-Reply-To: <694eadd40801312315o23f160ddk2e452a3a1b4aedad@mail.gmail.com> References: <46B033DF.6090603@meteo.fr> <62FC675E-4F41-422E-A5F3-51EADC98E98E@starpower.net> <694eadd40801312315o23f160ddk2e452a3a1b4aedad@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3EC212BD-E84E-4CEA-A3FA-C76B6D911E40@starpower.net> On Feb 1, 2008, at 2:15 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > On Aug 1, 2007 10:06 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> On Aug 1, 2007, at 3:18 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >> >>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>>> >>>> This seems to me to be a misinterpretation of >>>> the misinformation Laws by Adam Wildavsky and >>>> the rest of the Committee. >>>> >>>> If West had been told by South the actual North- >>>> South agreement, as required by Law - that 2D >>>> showed hearts - then West would not have been >>>> told by South the misinformation that 2D showed >>>> diamonds. >>> >>> i think it's only a slight inaccuracy in the wording. ac's intent >>> may >>> have been to say that west was entitled to know the actual >>> agreement and >>> that he happened to have accidentally got AI about what south >>> thought of >>> 2D. what your are entitled doesn't restrict what else you have got >>> without any fault of your own. >> >> For that intent to be consistent with the law, the committee would >> have had to find that West could "have accidentally got AI about what >> South thought of 2D" even "had the irregularity not occurred". > > Sorry to take such a long time to reply, Eric and Richard! I do not > read every message posted to the list and I only just came across > yours. Just to correct the record, I don't know how my name got in there but I didn't write any of the above. I have not posted to this particular thread, and am not even familiar with the case being discussed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Feb 1 20:09:55 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 08:09:55 +1300 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads In-Reply-To: <4BBBB6CE-842C-40A1-AF68-BC85E5C0B9E3@starpower.net> References: <4BBBB6CE-842C-40A1-AF68-BC85E5C0B9E3@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802011109o2770d261y7f8e0fc3f7db99b2@mail.gmail.com> On 02/02/2008, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 31, 2008, at 7:01 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > 2007 Law 40B2(a): > > > >> The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction > >> to ..... allow conditionally, any special partnership > >> understanding ..... > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Under a literal reading of "without restriction" it seems > > that a Regulating Authority could perpetrate this rule: > > > > "You may use the Ghestem convention on the condition that > > you never claim, never misbid, and also never bid a slam." > > > > So I still argue that "without restriction" should be read > > as "without restriction, unless contrary to another more > > specific Law". > > > > That is, I prefer the Kojak rule-of-the-thumb, "a specific > > Law takes priority over a more general Law" to another more > > arbitrary policy, "if you do not like what a Law says, find > > another Law". > > As would I. But we clearly established in a thread of a couple of > years ago that, per WBF interpretation, the power to regulate > conventions granted by the 1997 L40D was absolute, to the point where > a perverse RA could perpetrate something like, "You may use the > Ghestem convention only if you are left-handed and under 50." I > don't see anything in the new L40 that would change this. What the > new L40 clearly does is expand the RA's 1997 authority over > "conventions" to apply to "partnership understandings" of any kind. > This is incorrect. For a RA to have power it must be a "Special Partnership Understand" not just any "Partnership Understanding". A "Special Partnership Understanding" requires that the RA authority believe it "may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament". I can't imagine anything that would meet these requirements. One example I gave earlier is an 8-10 hcp 1NT which is easily understood and will be anticipated by everyone when they are told in advance. How about a bid that shows: weak (at least 0 hcp) or strong (unlimited); one or both or neither major; is artificial and forcing for one round. Or another bid that shows: 0-8 hcp; one or both or neither major; is artificial but not forcing. Which if either of these is not readily understood? To me they are both easily understood and simply telling the players that pairs may play these methods will make them anticipated. Anticipation is simply about marketing to make players aware of the variety of methods available. Of course the first bid I described above is Stayman over 1NT and the second a Fert opening bid. I think it is going to be very hard to argue that these "Special Partnership Understandings" are not readily understood but no doubt RAs will try or more likely will just make regulations without reference to the constraints in the laws essentially continuing the status quo. Remember my National Association communicated to me the view that they were "*NEVER*" intended to be constrained by the old L40D. I am hoping to be surprised but I can't imagine RAs drastically liberalizing their convention or partnership understanding regulations to allow all easily understandable methods. Wayne From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 2 01:43:41 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 00:43:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C References: <6B84EBBB-C5D1-4C50-84D7-CDC37AB84059@starpower.net><2b1e598b0801311056k64b6ea95o408da513ec0c3347@mail.gmail.com> <815843EF-361D-4789-9342-CE48DACCBDD3@starpower.net> Message-ID: <007201c86534$baafb040$afd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C >> Maybe it is my dyslexia, but I find the way the law >> uses the word "incorporates" almost permanently >> confusing. What Venn diagram symbolizes "incorporating >> information"? I don't think an information theorist would >> be sure what is meant, so a rewording or a clarification is >> in order. > +=+ In my discussions of Law 27C currently I introduced Wayne's comment. Here is a response I received from the WBF CTD: "In drawing his Venn diagrmans, I assume Laurie Kelso began with a fairly small circle for the information 'I have 0-12 points', (or whatever the example was) as this doesn't really contain very much information at all. Then he drew a larger circle around it for the information 'I have 5-9 points', as this contains quite a lot of additional information. Then he drew a huge circle around both of these to represent the information 'I have 6 points', as this contains all the information in the universe as far as point count is concerned. The little old lady you describe below would not then have followed her confused line of logic, and would have seen that it is 5-9 which incorporates 0-12, and not the other way round." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 2 01:57:39 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 00:57:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000e01c86430$fb0ead30$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <009a01c86444$2f0d1780$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <009401c86536$a09cf760$afd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 8:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > .............. >>> 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? > +=+ Try the definition of 'Psychic Call'. A misbid has the effect of an unintended psych. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Sat Feb 2 03:53:01 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:53:01 +0900 Subject: [blml] L79B Is "subsequent" needed? Message-ID: <200802020253.AA12301@geller204.nifty.com> I'm trying to understand the meaning of "subsequent" in L79B (see below). It looks to me like this law makes perfect sense if the word "subsequent" is deleted. In that case 79A applies in the vast majority of cases when there is agreement, and in the small minority of cases where there is disagreement the director is called and he sorts things out. If anyone out there, especially a member of the DSC, thinks that the word "subsequent" is actually needed in L79B could they please explain this. Thanks. ******************************************************* LAW 79 - TRICKS WON A. Agreement on Tricks Won 1. The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have been returned to the board. 2. A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose. B. Disagreement on Tricks Won If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then: 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession and, if so, applies Law 69. 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. If the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be no obligation to increase a side?s score. ********************************************************* -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Feb 2 04:48:47 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:48:47 +1300 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: <2a1c3a560802011948y7f066daeof2868045085fe1d2@mail.gmail.com> On 01/02/2008, 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. > > 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. I too initially found the law confusing but that has been clarified in my mind on a second or third or fourth or tenth reading. Laurie Kelso summarized it well. "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 ..." The example given which I thought was also Kelso's though is wrong. A placement pass does not contain more information than the insufficient bid 1NT. Seemingly noone at the seminar picked up on this error as Richard proposes alternative solutions to this perceived problem "I suppose a solution to this scenario would be to interpret the Law 27C2 phrase ..." > > 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. > I think the law (and Kelso's summary) require that all of the information contained in the insufficient bid is contained in the replacement bid. If there is any hand that would make the replacement bid but not the insufficient bid then there is an advantage from making the insufficient bid and the criteria have not been met. On the other hand if there are hands that would make the insufficient bid but not the replacement bid then we have no additional information from the insufficient bid and this is allowed. In terms of Venn diagrams I think that if A is the set of hands that would make the insufficient bid and B is the set of hands that would make the replacement bid then B must be contained wholely within A so that there is no additional information from the insufficient bid. That is A intersect B must be equal to B. Wayne From geller at nifty.com Sat Feb 2 04:58:15 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 12:58:15 +0900 Subject: [blml] L93 Why "Director in charge"? Message-ID: <200802020358.AA12302@geller204.nifty.com> In ordinary talk by bridge players, all directors at a tourney, both the director in charge and his assistants, are called "directors" but, as everyone on BLML knows the Laws reserve "director" for THE director (the guy in charge), and everyone else is an "assistant" (see L81D) A search of the 2007 Laws shows that the word "director" is used 242 times. In 236 of these case the usage is consistent, just the one word "director." However, for a reason I don't understand (I'm hoping someone here can explain it) suddly in L93 (throughout L93) the phrase "Director in charge" is used (see example below). This phrase is used six times in L93 (and only in L93). ****************************************************** LAW 93 - PROCEDURES OF APPEAL A. No Appeals Committee The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon all appeals if there is no Appeals Committee (or alternative arrangement under Law 80B2(k)), or if such cannot operate without disturbing the orderly progress of the tournament. ******************************************************** According to L82D, the Director can delegate any of his duties to an assistant (while remaining responsible for performance of the duties). Therefore, even if L93 assigns appeals-related duties specifically to the "Director in Charge," he is free (under 82D) to delegate these to an assistant (in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary in L93, which of course doesn't exist). So, why does L93 (and L93 only) use the term "Director in Charge"? Can anyone explain this? And how should we translate this? Should we take seriously the difference in usage between "Director in Charge" in L93 and "Director" everywhere else in the Laws and translate this differently from the translator used for "Director" in L1-92, or should we assume this is just one more instance of shoddy and inconsistent wordsmithing by the WBFLC? (My money is on the latter, needless to say, but if there is a real difference could someone please explain this.) Thanks. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Feb 3 02:48:11 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:48:11 -0800 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C In-Reply-To: <007201c86534$baafb040$afd5403e@Mildred> References: <6B84EBBB-C5D1-4C50-84D7-CDC37AB84059@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0801311056k64b6ea95o408da513ec0c3347@mail.gmail.com> <815843EF-361D-4789-9342-CE48DACCBDD3@starpower.net> <007201c86534$baafb040$afd5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080202174219.038ebec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 04:43 PM 1/02/2008, you wrote: >Grattan Endicott[following address discontinued: >grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >******************************* >"Continuing to do the same thing > hoping for a different outcome." > Einstein: definition of madness. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:44 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C > > > >> 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. > > >+=+ In my discussions of Law 27C currently I introduced >Wayne's comment. Here is a response I received from the >WBF CTD: >"In drawing his Venn diagrmans, I assume Laurie Kelso began >with a fairly small circle for the information 'I have 0-12 points', >(or whatever the example was) as this doesn't really contain >very much information at all. Then he drew a larger circle around >it for the information 'I have 5-9 points', as this contains quite a >lot of additional information. > >Then he drew a huge circle around both of these to represent >the information 'I have 6 points', as this contains all the information >in the universe as far as point count is concerned. > >The little old lady you describe below would not then have >followed her confused line of logic, and would have seen >that it is 5-9 which incorporates 0-12, and not the other >way round." Aha, I think I've got it (why I am confused I mean) They bid 1C (1S) 1H (insufficient). I find out that the 1H bidder did not see the intermediate 1S. The previous correction to 2H would show 10+ points and 5+hearts, so I do not allow it (it gives more information than the 1H would have). However, I can offer the perpetrator a negative double if it means (in their system) 'I would have bid 1H). On the other hand, if I find the 1H bidder did not see the two previous bids, and was opening the bidding (albeit OOT), I allow the 2H change without penalty. What could be easier Cheers Tony (Sydney) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Feb 2 08:06:09 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 20:06:09 +1300 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080202174219.038ebec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6B84EBBB-C5D1-4C50-84D7-CDC37AB84059@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0801311056k64b6ea95o408da513ec0c3347@mail.gmail.com> <815843EF-361D-4789-9342-CE48DACCBDD3@starpower.net> <007201c86534$baafb040$afd5403e@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080202174219.038ebec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802012306n668b50f0u66086a18c04cddca@mail.gmail.com> On 03/02/2008, Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 04:43 PM 1/02/2008, you wrote: > > >Grattan Endicott >[following address discontinued: > >grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > >******************************* > >"Continuing to do the same thing > > hoping for a different outcome." > > Einstein: definition of madness. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Eric Landau" > >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:44 PM > >Subject: Re: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C > > > > > > >> 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. > > > > >+=+ In my discussions of Law 27C currently I introduced > >Wayne's comment. Here is a response I received from the > >WBF CTD: > >"In drawing his Venn diagrmans, I assume Laurie Kelso began > >with a fairly small circle for the information 'I have 0-12 points', > >(or whatever the example was) as this doesn't really contain > >very much information at all. Then he drew a larger circle around > >it for the information 'I have 5-9 points', as this contains quite a > >lot of additional information. > > > >Then he drew a huge circle around both of these to represent > >the information 'I have 6 points', as this contains all the information > >in the universe as far as point count is concerned. > > > >The little old lady you describe below would not then have > >followed her confused line of logic, and would have seen > >that it is 5-9 which incorporates 0-12, and not the other > >way round." > > Aha, I think I've got it (why I am confused I mean) > > They bid 1C (1S) 1H (insufficient). > > I find out that the 1H bidder did not see the intermediate 1S. > The previous correction to 2H would show 10+ points and > 5+hearts, so I do not allow it (it gives more information than > the 1H would have). However, I can offer the perpetrator > a negative double if it means (in their system) 'I would have > bid 1H). On the other hand, if I find the 1H bidder did not > see the two previous bids, and was opening the bidding > (albeit OOT), I allow the 2H change without penalty. What > could be easier > Wrong I think. More information is fine. Less information is bad. 1C (1S) 1H - intended as a response to 1C This shows 4+ hearts and 5+hcp or something similar. Both X showing four hearts and 2H showing 5+ hearts are (well at least could be) subsets of the hands that responder would bid 1H on therefore potential either call could be allowed as a correction. There is a possibility that one of these calls contains some hands that would not respond 1H to an opening bid and so the 1H insufficient bid gives some extra information and so would not be allowed. For example maybe you would bid 1C (Pass) 2H with a six-count and six hearts but after 1C (1S) you would have to double with this hand intending to later bid hearts. Now the insufficient 1H conveys additional information that would not be conveyed by a negative double. Wayne From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Feb 2 08:32:49 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 07:32:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] L79B Is "subsequent" needed? References: <200802020253.AA12301@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <023c01c8656d$cfdd3300$0100a8c0@stefanie> We all know what trouble the word "subsequent" can cause when it appears in a law. I think that it should be avoided at all cost. Stefanie Rohan London, England ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 2:53 AM Subject: [blml] L79B Is "subsequent" needed? > I'm trying to understand the meaning of "subsequent" in L79B > (see below). It looks to me like this law makes perfect sense > if the word "subsequent" is deleted. In that case 79A applies > in the vast majority of cases when there is agreement, and in > the small minority of cases where there is disagreement the > director is called and he sorts things out. > > If anyone out there, especially a member of the DSC, thinks that > the word "subsequent" is actually needed in L79B could they > please explain this. Thanks. > > > ******************************************************* > LAW 79 - TRICKS WON > A. Agreement on Tricks Won > 1. The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands > have been returned to the board. > 2. A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that > his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents > could not lose. > B. Disagreement on Tricks Won > If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then: > 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession > and, if so, applies Law 69. > 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. > If the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in > accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be no > obligation to increase a side?s score. > > ********************************************************* > > -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 Feb 2 08:57:23 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 07:57:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C References: <6B84EBBB-C5D1-4C50-84D7-CDC37AB84059@starpower.net><2b1e598b0801311056k64b6ea95o408da513ec0c3347@mail.gmail.com><815843EF-361D-4789-9342-CE48DACCBDD3@starpower.net><007201c86534$baafb040$afd5403e@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080202174219.038ebec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <025201c86571$3edb04f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> TM: > They bid 1C (1S) 1H (insufficient). > > I find out that the 1H bidder did not see the intermediate 1S. > The previous correction to 2H would show 10+ points and > 5+hearts, so I do not allow it (it gives more information than > the 1H would have). However, I can offer the perpetrator > a negative double if it means (in their system) 'I would have > bid 1H). I don't think so. Surely a negative double does not deliver an ironclad guarantee of four hearts. Also the 1H response normally promises diamonds no longer than hearts, information that is not normally incorporated into the negative double. > On the other hand, if I find the 1H bidder did not > see the two previous bids, and was opening the bidding > (albeit OOT), I allow the 2H change without penalty. What > could be easier If playing 5-card majors, this seems OK. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Feb 2 09:21:17 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 08:21:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000e01c86430$fb0ead30$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><009a01c86444$2f0d1780$0100a8c0@stefanie> <009401c86536$a09cf760$afd5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <025801c86574$95e71420$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> 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? >> > +=+ Try the definition of 'Psychic Call'. A misbid has the > effect of an unintended psych. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > But treatment of psyches is a matter or regulation, not law. The Orange book says that a misbid, like a psyche, may be ruled green, amber or red. This suggests that misbids be treated similarly to psyches. 40B2(a) reads, in part: The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding. However, 40B2(d) reads: The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls. So, presumably, the RA can do what it likes here, with no indication that Psyches and misbids must be treated differently. 40C claims to be about "Deviations from System AND Psychic action", suggesting that psyches and misbids are the same, at least insofar as their existence may be known or suspected by partner. Anyway, it seems to me that dealing with misbids as if they were psyches would solve a lot of problems and cause no new ones. Stefanie Rohan London, England From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Feb 2 10:20:19 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 10:20:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?L79B__Is_=22subsequent=22_needed=3F?= In-Reply-To: <200802020253.AA12301@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200802020253.AA12301@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <1JLEXr-1wWv6e0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> From: Robert Geller > I'm trying to understand the meaning of "subsequent" in L79B > (see below). ? ? It looks to me like this law makes perfect sense if > the word "subsequent" is deleted. ?In that case 79A applies > in the vast majority of cases when there is agreement, and in > the small minority of cases where ?there is disagreement the > director is called and he sorts things out. > > If anyone out there, especially a member of the DSC, thinks that the > word "subsequent" is actually needed in L79B could they > please explain this. ? Thanks. Although I'm not a member of the DSC ... Subsequent here means "After an agreement upon the number of tricks won and after all four hands have been returned to the board". It does not mean "If no agreement can be reached upon the number of tricks won". The problem "If there is no agreement upon the number of tricks won" is a matter of Law 79A solely in combination with Law 65D. Therefore I think "subsequent" is needed in Law 79B. Peter Eidt > ******************************************************* > LAW 79 - TRICKS WON > A. Agreement on Tricks Won > 1. The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands > have been returned to the board. > 2. A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick > that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his > opponents could not lose. > B. Disagreement on Tricks Won > If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, > then: 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or > concession and, if so, applies Law 69. > 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be > recorded. > If the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in > accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be > no obligation to increase a side$B!G(Bs score. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Feb 2 10:29:38 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 10:29:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?L93__Why_=22Director_in_charge=22=3F?= In-Reply-To: <200802020358.AA12302@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200802020358.AA12302@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <1JLEgs-25IYnQ0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> From: Robert Geller > In ordinary talk by bridge players, all directors at a tourney, both > the director in charge and his assistants, are called "directors" but, > as everyone on BLML knows the Laws reserve "director" for THE director > (the guy in charge), and everyone else is an "assistant" (see L81D) > > A search of the 2007 Laws shows that the word "director" is used 242 > times. > In 236 of these case the usage is consistent, just the one word > "director." However, for a reason I don't understand (I'm hoping > someone here can explain it) suddly in L93 (throughout L93) the phrase > "Director in charge" is used (see example below). ?This phrase is used > six times in L93 (and only in L93). > ****************************************************** > LAW 93 - PROCEDURES OF APPEAL > A. No Appeals Committee > The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon all appeals if there > is no Appeals Committee (or alternative arrangement under Law > 80B2(k)), or if such cannot operate without disturbing the orderly > progress of the tournament. > ******************************************************** > > According to L82D, the Director can delegate any of his duties to an > assistant (while remaining responsible for performance of the duties). > Therefore, even if L93 assigns appeals-related duties specifically to > the "Director in Charge," he is free (under 82D) to delegate these to > an assistant (in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary > in L93, which of course doesn't exist). > > So, why does L93 (and L93 only) use the term "Director in Charge"? Can > anyone explain this? Perhaps because here (in Law 93 territory) the duties of the TD may not be delegated ??? Law 93 wants THE Director not any of his assistants to act. > And how should we translate this? ?Should we take seriously the > difference in usage between ?"Director in Charge" in L93 and > "Director" everywhere else in the Laws and translate this differently > from the translator used for "Director" in L1-92, or should we assume > this is just one more instance of shoddy and inconsistent wordsmithing > by the WBFLC? ? ?(My money is on the latter, needless to say, but if > there is a real difference could someone please explain this.) FWIW, I translated the Director of the Law 1-92 as the german equivalent of "Director" while I translated "Director in charge" as "responsible Director". From geller at nifty.com Sat Feb 2 10:55:06 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:55:06 +0900 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?L93__Why_=22Director_in_charge=22=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1JLEgs-25IYnQ0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> References: <1JLEgs-25IYnQ0@fwd32.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <200802020955.AA12306@geller204.nifty.com> Peter Eidt writes: >> According to L82D, the Director can delegate any of his duties to an >> assistant (while remaining responsible for performance of the duties). >> Therefore, even if L93 assigns appeals-related duties specifically to >> the "Director in Charge," he is free (under 82D) to delegate these to >> an assistant (in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary >> in L93, which of course doesn't exist). >> >> So, why does L93 (and L93 only) use the term "Director in Charge"? Can >> anyone explain this? > >Perhaps because here (in Law 93 territory) the duties of the TD >may not be delegated ??? Law 93 wants THE Director not any >of his assistants to act. -> Perhaps you are correct. BUT..... (1) In any big tournament (like the ACBL NABC tourneys) there are so many tables in play that the "Director in Charge" doesn't handle appeals but rather the "Director in Charge" delegates appeals to a specialist assistant. (2) Please note that there is NOTHING in L93 that requires the Director in Charge to PERSONALLY handle appeals. This is because L93 does not have any specific prohibition on the use of 81D (which allows any task to be delegated to an assistant of the Director in Charge). Therefore the use of "Director in Charge" in L93 as it now stands is completely meaningless. My working assumption is that (as seems to be the case generally) the WBFLC simply drafted L93 in isolation, without considering the use of "Director" as it appears in the remainder of L1-L92. Can anyone from the WBFLC comment on this? >> And how should we translate this? ?Should we take seriously the >> difference in usage between ?"Director in Charge" in L93 and >> "Director" everywhere else in the Laws and translate this differently >> from the translator used for "Director" in L1-92, or should we assume >> this is just one more instance of shoddy and inconsistent wordsmithing >> by the WBFLC? ? ?(My money is on the latter, needless to say, but if >> there is a real difference could someone please explain this.) > >FWIW, I translated the Director of the Law 1-92 as the German equivalent >of "Director" while I translated "Director in charge" as "responsible >Director". -> Yes, at the moment the Japanese working version is the same. If we just translate L93 in isolation this is obviously correct. But in the absence of a provision forbidding delegation to assistant directors (i.e., a provision that L81D can't be used for any of the tasks assigned to the Director in charge by L93) this makes no sense, and from a global standpoint it seems correct to use "director" rather than "director in chief" in the translation of L93. Sigh, why couldn't the WBFLC have done a more careful job? ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From geller at nifty.com Sat Feb 2 11:11:47 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:11:47 +0900 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?L79B__Is_=22subsequent=22_needed=3F?= In-Reply-To: <1JLEXr-1wWv6e0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> References: <1JLEXr-1wWv6e0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <200802021011.AA12307@geller204.nifty.com> Peter Eidt writes: >Although I'm not a member of the DSC ... > >Subsequent here means "After an agreement upon the >number of tricks won and after all four hands have been >returned to the board". >It does not mean "If no agreement can be reached >upon the number of tricks won". > >The problem "If there is no agreement upon the number >of tricks won" is a matter of Law 79A solely in combination >with Law 65D. > >Therefore I think "subsequent" is needed in Law 79B. -> Actually I initially thought the same as you say above = that "subsequent" in 79B meant "After an agreement upon the >number of tricks won and after all four hands have been >returned to the board" = but one of my colleagues from the JCBL convinced me this is not the case. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you are correct in what you say above. If so, then it seems that L79 is incomplete as it now stands. The major headings in L79 are now LAW 79 - TRICKS WON A. Agreement on Tricks Won B. Disagreement on Tricks Won C. Error in Score but it seems very strange to me that L79B would contains a detailed discussion of what to do iin the case of a disagreement AFTER agreement had once been reach, but that there would be no mention anywhere in L79 of what to do in the presumably much more common case where there is no agreement reached in the first place. Anyway, I'm confused...... ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 2 11:38:12 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 10:38:12 +0000 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #1 Message-ID: <47A44814.2000700@ntlworld.com> [San Francisco NABC+ Appeal 1] Open LM Pairs Final. Board 2. NS E deals East (Roy Welland): S:KJ942 H:J982 D:K3 C:KQ West (Bobby Levin): S:7 H:K7543 D:AQ75 C:J93 Auction: -- -- 1C _P 1H _P 1S _P _X AP The Facts: The director was called after the afternoon session. 1C was, by agreement, natural. The Ruling: In accordance with law 40 A, a player is permitted to make an intentionally misleading call. Since there is no evidence of a concealed understanding and West?s double is considered to be a normal action, the table result of 1S doubled, down one, N/S minus 200, was allowed to stand. The Appeal: North said that he believed West?s double was very unusual, since West would not be interested in defending 1S doubled. He said he had given West?s bidding problem to three ?nationally experienced? players and no one chose to double as West had done. He said, ?If I thought double were a usual bid, I wouldn?t be here.? East made no assertion that his hand was missorted. The 1S bid, by agreement, was natural. The Decision: While recognizing the eccentricity of East?s bidding, the committee noted that law 40 (noted by the director) gives a player the right to make intentionally misleading calls. As a matter of bridge judgment, the committee found nothing abnormal about West?s reopening double. Accordingly, the committee could find no infraction or impropriety on which to base an adjustment. Although East?s opening 1C bid was eccentric and his pass of the 1S overcall arguably unusual, there was nothing to indicate they were predicated on any impropriety or infraction. West?s 1H bid was ordinary and his double was hardly unusual, so there did not appear to be ?fielding of a psych.? The director informed North that if he felt there should be a record of this E/W?s bidding, a player memo would be appropriate. The committee believed that a bridge appeals committee was not the proper venue to air this matter. Therefore, an appeal without merit warning (AWMW) was issued to N/S. The Committee: Barry Rigal (Chair), Michael Huston, Eugene Kales, Ed Lazarus and Chris Moll. [Nige1] 1. Apparently East habitually opens 1C on a two card suit. That is not "natural". On its own, it warrants a director call and an appeal. 2. The committee correctly note that East's pass of 1S is unusual. I agree that a pass with *four card support* for partner's hearts and two doubletons is weird. Unless East's pass is forcing? In which case, should it be alerted? Did the committee enquire? 3. A group of EW peers unanimously reject West's reopening double. I agree with the committee that it seems OK; but I'm not competing in the LM pairs. If the committee feel the consulted group are unrepresentative, they should poll others, themselves. Anyway, the double does appear to cater for a psychic 1C opening. 4. IMO the Issue of an AWMW by the AC is ridiculous. The committee seem to be embarrassed by a "possible psych-fielding" allegation against a high-profile pair; but despite the committee's protests, it seems to me that a single suspicious case may still be an infraction and appropriate fare for directors and committees. 5. IMO, the committee should award themselves an appeal without merit warning. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 2 11:44:03 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 10:44:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] L93 Why "Director in charge"? References: <200802020358.AA12302@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <004101c86589$0d10f840$4aca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 3:58 AM Subject: [blml] L93 Why "Director in charge"? A search of the 2007 Laws shows that the word "director" is used 242 times. In 236 of these case the usage is consistent, just the one word "director." However, for a reason I don't understand (I'm hoping someone here can explain it) suddenly in L93 (throughout L93) the phrase "Director in charge" is used (see example below). This phrase is used six times in L93 (and only in L93). .............................................................................. +=+ The above fails to relate the question to, and comment upon, the use of 'Chief Director' in the 1997 laws. I quote a couple of extracts from my records of discussion of the subject: "(......................) observes that there is the possibility of saying simply 'Director' and maintaining the distinction between 'Director' and 'Assistant Director'. This works technically but psychologically, given that he is the person who arrives when they summon 'the Director' [per 1997 Law 9B1(a)], people do think of the official who goes to the table as the 'Director' even though he is actually the Director's agent. There is also the compounded confusion that in WBF and some Zonal events, others too perhaps, the directing staff are designated 'Chief Tournament Director', 'Assistant Chief Tournament Director', 'Directors', 'Assistant Directors' and such. That apart (..........) says that 'Director-in-charge' is the best option in his opinion since 'Chief Director' in some places means the CTD of the NBO and the wording is consequently ambiguous. " and "I would say three of us are in agreement, which is no bad start. I am inclined to write it as 'Director in charge' since I would want the job title to be 'Director' (as throughout the book) and 'in charge' to be descriptive of, or qualifying, 'Director'. And no mention in the definitions is then needed." ........................................................................... ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Sat Feb 2 12:05:29 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:05:29 +0900 Subject: [blml] L93 Why "Director in charge"? In-Reply-To: <004101c86589$0d10f840$4aca403e@Mildred> References: <004101c86589$0d10f840$4aca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200802021105.AA12308@geller204.nifty.com> But (1) since under 81D the director (the director in charge, if you like) can delegate any of his duties to an assistant, the use of "director in charge" in L93 is meaningless (unless L93 forbade delegation to assistants, which it does not). (2) the fact that "director" is used to include both the chief director and his asistants in everyday usage is irrelevant to the law book, which should be internally consistent. (3) the fact that some people did or didn't discuss this question in relation to the 1997 laws is of interest, but doesn't change the fact that the 2007 laws should be an internally consistent document that speaks for itself. -Bob gesta at tiscali.co.uk ????????: > >Grattan Endicott[following address discontinued: >grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >******************************* >"Continuing to do the same thing > hoping for a different outcome." > Einstein: definition of madness. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robert Geller" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 3:58 AM >Subject: [blml] L93 Why "Director in charge"? > A search of the 2007 Laws shows that the word "director" >is used 242 times. In 236 of these case the usage is consistent, >just the one word "director." However, for a reason I don't >understand (I'm hoping someone here can explain it) suddenly >in L93 (throughout L93) the phrase "Director in charge" is >used (see example below). This phrase is used six times in >L93 (and only in L93). > >.............................................................................. >+=+ The above fails to relate the question to, and comment >upon, the use of 'Chief Director' in the 1997 laws. I quote >a couple of extracts from my records of discussion of the >subject: >"(......................) observes that there is the possibility of >saying simply 'Director' and maintaining the distinction >between 'Director' and 'Assistant Director'. >This works technically but psychologically, given that >he is the person who arrives when they summon 'the >Director' [per 1997 Law 9B1(a)], people do think of >the official who goes to the table as the 'Director' even >though he is actually the Director's agent. There is also >the compounded confusion that in WBF and some >Zonal events, others too perhaps, the directing staff are >designated 'Chief Tournament Director', 'Assistant Chief >Tournament Director', 'Directors', 'Assistant Directors' >and such. > That apart (..........) says that 'Director-in-charge' is >the best option in his opinion since 'Chief Director' in >some places means the CTD of the NBO and the >wording is consequently ambiguous. " > and >"I would say three of us are in agreement, which is no >bad start. I am inclined to write it as > 'Director in charge' >since I would want the job title to be 'Director' (as >throughout the book) and 'in charge' to be descriptive >of, or qualifying, 'Director'. And no mention in the >definitions is then needed." >........................................................................... > ~ 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Sat Feb 2 12:15:28 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 12:15:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #1 In-Reply-To: <47A44814.2000700@ntlworld.com> References: <47A44814.2000700@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <47A450D0.5040809@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [San Francisco NABC+ Appeal 1] > Open LM Pairs Final. Board 2. NS E deals > East (Roy Welland): S:KJ942 H:J982 D:K3 C:KQ > West (Bobby Levin): S:7 H:K7543 D:AQ75 C:J93 > > AG : I have to disagree with Nigel. > 2. The committee correctly note that East's pass of 1S is unusual. I > agree that a pass with *four card support* for partner's hearts and > two doubletons is weird. Unless East's pass is forcing? In which case, > should it be alerted? Did the committee enquire? > > Can we perhaps imagine that East followed this reasoning : - either partner doesn't have the hand to reopen, and 'll let them play in their non-fit ; that's probably the best result I can hope for. In Hearts, we'll suffer from bad breaks. (note also the vulnerability, which pleads in favor of these tactics) - either he has enough, and let's hope it's a double. In other cases, I can always raise hearts. I will have shown a 3-card raise and that's what my hand looks like. East's pass deserves only one word : clever. Of course, it's unusual for a bridge player to make a clever call, but this doesn't deserve any TD call. 1C (1S) pass (hoping for a double) isn't forcing, isn't alertable and isn't suspect when partner indeed doubles. Why should this case be different ? > 3. A group of EW peers unanimously reject West's reopening double. I > agree with the committee that it seems OK; but I'm not competing in > the LM pairs. If the committee feel the consulted group are > unrepresentative, they should poll others, themselves. > Anyway, the double does appear to cater for a psychic 1C opening. > > That's the part I totally disagree with. A double on this hand is automatic. It will nearly never be left in, of course, and the result is a bit unexpected, but what do you suggest ? 2D ? Most pairs play this as Canap?. 2S on a 10-count ? Double says "I think we can make something, and I'm ready to play in whichever strain you'll choose". IOW a perfect TO double. The fact that it turns out right facing the actual hand doens't mean it was made to cater for a psyche. This is the C-word in disguise, and I wouldn't at all like to be called a C**** for making a perfect TO double, whatever partner's hand turns out to be. Regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Sat Feb 2 12:15:28 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 12:15:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #1 In-Reply-To: <47A44814.2000700@ntlworld.com> References: <47A44814.2000700@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <47A450D0.5040809@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [San Francisco NABC+ Appeal 1] > Open LM Pairs Final. Board 2. NS E deals > East (Roy Welland): S:KJ942 H:J982 D:K3 C:KQ > West (Bobby Levin): S:7 H:K7543 D:AQ75 C:J93 > > AG : I have to disagree with Nigel. > 2. The committee correctly note that East's pass of 1S is unusual. I > agree that a pass with *four card support* for partner's hearts and > two doubletons is weird. Unless East's pass is forcing? In which case, > should it be alerted? Did the committee enquire? > > Can we perhaps imagine that East followed this reasoning : - either partner doesn't have the hand to reopen, and 'll let them play in their non-fit ; that's probably the best result I can hope for. In Hearts, we'll suffer from bad breaks. (note also the vulnerability, which pleads in favor of these tactics) - either he has enough, and let's hope it's a double. In other cases, I can always raise hearts. I will have shown a 3-card raise and that's what my hand looks like. East's pass deserves only one word : clever. Of course, it's unusual for a bridge player to make a clever call, but this doesn't deserve any TD call. 1C (1S) pass (hoping for a double) isn't forcing, isn't alertable and isn't suspect when partner indeed doubles. Why should this case be different ? > 3. A group of EW peers unanimously reject West's reopening double. I > agree with the committee that it seems OK; but I'm not competing in > the LM pairs. If the committee feel the consulted group are > unrepresentative, they should poll others, themselves. > Anyway, the double does appear to cater for a psychic 1C opening. > > That's the part I totally disagree with. A double on this hand is automatic. It will nearly never be left in, of course, and the result is a bit unexpected, but what do you suggest ? 2D ? Most pairs play this as Canap?. 2S on a 10-count ? Double says "I think we can make something, and I'm ready to play in whichever strain you'll choose". IOW a perfect TO double. The fact that it turns out right facing the actual hand doens't mean it was made to cater for a psyche. This is the C-word in disguise, and I wouldn't at all like to be called a C**** for making a perfect TO double, whatever partner's hand turns out to be. Regards Alain From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 2 12:34:52 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:34:52 +0000 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #8 Message-ID: <47A4555C.6030908@ntlworld.com> [San Francisco NABC+ Appeal 8] Blue Ribbon Pairs. 2nd Qualifying. Board 7. Both vul. South deals East (Mitch Dunitz): S:84 H:T96 D:JT8643 C:AK The auction: -- -- -- 1S _P 2S AP The Facts: The director was called at trick one. North?s convention card was marked ? four-card majors; South?s card ? four plus hearts. West looked at card in pass out seat and decided to pass. When dummy was spread, West discovered a disparity between the convention cards on major suit opening length, called the director and said he would have balanced. The Ruling: Misinformation was ruled. Three of three players who were consulted would pass 3S with the North hand. Therefore, the result was adjusted to 3D by East making three, E/W plus 110. The Appeal: N/S did not have two convention cards that were the same. North had his card marked with check marks in the four-card major box for both hearts and spades. South had his card marked with a four in the heart box and a five in the spade box. Questioning of South by the committee ascertained that they were a new partnership that had ?worked up their system? by an exchange of e-mails in the last few days before the tournament. The committee determined that their agreement was to open 1H with 4-4 in the majors and to open 1S only rarely with four (most of the time they would have five). They had no bid for a four-card simple raise. West had looked at North?s convention card prior to making a decision to pass rather than balance. After passing, making his opening lead and seeing dummy West asked some questions about style. At that point it was determined that North?s card was not correctly filled out. The director was called at this time. West advised the director that he had passed because he thought N/S could be in a 4-3 fit. He told the director he might have balanced if he knew N/S probably had an eight-card or better fit. The director instructed the players to play the board. If West had asked questions before making his lead, the director could have reopened the auction and permitted West to withdraw his pass. He could also have asked his questions prior to passing. The Decision: The committee determined that there was MI and directed N/S to ensure that they had two identical cards that correctly set forth the partnership?s agreements. The committee decided that since a four-card major opening frequently has a five-card suit and that the raise to 2? could have contained four spades there was a high probability that N/S had an eight-card fit. West?s decision to hope the opponents were in a 4-3 fit was a narrow window. The committee determined that the decision to balance, when an eight-card or better fit was likely, was not materially affected by the MI. A substantial number of Wests did pass (many N/S pairs played spade partials). E/W were vulnerable and West was 3-3-4-3. Therefore, the committee restored the table result of 2? by South making three, N/S plus 140. The Committee: Richard Popper (Chair), Mike Kovacich and Hendrick Sharples. [nige1] I agree with the committee on appeals 2-7 :) for what its worth :) In appeal 8, however ... 1. In close cases, the benefit of the doubt should go to non-offenders. Here, IMO, East was damaged. IMO it is safer to protect when opponents probably have an eight or nine card fit than when opponent's fit is likely to be only seven of eight cards. 2. How far must East go to "protect himself"? When does "protecting yourself" become "harassment"? Asking for confirmation of a convention that is clearly and *positively* marked on the system card seems to be the latter rather than the former. 3. The committee judged the bidding at this table by the *results* at other tables. This seems OK as a rough indication; but it usually occasions howls of derision and screams of protest from BLMLers who point out that at other tables, the auction and inferences may be quite different. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 2 13:05:22 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 12:05:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #9 Message-ID: <47A45C82.3000205@ntlworld.com> [San Francisco NABC+ Appeal 9] Blue Ribbon Pairs. 2nd Qualifying. Board 7. Both vul. South deals West (Lew Stansby): S:AT2 H:853 D:AK97 C:J42 -- -- -- 1S _P 2S .P _P 3D AP East's .P Agreed break in tempo (BIT) of 8-15 seconds. The Facts: The director was called after the play. The deal occurred near the end of the session. Two players were consulted as to their actions with the West hand. Both said they would double. The Ruling: The director deemed that pass was not a logical alternative (LA); therefore, the table result of 3D making three, E/W plus 110 was allowed to stand. The Appeal: Only North and South were present. N/S explained that they believed that they considered pass extremely logical, and they had asked many top players about the hand and they agreed. The appeals committee asked why the director was called only after the end of play and N/S explained that they were not sure when would have been the appropriate time to call. The Decision: We were not concerned about the timing of the tournament director (TD) call. It is best to call immediately after the UI, in order to allow the TD ascertain the facts, but calling later does not waive a pair's rights when the facts can be determined. Here the facts were not in question. The committee discounted the N/S testimony regarding players they had consulted because of the many impairments to credibility of this type of evidence. To paraphrase Kaplan, pass would not be an egregious error, in fact, it would be right quite often. By the numbers: Was there UI? Yes. Did the UI demonstrably suggest the action chosen (double) over a less successful alternative (Pass)? Yes. Would the less successful action have been logical? Yes. We then moved on to 12C2 to adjust the score. It looked to us as though 2S should be held to two for NS +110 on routine defense. We weren't certain, though, that the defense would be found, and we wouldn't want to give the offenders the benefit of the doubt so we asked a TD to look up the frequencies that occurred in the Blue Ribbon sessions. We were surprised to learn that N/S went +140 substantially more often than they went +110. We thus judged that N/S +140 was both the most favorable result that was likely for N/S absent the illegal double and also the most unfavorable result for E/W that was at all probable. Therefore, the committee adjusted the result to 2S making three, N/S plus 140 and E/W minus 140. The appeal was judged to have merit. The committee did not issue a procedural penalty against E/W. West must have considered balancing automatic. Had he thought it was at all close he'd surely have passed as a matter of self-interest, knowing that his side would keep a poor result and lose the benefit of any good result. The Committee: Adam Wildavsky (Chair), Laurie Kranyak and Bob White. [nige1] 1. Notice that in appeal 9, both the director and committee judge that balancing is normal; but in appeal 8, on the same board with the same auction, the committee judge it to be most unlikely. 2. Here, The the committee seems to have ruled correctly; but the committee's argument against issuing a PP is a bit pathetic: "West must have considered balancing automatic. Had he thought it was at all close he'd surely have passed as a matter of self-interest, knowing that his side would keep a poor result and lose the benefit of any good result." In so far as it goes, surely that statement should always be true for players at this level? From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 2 13:57:50 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 12:57:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #13 Message-ID: <47A468CE.5090306@ntlworld.com> [San Francisco NABC+ Appeal 13] Blue Ribbon Pairs. 1st Final. Board 22. EW vul. East deals West (Shirley Blum)...: S:J3 H:KQ95 D:AT C:AKQ83 East (Steve McConnell): S:AKQ542 H:A74 D:K73 C:9 The auction: -- -- 1S _P 2C _P 3D _P 4N _P 5C _P 5D _P 5H _P 7N AP 5C = Shows three controls. 5H = A break in tempo (BIT) before bid, which denied the SQ. The Facts: The director was called after the hand and after the opponents had left the table. When the E/W pair was questioned about the 5? call, both players agreed that there had been a BIT. There was no agreement by either pair as to the length of the BIT. The Ruling: The director determined that there was UI and that the BIT suggested additional values. If West didn?t care about the SQ, she should have bid 7NT after 5C. Therefore, in accordance with laws 16 and 12C2, the result was adjusted to 6NT by West making seven, E/W plus 1470. The Appeal: E/W were relatively inexperienced as a partnership, having played ?a bit? on the Internet. Their system is two over one. The 3S bid showed 16-17 HCP and did not promise solid or semi-solid spades (They seemed to be unfamiliar with that treatment.). 4NT was Roman Keycard Blackwood in spades and the follow-up was the queen ask. At that point, East did not know how to show the queen and decided that he would bid 5H, uncertain of its meaning, and then bid more later. West thought 5H denied the SQ but bid 7NT anyway thinking that East had to have other good card to make up his compliment of HCP to make his hand good enough to bid 3S. She thought that two side jacks instead of the SQ could make 7NT playable, so she bid it. The committee asked West why she asked for the SQ if she was going to bid 7NT anyway. She said she asked for it so that she wouldn?t have to think about whether to bid 7NT. When her partner denied the SQ, she thought about hand possibilities that would make 7NT playable without bringing in the spade suit. She decided in favor of 7NT. The Decision: When West made her decision to bid 7NT she already had interpreted her partner?s hand to be 16-17 HCP with six spades. Her partner?s BIT may have suggested his lack of certainty about how to deny the SQ more than anything else, which his bidding had already shown. In fact, in terms of HCP, East was at the bottom of his bid, thus not possessing extra strength according to this partnership?s understanding. Since East?s hesitation seems to be the result of random confusion, the committee decided that the BIT did not demonstrably suggest a line of action to West. West was permitted to make her choice of bid unconstrained. Therefore, the committee restored the table result of 7NT by West making seven, E/W plus 2220. The Committee: Michael Huston (Chair), Shannon Cappelletti and Jacob Morgan. [Nige1] It doesn't matter what East was really thinking about before denying SQ with is 5H bid. It matters what the hesitation implies to West. For West the inference is *either* [A] *He holds SQ* but is minimum for his jump rebid and seems to hold a misfit, so is reluctant to encourage partner *or* [B] He lacks SQ but has *substantial extra values*, so is reluctant to sign off. In either case, the unauthorised information makes 7N a better prospect than the lesser scoring logical alternative of a small slam; hence IMO the committee ruled incorrectly. Worse: they encouraged more pairs to adopt "hesitation Blackwood". From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 2 14:41:29 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 13:41:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] San Francisco cases posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47A47309.4010605@ntlworld.com> [Adam Wildavsky] 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. [Nige1] Thank you Adam. I've commented on a few appeals in separate threads. From the viewpoint of an ordinary player, the standard of rulings seems to be steadily improving. It seems that publishing appeals is interesting and instructive for all. Thank you again! From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 2 15:32:40 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:32:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] L93 Why "Director in charge"? References: <004101c86589$0d10f840$4aca403e@Mildred> <200802021105.AA12308@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <001701c865a9$13d0f980$c7d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L93 Why "Director in charge"? > (3) the fact that some people did or didn't discuss > this question in relation to the 1997 laws is of interest, > but doesn't change the fact that the 2007 laws should > be an internally consistent document that speaks for > itself. > +=+ Using this argument we can then agree that 'Director in charge' says something different from simply 'Director'. We might thus imagine that the WBFLC could interpret that the power to delegate attributed to the Director is not available to the 'Director in charge' under Law 93? ~ G ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Sat Feb 2 15:49:44 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 23:49:44 +0900 Subject: [blml] L93 Why "Director in charge"? In-Reply-To: <001701c865a9$13d0f980$c7d4403e@Mildred> References: <001701c865a9$13d0f980$c7d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200802021449.AA12315@geller204.nifty.com> The laws should be based on statements in black and white, and should not require any "imagination" to interpret them properly. if it was desired that the Director in Charge be forbidden to delegate L93 duties it should have been clearly stated in L93 that L81D was inapplicable to duties assigned to the Director in Charge under L93. In the absence of such a clear statement L81D is clearly applicable to all duties of the Director (in charge), including those assigned under L93. May I suggest that in the future the WBFLCDSC should write things down, rather than leaving them to the imagination of the reader. Incidentally, can anyone who plays regularly in ACBL tourneys please tell us whether the director in charge personally handles duties under L93, or whether he assigns them to an assistant. I strongly suspect (in view of the scale of the tourney) that the latter is the case. -Bob gesta at tiscali.co.uk ????????: > >Grattan Endicott[following address discontinued: >grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >******************************* >"Continuing to do the same thing > hoping for a different outcome." > Einstein: definition of madness. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robert Geller" >Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 11:05 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] L93 Why "Director in charge"? > > >> (3) the fact that some people did or didn't discuss >> this question in relation to the 1997 laws is of interest, >> but doesn't change the fact that the 2007 laws should >> be an internally consistent document that speaks for >> itself. >> >+=+ Using this argument we can then agree that >'Director in charge' says something different from >simply 'Director'. We might thus imagine that the >WBFLC could interpret that the power to delegate >attributed to the Director is not available to the >'Director in charge' under Law 93? > ~ G ~ +=+ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Feb 2 16:34:00 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:34:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] L79B Is "subsequent" needed? In-Reply-To: <200802020253.AA12301@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: ton: The word 'subsequent' is there for a long time. And the writers then (as well as the DSC now) thought it obvious that players at the table were able to determine the number of tricks won and lost and would always come to a conclusion themselves. That explains the 'subsequent' in B. Which makes 'perfect sense' to me. But I agree that theoretically it is possible that sides do not agree on the number of tricks won in which case the TD could be called at once. So you found an omission. And to make it more complicated (sorry for that) if then the score is established it is still possible that subsequently a disagreement arises in which case 79B should be applied. Is this clear or do you need examples, or should we ask Herman to add his better view or should we call the LC asking to clarify this law or should we ask our London lady to give her opinion? ton I'm trying to understand the meaning of "subsequent" in L79B (see below). It looks to me like this law makes perfect sense if the word "subsequent" is deleted. In that case 79A applies in the vast majority of cases when there is agreement, and in the small minority of cases where there is disagreement the director is called and he sorts things out. If anyone out there, especially a member of the DSC, thinks that the word "subsequent" is actually needed in L79B could they please explain this. Thanks. ******************************************************* LAW 79 - TRICKS WON A. Agreement on Tricks Won 1. The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have been returned to the board. 2. A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose. B. Disagreement on Tricks Won If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then: 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession and, if so, applies Law 69. 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. If the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be no obligation to increase a side's score. ********************************************************* -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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sat Feb 2 16:34:38 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:34:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] L79B Is "subsequent" needed? In-Reply-To: <200802021011.AA12307@geller204.nifty.com> References: <1JLEXr-1wWv6e0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <200802021011.AA12307@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: On 02/02/2008, Robert Geller wrote: > Peter Eidt writes: > > >Although I'm not a member of the DSC ... > > > >Subsequent here means "After an agreement upon the > >number of tricks won and after all four hands have been > >returned to the board". > >It does not mean "If no agreement can be reached > >upon the number of tricks won". > > > >The problem "If there is no agreement upon the number > >of tricks won" is a matter of Law 79A solely in combination > >with Law 65D. > > > >Therefore I think "subsequent" is needed in Law 79B. That is correct. This is what this las means. I've got trouble understanding how this can be misinterpreted. > > -> > Actually I initially thought the same as you say above > = that "subsequent" in 79B meant > "After an agreement upon the > >number of tricks won and after all four hands have been > >returned to the board" = > but one of my colleagues from the JCBL convinced me this is not the case. > > Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you are correct in what you say > above. If so, then it seems that L79 is incomplete as it now stands. > The major headings in L79 are now > > LAW 79 - TRICKS WON > A. Agreement on Tricks Won > B. Disagreement on Tricks Won > C. Error in Score > > but it seems very strange to me that L79B would contains a detailed > discussion of what to do iin the case of a disagreement AFTER agreement > had once been reach, but that there would be no mention anywhere in L79 > of what to do in the presumably much more common case where there is > no agreement reached in the first place. > > Anyway, I'm confused...... > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Sat Feb 2 16:41:07 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:41:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #1 In-Reply-To: <47A450D0.5040809@ulb.ac.be> References: <47A44814.2000700@ntlworld.com> <47A450D0.5040809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On 02/02/2008, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Guthrie a ?crit : > > [San Francisco NABC+ Appeal 1] > > Open LM Pairs Final. Board 2. NS E deals > > East (Roy Welland): S:KJ942 H:J982 D:K3 C:KQ > > West (Bobby Levin): S:7 H:K7543 D:AQ75 C:J93 > > > > > > AG : I have to disagree with Nigel. > > > 2. The committee correctly note that East's pass of 1S is unusual. I > > agree that a pass with *four card support* for partner's hearts and > > two doubletons is weird. Unless East's pass is forcing? In which case, > > should it be alerted? Did the committee enquire? > > > > > Can we perhaps imagine that East followed this reasoning : > - either partner doesn't have the hand to reopen, and 'll let them play > in their non-fit ; that's probably the best result I can hope for. In > Hearts, we'll suffer from bad breaks. > (note also the vulnerability, which pleads in favor of these tactics) > - either he has enough, and let's hope it's a double. In other cases, I > can always raise hearts. I will have shown a 3-card raise and that's > what my hand looks like. > > East's pass deserves only one word : clever. Of course, it's unusual for > a bridge player to make a clever call, but this doesn't deserve any TD call. > > 1C (1S) pass (hoping for a double) isn't forcing, isn't alertable and > isn't suspect when partner indeed doubles. Why should this case be > different ? > > > 3. A group of EW peers unanimously reject West's reopening double. I > > agree with the committee that it seems OK; but I'm not competing in > > the LM pairs. If the committee feel the consulted group are > > unrepresentative, they should poll others, themselves. > > Anyway, the double does appear to cater for a psychic 1C opening. > > > > > That's the part I totally disagree with. A double on this hand is > automatic. It will nearly never be left in, of course, and the result is > a bit unexpected, but what do you suggest ? > 2D ? Most pairs play this as Canap?. > 2S on a 10-count ? > Double says "I think we can make something, and I'm ready to play in > whichever strain you'll choose". IOW a perfect TO double. > The fact that it turns out right facing the actual hand doens't mean it > was made to cater for a psyche. This is the C-word in disguise, and I > wouldn't at all like to be called a C**** for making a perfect TO > double, whatever partner's hand turns out to be. Strongly agree with Alain and the AC. > > > Regards > > Alain > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Feb 2 16:41:33 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:41:33 -0600 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful than MI in the laws Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com> Below are seven seven cases I have found in the laws where UI is deemed worse than MI---seven cases where the laws tell us to allow MI to be created or not removed, for no other reason than to reduce UI. The recent argument by a few on BLML that our law makers consider UI harmless when compared to MI is therefore false. Text of the laws appears at http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/2007LawsComplete.pdf (But I could not find a definition of MI.) In all of these cases, potential UI is deemed more harmful than the MI: 1. When your partner gives a mistaken explanation, you cannot immediately correct it, and you may not correct it even after the auction is over, if you are defending. (L20F5a and L73B) 2. If your partner has created MI during the auction and you will be defending, you may not correct it during the clarification period. (L20F5bi) 3. When answering a question about your system, you usually cannot look at your convention card or system notes to be sure that you are giving an MI-free answer. (L40B2b---but declarer and dummy can look during the clarification period.) 4. If during the play period, a defender gives MI that dummy happens to know is a misstatement, dummy cannot attempt to clear it up until after the last trick. (L9A3 and L43A1b) 5. (A rarely-mentioned kind of MI, and some might disagree that it is MI) Until the end of the play period, neither dummy nor either defender may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly (to indicate the trick winner) after a lead is made to the following trick. (L65B3) 6. (Controversial interpretation) Many have argued that you cannot ask a question to clear up MI for partner's benefit. (L20G1) 7. (Controversial interpretation) Some have argued that you cannot ask nonneutral questions to clear up MI even for yourself. In each case, why is the MI allowed to be created or maintained? The answer is surely to reduce UI. Thus, in these cases, the *risk* of UI is deemed worse than the known MI. For me, the great irony is that David Burn, who recently asserted that MI is harmful and UI is harmless, is also the one who argued most eloquently that 6 and 7 are cases where the law often requires MI to remain to avoid the risk of UI. He certainly convinced me. If one wanted to argue that UI is the greater risk, one would do well to echo David's words. See http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2007-March/031898.html , though the statements below were written in October of 2002 under the subject of the Kaplan Question (15 and 20 come from the next message, at http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2007-March/031899.html ): 1. David Burn: If your opponents have misinformed your side, then there are ways in which you may obtain redress at the end of the hand. There are also positions in which it may be possible, by judicious questioning, to rectify the situation at the table. But you must not use questions either to communicate with partner, or to deceive an opponent. You're supposed to ask your opponents to explain their methods, not tell them what you think their methods are and see if they agree with you. 8. David Burn If, despite your best intentions, it is held that your question could have communicated with partner, or could have deceived an opponent, then you are subject to penalty and your score may be adjusted. Infractions committed by the opponents are *not* mitigating circumstances in judging infractions committed by your side. 15. David Burn It is a fundamental assumption in the Laws that information possessed by the opponents should be available in equal measure to you. Since you don't play their methods, the only ways in which this information can be made available to you are: they write it all down beforehand and you commit it to memory; or they impart it to you as the need arises at the table. Of these, the latter is considered the more practical in most situations. But there are other fundamental assumptions in the Laws also; among them the presumption that the gravest possible offence is illegal communication with partner. Now, when these two great principles conflict, as conflict they will if bridge is played without screens or similar devices, something has to give. Since illegal communication is "the gravest possible offence", then anything that might be used as a means of such communication must not be allowed, and you are not allowed to transmit information to partner by means of questions. 20. David Burn: Whereas you are (almost) correct in saying that there are forms of illegal communication which are not "the gravest possible offence", that does not mean that there are some forms of illegal communication that are not an offence at all. So serious are such offences that *anything* which follows as a consequence of *any* communication between partners other than by calls or plays must be annulled, and any advantage therefrom removed. I would indeed not allow anyone to ask any question at all containing the words "queen of hearts". The only questions I would allow anyone to ask are of these forms: Format 1 [words meaning] "Please may I have an explanation of..." followed by [words meaning] "...the auction" or "...the call of X" (in a context where it is permitted to ask about a specific call); Format 2 The same as Format 1, with the words "an explanation of" replaced by "some more information about". From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 2 17:37:11 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:37:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #1 In-Reply-To: References: <47A44814.2000700@ntlworld.com> <47A450D0.5040809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47A49C37.9000700@ntlworld.com> [Nige1] [SNIP] 3. A group of EW peers unanimously reject West's reopening double. I agree with the committee that it seems OK; but I'm not competing in the LM pairs. If the committee feel the consulted group are unrepresentative, they should poll others, themselves. Anyway, the double does appear to cater for a psychic 1C opening. [SNIP] [Allain Gottcheiner] That's the part I totally disagree with. A double on this hand is automatic. It will nearly never be left in, of course, and the result is a bit unexpected, but what do you suggest ? 2D ? Most pairs play this as Canap?. 2S on a 10-count ? Double says "I think we can make something, and I'm ready to play in whichever strain you'll choose". IOW a perfect TO double. The fact that it turns out right facing the actual hand doens't mean it was made to cater for a psyche. This is the C-word in disguise, and I wouldn't at all like to be called a C**** for making a perfect TO double, whatever partner's hand turns out to be. [Harald Skj?ran] Strongly agree with Alain and the AC. [Nige1] Alain and Harald agree with the committee that double seems OK; I agree too :) that is what I wrote :) but more relevant is what the players' *peers* think of it. The appellants consulted a group of top players who rejected it. As far as we know, the committee consulted nobody. Alain introduces the C**** word. I'm sure that's a terrible mistake. Unfortunately, it is an attitude that the committee seemed to share. It drives players from the game. It encourages the paranoia that makes players resent adverse rulings, especially those that involve possible use of unauthorized information or concealed partnership understandings. In the UK, for example, a psych may be ruled suspicious, on the *balance of probability*, without slanderous imputation against the individual. From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Feb 2 18:52:18 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 06:52:18 +1300 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #1 In-Reply-To: <47A44814.2000700@ntlworld.com> References: <47A44814.2000700@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802020952x3745a511t9181838ba71cbdb4@mail.gmail.com> On 02/02/2008, Guthrie wrote: > [San Francisco NABC+ Appeal 1] > Open LM Pairs Final. Board 2. NS E deals > East (Roy Welland): S:KJ942 H:J982 D:K3 C:KQ > West (Bobby Levin): S:7 H:K7543 D:AQ75 C:J93 > > Auction: > -- -- 1C _P > 1H _P 1S _P > _X AP > I don't agree with anyone. It appears that someone doubled his partner's 1S bid. I guess I will have to look up the case and find out what really happened. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Sat Feb 2 18:54:52 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 06:54:52 +1300 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #1 In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560802020952x3745a511t9181838ba71cbdb4@mail.gmail.com> References: <47A44814.2000700@ntlworld.com> <2a1c3a560802020952x3745a511t9181838ba71cbdb4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802020954q1d3ed5dfse13ad98b1e61e4a4@mail.gmail.com> On 03/02/2008, Wayne Burrows wrote: > On 02/02/2008, Guthrie wrote: > > [San Francisco NABC+ Appeal 1] > > Open LM Pairs Final. Board 2. NS E deals > > East (Roy Welland): S:KJ942 H:J982 D:K3 C:KQ > > West (Bobby Levin): S:7 H:K7543 D:AQ75 C:J93 > > > > Auction: > > -- -- 1C _P > > 1H _P 1S _P > > _X AP > > > > I don't agree with anyone. > > It appears that someone doubled his partner's 1S bid. I guess I will > have to look up the case and find out what really happened. > > Wayne > The real auction was: __ __ 1C _P 1H 1S _P _P _X AP Wayne From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 2 19:33:10 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:33:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #8 In-Reply-To: <47A4555C.6030908@ntlworld.com> References: <47A4555C.6030908@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <47A4B766.8090601@ntlworld.com> [San Francisco NABC+ Appeal 8 corrected] Blue Ribbon Pairs. 2nd Qualifying. Board 7. Both vul. South deals East (Mitch Dunitz): S:84 H:T96 D:JT8643 C:AK West (Ralph Katz)..: S:AT2 H:853 D:AK97 C:J42 The auction: -- -- -- 1S _P 2S AP The Facts: The director was called at trick one. North?s convention card was marked ? four-card majors; South?s card ? four plus hearts. West looked at card in pass out seat and decided to pass. When dummy was spread, West discovered a disparity between the convention cards on major suit opening length, called the director and said he would have balanced. The Ruling: Misinformation was ruled. Three of three players who were consulted would pass 3S with the North hand. Therefore, the result was adjusted to 3D by East making three, E/W plus 110. The Appeal: N/S did not have two convention cards that were the same. North had his card marked with check marks in the four-card major box for both hearts and spades. South had his card marked with a four in the heart box and a five in the spade box. Questioning of South by the committee ascertained that they were a new partnership that had ?worked up their system? by an exchange of e-mails in the last few days before the tournament. The committee determined that their agreement was to open 1H with 4-4 in the majors and to open 1S only rarely with four (most of the time they would have five). They had no bid for a four-card simple raise. West had looked at North?s convention card prior to making a decision to pass rather than balance. After passing, making his opening lead and seeing dummy West asked some questions about style. At that point it was determined that North?s card was not correctly filled out. The director was called at this time. West advised the director that he had passed because he thought N/S could be in a 4-3 fit. He told the director he might have balanced if he knew N/S probably had an eight-card or better fit. The director instructed the players to play the board. If West had asked questions before making his lead, the director could have reopened the auction and permitted West to withdraw his pass. He could also have asked his questions prior to passing. The Decision: The committee determined that there was MI and directed N/S to ensure that they had two identical cards that correctly set forth the partnership?s agreements. The committee decided that since a four-card major opening frequently has a five-card suit and that the raise to 2? could have contained four spades there was a high probability that N/S had an eight-card fit. West?s decision to hope the opponents were in a 4-3 fit was a narrow window. The committee determined that the decision to balance, when an eight-card or better fit was likely, was not materially affected by the MI. A substantial number of Wests did pass (many N/S pairs played spade partials). E/W were vulnerable and West was 3-3-4-3. Therefore, the committee restored the table result of 2? by South making three, N/S plus 140. The Committee: Richard Popper (Chair), Mike Kovacich and Hendrick Sharples. [nige1] I agree with the committee on appeals 2-7 :) for what its worth :) In appeal 8, however ... 1. In close cases, the benefit of the doubt should go to non-offenders. Here, IMO, East-West were damaged. IMO it is safer to protect when opponents probably have an eight or nine card fit than when opponent's fit is likely to be only seven of eight cards. 2. How far must East-West go to "protect themselves"? When does "protecting yourself" become "harassment" or "unathourised information"? Asking for confirmation of a convention that is clearly and *positively* marked on the system card seems to fit the latter rather than the former. 3. The committee judged the bidding at this table by the *results* at other tables. This seems OK as a rough indication; but it usually occasions howls of derision and screams of protest from BLMLers who point out that at other tables, the auction and inferences may be quite different. From richard.willey at gmail.com Sat Feb 2 19:39:03 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 13:39:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Housing Message-ID: <2da24b8e0802021039uefeac0br922fdfcfd3afe083@mail.gmail.com> So, I spent the morning looking at condos... Despite all the talk of a downturn in the housing market, money doesn't go nearly as far as one might hope. I looked at a couple place in Natick center that I ruled out almost immediately. I did see one place that I sort of liked, however, its far from perfect. Some folks converted a LARGE abandoned brick mill in Framingham into pretty nice condo. Hardwood floors, 15 foot ceilings, exposed brick, hardwood plank ceilings. (All stuff that I really like) There's also granite counter tops, washers and dryers inside the apartments, microwaves, dish washers, etc. All of the apartments have the HVAC outside the apartment which gives you extra space. Better yet, all of the apartments have their own individual 10x10 storage rooms in the basement. (Given that I often devote some of my living space to boxes full of crap, this significantly improves the amount of usable space that I have) Also, these are all brand new apartments erected inside an old building. Its a very nice combination of old solid brick construction [built to last] and nice new appliances, plumbing, etc Last but not least, the complex has bought out a big chunk of neighboring property and is putting in a large park. Anyone who wants can check out the place at http://www.dennisontriangle.com/ Here's are some of the down sides... 1. The complex is located at the intersection of 135 and 126. This isn't a particularly nice area. Also, the train tracks run quite close to the apartments. Admittedly, its an easy walk to the commuter rail, but the trains blow their whistles when they breeze through town. 2. Things aren't cheap. 2 bedroom 1100 square foot apartments on the ground floor where people can look in to your bedroom are running close to 300K which is a fair amount of change for a condo. If you go up to the second floor, the same apartments run an extra 50K 3. Central Framingham is (roughly) a 15 minute drive to work. Realistically, this is quite good, but I'm spoiled I was able to identify one apartment that seems intriguing. Take a look at apartment 201 in the floor plans. Here are the key points: 1. Apartment 201 is one bedroom with a "den". (The aforementioned den is actually an old elevator shaft that has been converted into extra rooms) 2. I could happily use the den as a bedroom. This would allow me to have a dining room South of the kitchen and use the "Master Bedroom" as a TV / computer room. The whole shebang is only about 800 square feet, which is a bit cramped. However, I think that I could make efficient use of the space 3. The room has a quite nice view. A lot of the apartments look out over a roof which is covered by weird industrial stuff (Its all vaguely reminiscent of old NYC tenements). This one has a nice view to the East. They want 282K for the apartment, which still strikes me as quite steep. (Houses look to be much more cost effective than condos). Still, I'm vaguely intrigued. If nothing else, this will serve as a useful data point when I look at some other places. Hopefully, the housing market will crater over the next few months and I'll be able to snag this or something similar for a lot cheaper. -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From richard.willey at gmail.com Sat Feb 2 21:32:48 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 15:32:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Housing In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0802021039uefeac0br922fdfcfd3afe083@mail.gmail.com> References: <2da24b8e0802021039uefeac0br922fdfcfd3afe083@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0802021232u1acd9fe9w7f599bd9701da3b7@mail.gmail.com> Sorry about the email on the house hunt... autocomplete can be a pain sometimes -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 2 22:07:28 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 21:07:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] L93 - 'in charge' Message-ID: <004b01c865e1$12a8abb0$90d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott May I suggest that in the future the WBFLCDSC should > write things down, rather than leaving them to the > imagination of the reader. > +=+ Oh I am sure we wrote as much as we believed a competent authority would need. My speculative comment was no more than that. +=+ << > Incidentally, can anyone who plays regularly in ACBL > tourneys please tell us whether the director in charge > personally handles duties under L93, or whether he > assigns them to an assistant. I strongly suspect (in > view of the scale of the tourney) that the latter is > the case. > +=+ Or could the ACBL perhaps nominate Directors in charge of elements of the overall tournament? In that case they would be subordinate to the Director, but Law 93 is silent on that possibility. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 2 22:07:28 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 21:07:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] L93 - 'in charge' Message-ID: <004b01c865e1$12a8abb0$90d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott May I suggest that in the future the WBFLCDSC should > write things down, rather than leaving them to the > imagination of the reader. > +=+ Oh I am sure we wrote as much as we believed a competent authority would need. My speculative comment was no more than that. +=+ << > Incidentally, can anyone who plays regularly in ACBL > tourneys please tell us whether the director in charge > personally handles duties under L93, or whether he > assigns them to an assistant. I strongly suspect (in > view of the scale of the tourney) that the latter is > the case. > +=+ Or could the ACBL perhaps nominate Directors in charge of elements of the overall tournament? In that case they would be subordinate to the Director, but Law 93 is silent on that possibility. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Sun Feb 3 00:37:40 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 08:37:40 +0900 Subject: [blml] L79B Is "subsequent" needed? In-Reply-To: <200802021534.m12FY2BD011047@mxg301.nifty.com> References: <200802021534.m12FY2BD011047@mxg301.nifty.com> Message-ID: <200802022337.AA12322@geller204.nifty.com> It's clear now, thanks to your supplementary explanation. But it would be desirable to rewrite the law to include clear statements regarding these matters. -Bob ton writes: >ton: > >The word 'subsequent' is there for a long time. >And the writers then (as well as the DSC now) thought it obvious that >players at the table were able to determine the number of tricks won and >lost and would always come to a conclusion themselves. >That explains the 'subsequent' in B. Which makes 'perfect sense' to me. > >But I agree that theoretically it is possible that sides do not agree on the >number of tricks won in which case the TD could be called at once. So you >found an omission. And to make it more complicated (sorry for that) if then >the score is established it is still possible that subsequently a >disagreement arises in which case 79B should be applied. > >Is this clear or do you need examples, or should we ask Herman to add his >better view or should we call the LC asking to clarify this law or should we >ask our London lady to give her opinion? > >ton > > >I'm trying to understand the meaning of "subsequent" in L79B >(see below). It looks to me like this law makes perfect sense >if the word "subsequent" is deleted. In that case 79A applies in the vast >majority of cases when there is agreement, and in the small minority of >cases where there is disagreement the director is called and he sorts >things out. > >If anyone out there, especially a member of the DSC, thinks that the word >"subsequent" is actually needed in L79B could they >please explain this. Thanks. > > >******************************************************* >LAW 79 - TRICKS WON >A. Agreement on Tricks Won >1. The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have >been returned to the board. >2. A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his >side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not >lose. >B. Disagreement on Tricks Won >If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then: >1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession and, >if so, applies Law 69. >2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. >If the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in accordance >with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be no obligation to >increase a side's score. > >********************************************************* > >-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 jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Feb 3 03:47:09 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 20:47:09 -0600 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #8 In-Reply-To: <47A4B766.8090601@ntlworld.com> References: <47A4555C.6030908@ntlworld.com> <47A4B766.8090601@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802021847h158765fay5e4f4c7a67898d2a@mail.gmail.com> Basically, I'm with Nigel. The expected trump length when the opponents are playing 5-card majors without a separate 4-card raise is probably about 0.7 cards longer than those playing 4-card majors. The committee focused too closely on the 4-3 scenario, which is just one possibility. EW did not call the director after the play was completed, they called very early. The fact that others were balancing should have rang a bell. The others were probably balancing against NS pairs who were properly disclosing that were playing 5-card majors. I think the director reached the correct decision, but I might have liked a little mention from him that balancing was at all likely if there was no MI. I believe it was. As for the committee, really!---how can a player fully protect himself against a plausible, but mismarked convention card? The committee is asking too much, and they are flattering themselves that they would have surely gotten all this new information to contradict the convention card and made the winning decision. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Feb 3 05:42:05 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 22:42:05 -0600 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #9 In-Reply-To: <47A45C82.3000205@ntlworld.com> References: <47A45C82.3000205@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802022042k3ff12e27pb3fbe80732435f31@mail.gmail.com> > [nige1] > 1. Notice that in appeal 9, both the director and committee judge that > balancing is normal; but in appeal 8, on the same board with the same > auction, the committee judge it to be most unlikely. > > 2. Here, The the committee seems to have ruled correctly; but the > committee's argument against issuing a PP is a bit pathetic: > "West must have considered balancing automatic. Had he thought it was > at all close he'd surely have passed as a matter of self-interest, > knowing that his side would keep a poor result and lose the benefit of > any good result." > In so far as it goes, surely that statement should always be true for > players at this level? > As for Nigel's point 1, the committee screwed up appeal 8, but I don't think balancing is the only LA. "The appeal was judged to have merit." Uh, obviously. "Had [West] thought it was at all close he'd surely have passed as a matter of self-interest, knowing that his side would keep a poor result and lose the benefit of any good result." Is the committee asserting that the probability of a director call was close to 100% if EW gets a good result? A naively high estimate. I prefer a PP. Does West really think he can argue that forcing to the three level is automatic with the flattest shape on earth and three trump? I think it gets clobbered in simulations, except when partner has the kinds of hands that pause for 8--15 seconds over 2S. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Feb 3 05:58:04 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 22:58:04 -0600 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #13 In-Reply-To: <47A468CE.5090306@ntlworld.com> References: <47A468CE.5090306@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802022058k3d0b4263uf0138b711765b597@mail.gmail.com> > [Nige1] > It doesn't matter what East was really thinking about before denying > SQ with is 5H bid. It matters what the hesitation implies to West. > For West the inference is *either* > [A] *He holds SQ* but is minimum for his jump rebid and seems to hold > a misfit, so is reluctant to encourage partner *or* > [B] He lacks SQ but has *substantial extra values*, so is reluctant to > sign off. Or [C] Not sure how to show the SQ, which has happened thousands of times. > > In either case, the unauthorised information makes 7N a better > prospect than the lesser scoring logical alternative of a small slam; > hence IMO the committee ruled incorrectly. Worse: they encouraged more > pairs to adopt "hesitation Blackwood". > Yeah, I agree with Nigel's conclusion again. Unfortunately, hesitation Blackwood still works, in my experience, even with top ACBL directors. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Feb 3 06:44:20 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 23:44:20 -0600 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #10 Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802022144i5df42f14yc7c0a9c73d576f2a@mail.gmail.com> After looking at a dozen cases, at last I can disagree once with Nigel---I hate to think I never have anything to add. Am I correct in assuming that Nigel agrees with every aspect of this committee decision? Anyway, the case is at http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanFrancisco2007/NABC+10.pdf. There is no commentary yet, so I am sticking my neck out. Actually, I agree with the committee's in every way except one. I think the appeal has no merit, and a PP should be assessed. These are the facts from the case that make me think so. 1. NS violated ACBL procedure by announcing a transfer here---it was not after their NT opening or overcall. 2. The announcement of transfer would not be adequate if they were really playing Canape, as they later claimed. 3. There were no alerts of Canape bids. 4. There were no system notes of a possible Canape style. (The committe did not even mention #1.) Therefore, all evidence is for misexplanation, not misbid. South eggregiously used the UI of an improper announcement to attempt to rescue the situation. An ideal case for PP at the table, and a finding of lack of merit in committee. Jerry Fusselmanfet From emu at fwi.net.au Sun Feb 3 07:17:28 2008 From: emu at fwi.net.au (Noel & Pamela) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:17:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C In-Reply-To: <025201c86571$3edb04f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000c01c8662c$74802b10$0201a8c0@DESKTOP> Consider this: 1C (1H) 1H ...Director 1C = 15+ The IB is not accepted. The 1H IB is replaced by X. 1H would have said, absent the overcall in our system, 4+ Hearts, 8+ HCP including at least an A or 2 x K. And that is exactly what a X means after a 1H overcall of 1C. No penalty, if I read it right. regards, Noel From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Feb 3 08:15:21 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 20:15:21 +1300 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C In-Reply-To: <000c01c8662c$74802b10$0201a8c0@DESKTOP> References: <025201c86571$3edb04f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000c01c8662c$74802b10$0201a8c0@DESKTOP> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802022315n46f25765h14ec90b8d405a301@mail.gmail.com> On 03/02/2008, Noel & Pamela wrote: > Consider this: > > 1C (1H) 1H ...Director > > 1C = 15+ > > The IB is not accepted. > The 1H IB is replaced by X. > > 1H would have said, absent the overcall in our system, 4+ Hearts, 8+ HCP > including at least an A or 2 x K. > > And that is exactly what a X means after a 1H overcall of 1C. > > No penalty, if I read it right. > That is how I would read the new law. Wayne From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 3 09:49:29 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 08:49:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful thanMI in the laws References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001d01c86642$0abc81e0$81d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 3:41 PM Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful thanMI in the laws > > In all of these cases, potential UI is deemed more harmful > than the MI: > +=+ An example of sophism. List a series of irregularities and rectifications; then adulterate the account by inferring a speculative basis for the procedures and presenting it as factual rather than the surmise it is. The laws, the rules of a game, have no need of justification; they simply state 'if X occurs then Y' . ~ G ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Feb 3 11:50:44 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 10:50:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #10 In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802022144i5df42f14yc7c0a9c73d576f2a@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0802022144i5df42f14yc7c0a9c73d576f2a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47A59C84.6010700@ntlworld.com> [Jerry Fusselman] After looking at a dozen cases, at last I can disagree once with Nigel---I hate to think I never have anything to add. Am I correct in assuming that Nigel agrees with every aspect of this committee decision? Anyway, the case is at http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanFrancisco2007/NABC+10.pdf. There is no commentary yet, so I am sticking my neck out. Actually, I agree with the committee's in every way except one. I think the appeal has no merit, and a PP should be assessed. These are the facts from the case that make me think so. 1. NS violated ACBL procedure by announcing a transfer here---it was not after their NT opening or overcall. 2. The announcement of transfer would not be adequate if they were really playing Canape, as they later claimed. 3. There were no alerts of Canape bids. 4. There were no system notes of a possible Canape style. (The committe did not even mention #1.) Therefore, all evidence is for misexplanation, not misbid. South eggregiously used the UI of an improper announcement to attempt to rescue the situation. An ideal case for PP at the table, and a finding of lack of merit in committee. [nige1] I agree with Jerry that the committee should have seriously considered issuing a PP. Jerry knows I'm no legal expert, just an ordinary player, so I'm flattered by his overall endorsement of my gut reactions. I enjoyed skimming through the SF NABC+ appeals reports. I thought the rulings where much easier to understand than usual but I commented on a few that intrigued me. I also hoped that BLMLers would help our education by high-lighting interesting points and anomalies that I missed. I'm especially grateful to Jerry for his insights into American regulations e.g. Announcements :) Incidentally, I don't understand the American use of the term "Canap?". For me a "Canap? bid" is a bid of a suit with the systemic agreement that you may hold a longer suit. (As NS did in this appeal #10). When I referred to SAYC "1C" and "1D" bids as "Canap?", however, Americans contradicted me! In another appeal [SF NABC #7] the committee fined a pair 1/6 of a board for failing to "pre-alert" an opening of 1H with four-four in the red suits as "Canap?"! Seems weird to me :( This illustrates another problem with (IMO unnecessary and idiosyncratic) local regulations. Not only do they render appeals much less useful as case law. Typically, their proliferation also engenders a vast new vocabulary. When that vocabulary uses familiar words in inconsistent new ways, confusion is inevitable. From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 3 12:44:35 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:44:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful thanMI in the laws In-Reply-To: <001d01c86642$0abc81e0$81d5403e@Mildred> References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com> <001d01c86642$0abc81e0$81d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47A5A923.3090007@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Continuing to do the same thing > hoping for a different outcome." > Einstein: definition of madness. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 3:41 PM > Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed > more harmful thanMI in the laws >> In all of these cases, potential UI is deemed more harmful >> than the MI: >> > +=+ An example of sophism. List a series of irregularities > and rectifications; then adulterate the account by inferring > a speculative basis for the procedures and presenting it as > factual rather than the surmise it is. The laws, the rules of > a game, have no need of justification; they simply state > 'if X occurs then Y' . > ~ G ~ +=+ Indeed Grattan, that's what the laws only need. But is it too much to ask from the lawmakers that they write laws that are consistent? Or at least tell us why they may be inconsistent? Jerry has done his best in finding a number of examples where the actions of a player might lead to either UI or MI. In all these seven cases, the player has options: one option leads to less MI but more UI, the other to more MI and less UI. There may be other cases, I would suggest that you try and find them. In these seven cases, the law tells the player what to do. In all seven cases, the law tells him to select the option that leads to more MI but less UI. Now, the lawmakers do not need to tell us why they write laws, but after they have written them, it is allowed for us to guess those reasons. When in all seven cases, the same option is selected, is it so unwise of Jerry and myself that there is a pattern there? Now, we are looking at an eighth case: the dws problem. Jerry, and I, have inferred from the seven other cases that it might well be good to do the same thing here. We even read a number of laws supporting our idea. Now the WBFLC tells us that we are wrong. We grant the WBFLC the right to say so. But does the WBFLC not remotely feel that they might be in trouble here? Their predecessors wrote seven laws suggesting one thing, and now they are thinking of writing an eighth one suggesting just the opposite. Is it not time to think this over before proceeding? Now Grattan, if you tell me that the WBFLC have thought this through, have looked at the inconsistency, admitted that it is there, and decided to still go ahead with this law change (yes, I believe it is a change - you are making inacceptable things that I thought were acceptable), then OK, I will accept that. But don't come and tell me there is no inconsistency, or that this is just a small thing that does no harm. This is a major undertaking and until you have grasped the full implications of what you are contemplating, you should not go ahead with this. Just a glimpse of what I mean with implications: Imagine a player giving a "dws" style consistent explanation. The TD arrives and suspects that this is a dws-style infraction. But the player says he believed partner was giving a correct explanation, so he just continued with the correct explanation. The TD is tempted to believe that the first explanation may well be correct, but he finds no 100% proof for this. What should his ruling be? And should that ruling be any different depending on whether the player does it for dws reasons or if he genuinely believes partner to have been correct. And what should the penalty be then? Mark my words, Grattan, this is a hornet's nest! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun Feb 3 13:25:32 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 07:25:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #10 In-Reply-To: <47A59C84.6010700@ntlworld.com> References: <2b1e598b0802022144i5df42f14yc7c0a9c73d576f2a@mail.gmail.com> <47A59C84.6010700@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0802030425j44358f6audf6217c046274ee1@mail.gmail.com> > Incidentally, I don't understand the American use of the term > "Canap?". For me a "Canap? bid" is a bid of a suit with the systemic > agreement that you may hold a longer suit. (As NS did in this appeal > #10). When I referred to SAYC "1C" and "1D" bids as "Canap?", however, > Americans contradicted me! In another appeal [SF NABC #7] the > committee fined a pair 1/6 of a board for failing to "pre-alert" an > opening of 1H with four-four in the red suits as "Canap?"! Seems weird > to me :( > > This illustrates another problem with (IMO unnecessary and > idiosyncratic) local regulations. Not only do they render appeals much > less useful as case law. Typically, their proliferation also > engenders a vast new vocabulary. When that vocabulary uses familiar > words in inconsistent new ways, confusion is inevitable. I agree with your basic point about the accurate use of vocabulary. However, I think that this is an example where you don't understand what the expression canape means. SAYC type 1C and 1D openings are not in any way, shape, or form canape openings. The canape bidding style primarily applies to two suited hands. On occasion, some players will use a canape style with single suited patterns. For example, they might systemically overcall 1S with a 3 card major and a six card minor. Playing SAYC, there are a number of situations in which a player might chose to open a three card minor ahead of a four card major. However, this is always in the context of a balanced hand pattern. Opener will hold a 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2 shape. He does not intend to pattern out after a 1NT advance. In a similar vein, if we look at case 7, North alerted South's 1H opening because the pair was playing a canape opening style. Here, South is sitting on a balanced hand pattern. (4=4=3=2 shape) Its quite standard to open 1H with that shape, intending to raise a 1S response to 2S, pass a 1NT advance or 2H advance, and rebid 2N over 2m. The one (potential) application of canape in a SAYC type style is pattern like 3=1=4=5 / 1=3=4=5 where some players might prefer to open 1D and rebid 2C. -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Feb 3 14:29:23 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:29:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] SF Non-NABC Appeal 8 Message-ID: <47A5C1B3.9020301@ntlworld.com> I sympathise a little with EW. We are informed that they are a new partnership and NS had five times more masterpoints. At the appeal, I feel that, had West taken advice or had more experience, she would not have volunteered that she treated her partner's 4N as "Natura1". Arguably, without that self-incrimination, the ruling would have been in her favour. In the circumstances, I feel that an AMWM was a bit cruel. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Feb 3 14:32:19 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:32:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] SF Non-NABC Appeal 12 Message-ID: <47A5C263.4020602@ntlworld.com> I would like to see claim-law simplified to facilitate claims. I tend to agree with David Burn about existing claim-law. Here the director and committee gave declarer the benefit of the doubt but I think they should have disallowed his claim. Declarer claimed without stating a line of play. If he drew the outstanding trump the contract was likely to fail. Much later, when the director returned to ask declarer what his line of play would have been, declarer was adamant that he would not draw the last trump. The committee seriously considered giving the aggrieved appellants a AWMW! That would really add insult to injury! From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Feb 3 14:34:55 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:34:55 +0000 Subject: [blml] SF Non-NABC Appeal 13 Message-ID: <47A5C2FF.50405@ntlworld.com> There's a typo in this writeup (My eyesight makes me especially prone to typos myself). The director and committee rulings in the heading should be 5C by West not North and 640 to EW not NS. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Feb 3 14:51:09 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:51:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] SF Non-NABC Appeal 14 Message-ID: <47A5C6CD.2030300@ntlworld.com> [A] Pass of 5C is an LA for North. [B] *None* of the six experts consulted by the committee bid 6C without the hesitation. [C] Three the six thought the hesitation made 6C more attractive. The other three deemed the hesitation neutral. Strangely, the committee concluded "Expert advice ran the full gamut of what the BIT suggested, so it did not clearly point to one decision over another". IMO that is hardly a fair summary :( [D] IMO the expert consensus seems to be that the hesitation demonstrably suggests a 6C bid. [E] North's 6C bid is a more successful outcome. [F] IMO: the director got it right; the committee got it wrong. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Feb 3 15:13:46 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:13:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #10 In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0802030425j44358f6audf6217c046274ee1@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0802022144i5df42f14yc7c0a9c73d576f2a@mail.gmail.com> <47A59C84.6010700@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0802030425j44358f6audf6217c046274ee1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47A5CC1A.7090206@ntlworld.com> [Richard Willey] I agree with your basic point about the accurate use of vocabulary. However, I think that this is an example where you don't understand what the expression canape means. SAYC type 1C and 1D openings are not in any way, shape, or form canape openings. The canape bidding style primarily applies to two suited hands. On occasion, some players will use a canape style with single suited patterns. For example, they might systemically overcall 1S with a 3 card major and a six card minor. Playing SAYC, there are a number of situations in which a player might chose to open a three card minor ahead of a four card major. However, this is always in the context of a balanced hand pattern. Opener will hold a 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2 shape. He does not intend to pattern out after a 1NT advance. In a similar vein, if we look at case 7, North alerted South's 1H opening because the pair was playing a canape opening style. Here, South is sitting on a balanced hand pattern. (4=4=3=2 shape) Its quite standard to open 1H with that shape, intending to raise a 1S response to 2S, pass a 1NT advance or 2H advance, and rebid 2N over 2m. The one (potential) application of canape in a SAYC type style is pattern like 3=1=4=5 / 1=3=4=5 where some players might prefer to open 1D and rebid 2C. [Nige1] Richard Willey and I agree to differ whether SAYC 1C and 1D bids are potential "Canap?". But I'm happy to concede that Richard may be right about SF NABC case #7. Under my interpretation (an ostensibly "natural" bid of shorter suit before a possible longer), there are other common potential "Canap?" bids in most natural systems e.g. [A] 1H/1S reply to 1C/D with say S:xx H:AKxx D:x C:xxxxxx [B] 2C reply to 1S with say S:xxx H:AKxx D:xxx C:AKx From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun Feb 3 15:32:30 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 09:32:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #10 In-Reply-To: <47A5CC1A.7090206@ntlworld.com> References: <2b1e598b0802022144i5df42f14yc7c0a9c73d576f2a@mail.gmail.com> <47A59C84.6010700@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0802030425j44358f6audf6217c046274ee1@mail.gmail.com> <47A5CC1A.7090206@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0802030632r4afa58d8m4601331596cc5f82@mail.gmail.com> > Richard Willey and I agree to differ whether SAYC 1C and 1D bids are > potential "Canap?". But I'm happy to concede that Richard may be right > about SF NABC case #7. > > Under my interpretation (an ostensibly "natural" bid of shorter suit > before a possible longer), there are other common potential "Canap?" > bids in most natural systems e.g. > [A] 1H/1S reply to 1C/D with say S:xx H:AKxx D:x C:xxxxxx > [B] 2C reply to 1S with say S:xxx H:AKxx D:xxx C:AKx This simply reinforces my basic point: On the one hand, you are railing against people polluting standard vocabulary. With the other, you are inventing your own meanings for standard expressions (in this case, the expression canape) Your example B is a situation where a player is temporizing with a 2C response. Your example A might be a canape response structure, but its also possible that the players are using MAFIA principles. [Majors First Always in Answering] For what its worth, I am attaching Pierre Albarran's original definition of canape. "With a two suited hand of more than minimum strength, the higher ranking suit must be bid on the first round if it has four cards and on the second round if it has more than four cards" -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Feb 3 16:47:04 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:47:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #10 In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0802030632r4afa58d8m4601331596cc5f82@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0802022144i5df42f14yc7c0a9c73d576f2a@mail.gmail.com> <47A59C84.6010700@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0802030425j44358f6audf6217c046274ee1@mail.gmail.com> <47A5CC1A.7090206@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0802030632r4afa58d8m4601331596cc5f82@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47A5E1F8.2060902@ntlworld.com> [richard willey] This simply reinforces my basic point: On the one hand, you are railing against people polluting standard vocabulary. With the other, you are inventing your own meanings for standard expressions (in this case, the expression canape) Your example B is a situation where a player is temporizing with a 2C response. Your example A might be a canape response structure, but its also possible that the players are using MAFIA principles. [Majors First Always in Answering] For what its worth, I am attaching Pierre Albarran's original definition of canape. "With a two suited hand of more than minimum strength, the higher ranking suit must be bid on the first round if it has four cards and on the second round if it has more than four cards" [nige1] I "railed" about the need for a single standard basic Bridge law vocabulary. Until that is achieved, IMO, my definition of "Canap?" accords with local modern usage. I accept I may be mistaken. I don't feel strongly about it. I'm delighted to accept any legal definition, including Albarran's original definition (Thank you) provided it's clear and universally agreed. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Feb 3 18:13:42 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:13:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] new laws in book form Message-ID: <47A5F646.5040301@aol.com> Does anyone out there know when an English (not American) version of the new laws will be published in book form and how I can order one? (Grattan perhaps?) Ciao, JE From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 3 20:42:58 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 19:42:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] new laws in book form References: <47A5F646.5040301@aol.com> Message-ID: <002801c8669d$0ff14d70$e9c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 5:13 PM Subject: [blml] new laws in book form > Does anyone out there know when an English (not American) version of the > new laws will be published in book form and how I can order one? > (Grattan perhaps?) Ciao, JE > +=+ The English Bridge Union is waiting to go into print as soon as the present discussions on L27C reach a conclusion. This does not seem all that much nearer. Contact John at ebu.co.uk I hear that the Australians are further advanced. Contact iskelso at ihug.com.au ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 3 21:34:32 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 20:34:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful thanMI in the laws References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com><001d01c86642$0abc81e0$81d5403e@Mildred> <47A5A923.3090007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c866a4$373159f0$e9c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful thanMI in the laws >> Mark my words, Grattan, this is a hornet's nest! > +=+ All hymenoptera and apocrita are devoured by others of these orders +=+ From john at asimere.com Sun Feb 3 22:31:18 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 21:31:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] L55A ambiguity? References: <200801312259.m0VMxYXn015814@cfa.harvard.edu> <47A27EE2.8010407@nhcc.net><47A28B49.90708@ntlworld.com><000001c86486$54ae3f40$fe0abdc0$@com><002901c86492$00eb1bb0$0701a8c0@john> <008a01c864d7$8bfeb190$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <00c201c866ac$1caf2eb0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L55A ambiguity? >> That a player has led from the wrong hand is AI to both opponents. the >> pause is to allow partner to exercise his options. Playing quickly to >> stop >> him doing so is allowed as it's appropriate to take advantage of opps >> errors. think you're OK David :) john > > Good, because I have been doing this too. I assume that it is also OK for > fourth hand to say "I accept it" before partner, thinking there is no > difference, plays to the trick? Yes. on the same basis. John > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 3 23:12:26 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:12:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560801312244q3b26639cod46f7cd978b82063@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >You seem to have snipped this: > >"Of course all of these bids will be anticipated when the players >are simply told in advance that they are in use." Richard Hills: In my opinion this is wrenching the word "anticipated" out of context. Furthermore, in my opinion, "understanding" a 0-8 hcp Fert is more than noting the criteria for its use; it also involves an understanding of which possible defence to the Fert is most sensibly suited for the partnership to employ. 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 ken.deri31 at ntlworld.com Sun Feb 3 23:18:27 2008 From: ken.deri31 at ntlworld.com (Ken Richardson) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 22:18:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] new laws in book form In-Reply-To: <002801c8669d$0ff14d70$e9c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: The Welsh may be first into print in the UK, and probably only about L2 a copy. Ask the ceo, Neville Richards at: WelshBridgeUnion at deepvault.com Ken -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sent: 03 February 2008 19:43 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] new laws in book form Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 5:13 PM Subject: [blml] new laws in book form > Does anyone out there know when an English (not American) version of the > new laws will be published in book form and how I can order one? > (Grattan perhaps?) Ciao, JE > +=+ The English Bridge Union is waiting to go into print as soon as the present discussions on L27C reach a conclusion. This does not seem all that much nearer. Contact John at ebu.co.uk I hear that the Australians are further advanced. Contact iskelso at ihug.com.au ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ 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: 269.19.19/1256 - Release Date: 02/02/2008 13:50 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1256 - Release Date: 02/02/2008 13:50 From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 00:13:03 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:13:03 +1300 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560801312244q3b26639cod46f7cd978b82063@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802031513q324045d4y7d1c5d0e4e623a26@mail.gmail.com> On 04/02/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Wayne Burrows: > > >You seem to have snipped this: > > > >"Of course all of these bids will be anticipated when the players > >are simply told in advance that they are in use." > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion this is wrenching the word "anticipated" out of > context. > > Furthermore, in my opinion, "understanding" a 0-8 hcp Fert is more > than noting the criteria for its use; it also involves an > understanding of which possible defence to the Fert is most > sensibly suited for the partnership to employ. > Using your criteria most players do not "understand" a takeout double or even a strong 1NT opening. The normal meaning for "anticipate" is to foresee or be forewarned. I don't see anything in the context that suggests we should employ some more obscure meaning. "A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament." Further it is clear from the law that it is only the 'meaning' of the 'partnership understanding' that needs to be 'understood and anticipated'. There is nothing in this law that suggests that the opponents have to have devised some optimal or reasonable countermeasure. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 00:15:48 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:15:48 +1300 Subject: [blml] new laws in book form In-Reply-To: <002801c8669d$0ff14d70$e9c9403e@Mildred> References: <47A5F646.5040301@aol.com> <002801c8669d$0ff14d70$e9c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802031515i5fdf59d2yfbf9c0853a93325c@mail.gmail.com> On 04/02/2008, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Continuing to do the same thing > hoping for a different outcome." > Einstein: definition of madness. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Easterson" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 5:13 PM > Subject: [blml] new laws in book form > > > > Does anyone out there know when an English (not American) version of the > > new laws will be published in book form and how I can order one? > > (Grattan perhaps?) Ciao, JE > > > +=+ The English Bridge Union is waiting to go into print as > soon as the present discussions on L27C reach a conclusion. > This does not seem all that much nearer. > Contact John at ebu.co.uk > I hear that the Australians are further advanced. > Contact iskelso at ihug.com.au > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I am curious ... what exactly is the problem with L27C. It seems to be sensible the way that it is written. If the insufficient bid gave more information then a replacement it is not allowed without penalty if it gave less information then a replacement is allowed with no penalty. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 00:17:04 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:17:04 +1300 Subject: [blml] new laws in book form In-Reply-To: <002801c8669d$0ff14d70$e9c9403e@Mildred> References: <47A5F646.5040301@aol.com> <002801c8669d$0ff14d70$e9c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802031517t2036ae2du8341ba91875494a4@mail.gmail.com> On 04/02/2008, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Continuing to do the same thing > hoping for a different outcome." > Einstein: definition of madness. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Easterson" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 5:13 PM > Subject: [blml] new laws in book form > > > > Does anyone out there know when an English (not American) version of the > > new laws will be published in book form and how I can order one? > > (Grattan perhaps?) Ciao, JE > > > +=+ The English Bridge Union is waiting to go into print as > soon as the present discussions on L27C reach a conclusion. > This does not seem all that much nearer. > Contact John at ebu.co.uk > I hear that the Australians are further advanced. > Contact iskelso at ihug.com.au > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Martin Oysten Bridge NZ has printed copies of the new laws for use in Australia and New Zealand. Recently he has been an occasional poster to this mailing list. Wayne From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Feb 4 00:47:56 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:47:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] nashville 12 In-Reply-To: <200802011622.m11GMN3k019164@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200802011622.m11GMN3k019164@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47A652AC.9050103@nhcc.net> > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > The case and comments are now posted here: > http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Nashville2007/NABC+12.pdf Thanks, Adam. > Here's one way to > reconcile matters. South's initial misexplanation was MI. But he had > several opportunities to give a correct explanation. In effect by not > doing so he provided MI more than once. I don't think you need to worry about this. EW are entitled to know the true NS agreements. If this doesn't happen, "all" you have to do is work out what would have happened if EW had been correctly informed. As Adam wrote: > ... suppose EW have a complete and well-indexed set of the NS system notes. "Kaplan's Magic Explainer." Or as stated in the AC writeup "We further noted that West was entitled to know the actual N/S agreement, since the laws require it..." Yes. So far I'd expect universal agreement, but the writeup continues: "...and also that South thought 2D was natural, since South told him so at the table." I think this would be far from a unanimous view. Of course if West gets this information at the table, he is allowed to use it, but I am not at all sure it's proper to consider West will have it in the imaginary world of "What would have happened if...?" If you like, you can imagine North (who knew the correct system) gave explanations to both East and West. EW see South's calls but don't know what he is thinking. (My first impression is that the difference will not change this particular ruling, but it could matter in general.) I don't think the Laws are at all clear on this subject, though, and it would seem that RAs have authority to do whatever they want. I'm not aware of any official pronouncements from anyone, but my impression of "case law" is as I've stated, not as stated by the AC. Does anyone know of anything official on this subject? What has the practice been elsewhere? Another thing to note is commentator Polisner's comment about "logical alternatives." LAs are irrelevant to this case, as I am sure Mr. Polisner knows when he's awake. The questions of "likely" and "at all probable" are similar but not identical. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 4 01:05:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:05:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] new laws in book form [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002801c8669d$0ff14d70$e9c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >I hear that the Australians are further advanced. >Contact iskelso at ihug.com.au > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: The old and new Laws laid out in parallel can be downloaded from the ABDA resources page: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/resources.html This resources page also includes a revised Index, with eight more typos corrected (thanks to Japanese Director in charge Nakatani Tadayoshi for spotting these eight errors). 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 Mon Feb 4 01:05:55 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:05:55 +0000 Subject: [blml] new laws in book form In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560802031517t2036ae2du8341ba91875494a4@mail.gmail.com> References: <47A5F646.5040301@aol.com> <002801c8669d$0ff14d70$e9c9403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560802031517t2036ae2du8341ba91875494a4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47A656E3.6090608@ntlworld.com> [Nige1] Is any local judiciary intending to *merge* their local regulations into the new laws; and publish the result as a single volume? This task would require extra work but, IMO, there would be advantages ... [A] A single authoritative source. [B] Less duplication and redundancy. [C] Much easier to consult because ... (i) The contents and index would be amalgamated. (ii) Laws and regulations, relevant to a given legal context, would be at one place in the text. [D] Assuming that local regulations are in a different font from the new laws, it would be easier to distinguish idiosyncrasies and departures from the norm. [E} A *complete* single volume by one judiciary could be adopted *as a whole* by another that did not want, itself, to undergo the hassle of having to plug all the lacunae in the law-book. [F] If the complete volume were published on the web, it could be updated in place and sponsoring organisations could print it, locally, when *and if* needed. Saving Amazon rain-forests. I suppose, unfortunately, this is a rhetorical question. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 4 01:39:43 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 00:39:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] new laws in book form References: <47A5F646.5040301@aol.com> <002801c8669d$0ff14d70$e9c9403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560802031515i5fdf59d2yfbf9c0853a93325c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001101c866c6$b2b715c0$53d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 11:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] new laws in book form > > I am curious ... what exactly is the problem with L27C. It seems to > be sensible the way that it is written. > > If the insufficient bid gave more information then a replacement it is > not allowed without penalty if it gave less information then a > replacement is allowed with no penalty. > > Wayne > +=+ The more narrowly a bid is defined the more information it conveys. The information available from a call comprises both what it shows and what it excludes. Thus a call which shows a balanced 15-17 conveys more information than a call that shows a balanced 15-20. Our discussion centres on whether this is understood or what we need to do to the law to help TDs in Puddington and Tsagannuur to grasp the point. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 02:00:25 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:00:25 +1300 Subject: [blml] new laws in book form In-Reply-To: <001101c866c6$b2b715c0$53d0403e@Mildred> References: <47A5F646.5040301@aol.com> <002801c8669d$0ff14d70$e9c9403e@Mildred> <2a1c3a560802031515i5fdf59d2yfbf9c0853a93325c@mail.gmail.com> <001101c866c6$b2b715c0$53d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802031700s2516660ep2adabe473d76dd62@mail.gmail.com> On 04/02/2008, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Continuing to do the same thing > hoping for a different outcome." > Einstein: definition of madness. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 11:15 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] new laws in book form > > > > > > I am curious ... what exactly is the problem with L27C. It seems to > > be sensible the way that it is written. > > > > If the insufficient bid gave more information then a replacement it is > > not allowed without penalty if it gave less information then a > > replacement is allowed with no penalty. > > > > Wayne > > > +=+ The more narrowly a bid is defined the more information > it conveys. The information available from a call comprises > both what it shows and what it excludes. Thus a call which > shows a balanced 15-17 conveys more information than a > call that shows a balanced 15-20. Our discussion centres > on whether this is understood or what we need to do to the > law to help TDs in Puddington and Tsagannuur to grasp > the point. A footnote or some common sense should do the trick. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 4 02:11:27 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:11:27 +1100 Subject: [blml] Nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd40801312319p795d2bebk612074f503b3841e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: WBF Laws Committee, 9th November 2003, item 3: [snip] It was observed that if given the correct information the partnership might or **might not** be aware that a misunderstanding had occurred, depending on the situation. [snip] Adam Wildavsky: >Thanks for tracking this down, Richard! I >don't understand all of it, but to the extent >that I do it seems to support the ruling in >the case at hand. What do you think? Richard Hills: I think that Nashville 12 over-rode the "might not" in the above minute, as it seems to me that the AC was following an idea that the NOS should _always_ be aware a misunderstanding had occurred. The 2007 Law 12B1 refers to "had the infraction not occurred". In the Nashville 12 case, if the MI infraction had not occurred, then neither would the non-offending side be aware of their opponents' misunderstanding. (Of course the 2007 Laws are not yet in force in the ACBL, but I am discussing whether Nashville 12 is a valid precedent for future rulings.) 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 Mon Feb 4 02:57:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:57:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] new laws in book form [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47A656E3.6090608@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: >Is any local judiciary intending to *merge* their local >regulations into the new laws; and publish the result >as a single volume? Richard Hills notes: The first 93 clauses of the EBU White Book sensibly correspond to the 93 Laws. I agree it would be even more sensible to copy and paste the relevant 2007 Law into the beginning of each clause for the revised 2008 EBU White 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 guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Feb 4 03:04:39 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:04:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook Message-ID: <47A672B7.8010305@ntlworld.com> There used to be an excellent HTML version of the old EBU Orange book at http:www.math.auc.dk. and an HTML version of the old law-book on the ACBL website. Currently, however, although there are pdf and word versions there seems to be no official HTML version of the current laws and regulations. IMO, for directors and players, HTML pages are the best way of presenting such information. - They're ideally suited for linkage into an integrated expert system with a minimum of palaver. - They're small, compact and quick to download and display. The whole law book and local regulations would load and fit easily into a modern mobile device, taking up less space than a pop-song. - They're a universal web standard, requiring no special software. - They can be updated whenever required and quoted easily and quickly. - They can be easily reformatted for printing but one of their main advantages is that you save rain-forests of trees. - Above all, they can automatically adapt to the medium on which they are presented and to the special needs of the viewer (or hearer, toucher) Thus, they are suitable for the display of laws and regulations on the small screens of mobile devices such as personal organisers, mobile phones, blackberries, or whatever. (I have no wish to offend Adobe employees -- that is just my opinion) To optimise such a *legal database* for real-time consultation at the table, by players and directors, the laws and local regulations should be *merged* and organised as a rudimentary *expert system*, accessible by question and answer. Many years ago, I believe that Laval Du Breuil structured the old laws as a simple flow-chart. Hence, this task is not beyond the wit of man. I've promoted this enterprise for many years. There has been virtually no BLML interest (except for the usual ridicule). So I've started a pilot project. Unfortunately, I've other more pressing tasks, so it is likely to take me ages. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Feb 4 03:18:39 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:18:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] new laws in book form [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47A675FF.1020605@ntlworld.com> [Nigel Guthrie asked] Is any local judiciary intending to *merge* their local regulations into the new laws; and publish the result as a single volume? [Richard Hills notes] The first 93 clauses of the EBU White Book sensibly correspond to the 93 Laws. I agree it would be even more sensible to copy and paste the relevant 2007 Law into the beginning of each clause for the revised 2008 EBU White Book. [nigel] Thank you Richard; but the EBU *white* book is a commentary primarily aimed at *directors*: The EBU *orange* book contains the regulations for *players*. Hence, IMO, it would be more useful to merge the new laws into the EBU orange book to create an authoritative single source. Nevertheless, Richard is again onto something: ideally, there would be no white book either. It seems divisive to have a special crib for directors. From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 03:21:25 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 20:21:25 -0600 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801312221h7eb3b602k2e5bf2338a6cd9e2@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080201145109.01cfae30@mail.optusnet.com.au> <2b1e598b0801312221h7eb3b602k2e5bf2338a6cd9e2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802031821r43b2d1c9vf4f33957e2879c9b@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 1, 2008 12:21 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Feb 1, 2008 12:13 AM, wrote: > > Tony Musgrove: > > > > [snip] > > > > >I trust that there is no loophole in the new L27 > > >for an argument like "we have no agreement about > > >insufficient bids, so partner's bid had zero > > >information content" > > > > > >Just a thought > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > And a good thought. > > > > Take the perceptive Little Old Lady scenario -> > > > > WEST NORTH EAST > > 1S 2C 1NT > > > > The intended meaning of 1NT might have been 6-9 > > hcp without spade support (did not notice North's > > 2C bid), or the intended meaning of 1NT might > > instead have been 16-18 hcp balanced (did not > > notice West's 1S bid also). > > > > Ergo, as TD, I would not ask the insufficient > > bidder's _partner_ about the meaning. Instead, > > as TD, I would take the insufficient bidder away > > from the table and ask _the insufficient bidder_ > > about the meaning. > > > > Would you look at her hand? > Seriously, would you look at her hand? DWS once sternly told me that a director does not look at hands. Would you believe her if she said that she intended to show 6--9 HCP if she had 12? Would you believe her if she intended to show 16--18? This idea of not looking at a hand frankly baffles me. Any clarification would be appreciated. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 4 03:37:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:37:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801312221h7eb3b602k2e5bf2338a6cd9e2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>The intended meaning of 1NT might have been 6-9 >>hcp without spade support (did not notice North's >>2C bid), or the intended meaning of 1NT might >>instead have been 16-18 hcp balanced (did not >>notice West's 1S bid also). >> >>Ergo, as TD, I would not ask the insufficient >>bidder's _partner_ about the meaning. Instead, >>as TD, I would take the insufficient bidder away >>from the table and ask _the insufficient bidder_ >>about the meaning. Jerry Fusselman: >Would you look at her hand? Richard Hills: No. But if, at the end of play, I discovered that East's claimed intention to open a 16-18 1NT was a psyche with seven spades and a yarborough, then I would undertake further investigation into the East-West methods and into the frequency of East's allegedly unintentional insufficient bids. 2007 Laws 40C3(b) and 72B1. 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 Mon Feb 4 04:44:34 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 03:44:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <47A672B7.8010305@ntlworld.com> References: <47A672B7.8010305@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com> I don't expect this topic to elicit much BLML interest and I realise I may be teaching Granny to suck eggs, but fwiw, here are more obvious points ... Konrad Ciborowski, Robert Geller and other translators have chronicled tribulations in resolving ambiguities, inconsistencies, redundancies and solecisms in the law book. Suppose you merge local regulations into the WBFLC law-book to form a single coherent volume. In so far as the local regulatory authority decides to adapt the WBFLC law-book to its own requirements, some translation problems may become less of an obstacle. Where local regulations supervene, you need not be too fastidious about translating the law-book. With concordance and indexing software, you can crudely check that terms are defined before usage and that "elegant variation" is avoided. If you develop the legal database into an expert system, based on old-fashioned flow-charts or decision tables, you can mechanically check for simple collation problems like gaps and loops in logical flow and blind paths. From geller at nifty.com Mon Feb 4 06:08:59 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:08:59 +0900 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com> References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com> Guthrie writes: >I don't expect this topic to elicit much BLML interest and I realise I >may be teaching Granny to suck eggs, but fwiw, here are more obvious >points ... > >Konrad Ciborowski, Robert Geller and other translators have chronicled >tribulations in resolving ambiguities, inconsistencies, redundancies >and solecisms in the law book. > >Suppose you merge local regulations into the WBFLC law-book to form a >single coherent volume. In so far as the local regulatory authority >decides to adapt the WBFLC law-book to its own requirements, some >translation problems may become less of an obstacle. Where local >regulations supervene, you need not be too fastidious about >translating the law-book. Actually here in Japan we've had a lot of discussion about the extent of liberties we can take in translating the laws. There is some variation in opinions but all of us are in agreement that we can't just ignore the WBF Laws, which are official for the whole world. For example, even though "Director in Charge" in L93 is meaningless because nothing in L93 excludes delegation under L81D we are still going to faithfully translate this. I think we need to be reasonably faithful in translating, but when things in the English edition are a mess we can fix them in the Japanese edition. For example our imp table will include the fact that 0-10 is 0 imps, and our L55A will use Sven's suggestion that "the next hand" be the one after the irregularity, following 53A. But there is one point you are missing I think. The rule book has to be small enough that it can easily be carried by directors to the table when they make rulings, 98% of which will only involve 2-3% of the rulebook anyway. So loading up the actual rulebook with more stuff isn't a good idea. What you are proposing would be useful for a web site, for example. >With concordance and indexing software, you can crudely check that >terms are defined before usage and that "elegant variation" is avoided. Just using a global search on the PDF version is enough. The task isn't really that big if the drafting committee had set their minds to it. >If you develop the legal database into an expert system, based on >old-fashioned flow-charts or decision tables, you can mechanically >check for simple collation problems like gaps and loops in logical >flow and blind paths. Yes, but again it could have been done without such tools had brains been employed. The reason things are a bit of a mess is not because the above types of tools were not employed, it's just that the DSC didn't bother to do anything about the Laws from 1997 and earlier that weren't changed. -Bob > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Mon Feb 4 07:03:43 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 07:03:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802031821r43b2d1c9vf4f33957e2879c9b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c866f3$b2af5420$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman ............. > Seriously, would you look at her hand? DWS once sternly told me that > a director does not look at hands. Would you believe her if she said > that she intended to show 6--9 HCP if she had 12? Would you believe > her if she intended to show 16--18? This idea of not looking at a > hand frankly baffles me. Any clarification would be appreciated. If a Director looks at a hand and then issues a ruling that apparently could be influenced by what he has seen, he is giving away information about that hand to all players at the table. Essentially he has made "normal" play of the board impossible. The case mentioned above is no problem: The Director should stand ready to look at the hand after the play and then come back with an adjustment ruling if he finds that the lady's assertion about her intention must have been incorrect. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 4 07:08:26 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:08:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802031821r43b2d1c9vf4f33957e2879c9b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >Seriously, would you look at her hand? DWS once sternly told me >that a director does not look at hands. Richard Hills: In my opinion a director should not look at a hand if the director's ruling can be deferred until the end of play. Some time ago Sven Pran gave this classic example of a director's error in applying Law 16 -> TD looks at the hand of hesitator's partner during play, then says: "He's fully got his bid!" But..... DWS should be sternly told that every rule has its exception (including this one). The TD is _required_ to look at hands if -> 2007 Law 13D2: 2. 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: (a) that the unauthorized information is unlikely to interfere with normal bidding or play, the Director allows the board to be played and scored. If he then considers the information has affected the outcome of the board the Director shall adjust the score and may penalize an offender. (b) 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. 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Feb 5 02:57:49 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:57:49 -0800 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0802031821r43b2d1c9vf4f33957e2879c9b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080204175605.01dfb420@mail.optusnet.com.au> [RJH] >TD looks at the hand of hesitator's partner during play, then says: >"He's fully got his bid!" Bill Schaufellberger, a former NSWBA chief director was known to have commented "he's definitely got his hesitation" Tony (Sydney) From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 4 08:54:56 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 07:54:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Does L12B1 void some rub-of-the-green outcomes? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801312219o79791748i3a1104379f13a748@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <195536.76628.qm@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> JF > Had I written this, I would have inserted "expected" > before "table > result." Suppose my side commits an infraction and > we end up in 3NT. > It is expected to be really bad given that we have a > nine-card spade > fit, but it turns out that everyone will make nine > tricks in either > contract. 3NT is expected to be bad, but somehow, > given some rare, > weird quirks of how the cards lie, 3NT is a top. Is > the director > called upon to take away my rub-of-the-green top > because of L12B1 due > its focus on table result instead of expected table > result? This rub-of-the-green thing was a hobbyhorse of Bobby Wolff's. The idea was that the NOS already got their benefit by way of the equity at the beginning of the hand. However, the idea was entirely discredited quite a few years ago. Damage to the opponents is calculated AFTER the hand is played. > > I am saying that, in this law, "Damage exists" is > defined poorly. It > should be in terms of expected results and not > actual table results. See above. > My reading of this law, if correct, means that a NOS > should never end > up with a score below 50% as long as it plays bridge > throughout. And, > if I am reading it right, the OS should never get > above 50% unless > perhaps the NOS started the auction (or play) poorly > before the > irregularity. Why 50%?---it is the expectation. No, you do not get the expectation from the moment the hand is taken out of the board! The OS might have had a successful auction until the infraction -- they may have bid a disallowed slam which is ruled back to game, but still get a top if the rest of the field is languishing in a partscore. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 4 09:07:55 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:07:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] SF Non-NABC Appeal 8 In-Reply-To: <47A5C1B3.9020301@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <830821.63069.qm@web86108.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Guthrie wrote: > > I sympathise a little with EW. We are informed that > they are a new > partnership and NS had five times more masterpoints. > At the appeal, I > feel that, had West taken advice or had more > experience, she would not > have volunteered that she treated her partner's 4N > as "Natura1". > Arguably, without that self-incrimination, the > ruling would have been > in her favour. In the circumstances, I feel that an > AMWM was a bit cruel. I agree in principle that inexperienced pairs should never or almost never receive an AWMW, but looking at the masterpoint totals one can see that EW are not inexperienced players. If they are a new partnership, then it was silly for East to introduce a non-systemic bid. How can a hand be "too big" for Unusual vs Unusual? Surely a bid of 3-minor is not going to be passed out. I think that large tournaments should have an appeals consultant onsite. I'm sure it would be easy to get a volunteer if the position came with a guarantee not to have to serve on appeals committees! Then AWMWs would not be issued unless the consultant warned the pair that this might happen. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 4 09:18:44 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:18:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] SF Non-NABC Appeal 12 In-Reply-To: <47A5C263.4020602@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <578663.70628.qm@web86114.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Guthrie wrote: > > I would like to see claim-law simplified to > facilitate claims. I tend > to agree with David Burn about existing claim-law. > Here the director > and committee gave declarer the benefit of the doubt > but I think they > should have disallowed his claim. Declarer claimed > without stating a > line of play. If he drew the outstanding trump the > contract was likely > to fail. Much later, when the director returned to > ask declarer what > his line of play would have been, declarer was > adamant that he would > not draw the last trump. The committee seriously > considered giving the > aggrieved appellants a AWMW! That would really add > insult to injury! > Claim law is, in theory, simplified. Declarer is supposed to state a line of play. I don't thinkthat there are any among us who are not sometimes (or often) careless about this. I think that this is actually based on the idea that strong opponents will be offended if you explain your line of play in detail. But this is very much the wrong idea, and we (bridge players, not just BLMLers) should get out of the habit. It seems that getting ruled against is one way to encourage better practice, and it should happen. Of course education would be better. Perhaps we should all write to our NBOs and club/county newsletter editors and suggest an article on claiming. Or write the article and send it to them. I would be rubbish at the latter. Maybe a like-minded person could post an article that others of us could use (with proper attribution, of course). Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 4 09:27:34 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:27:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] SF Non-NABC Appeal 14 In-Reply-To: <47A5C6CD.2030300@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <848079.25489.qm@web86113.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Guthrie wrote: > > [A] Pass of 5C is an LA for North. > [B] *None* of the six experts consulted by the > committee bid 6C > without the hesitation. > [C] Three the six thought the hesitation made 6C > more attractive. The > other three deemed the hesitation neutral. > Strangely, the committee concluded "Expert advice ************* > ran the full gamut ******************** > of what the BIT suggested, so it did not clearly *************************************************** > point to one decision over another". ************************************** > IMO that is hardly a fair summary :( > [D] IMO the expert consensus seems to be that the > hesitation > demonstrably suggests a 6C bid. > [E] North's 6C bid is a more successful outcome. > [F] IMO: the director got it right; the committee > got it wrong. > > Unbelievable. The committee seem not to have been very well instructed, and have no idea what "demonstrably suggested". Six experts passed, and P was not deemed a logical alternative? bidding on was not suggested by the hesitation? Good God, North has not got a lot in reserve for his opening bid! As for "not using" cue-bids, well, they are an essential part of the game. They are even allowed,and used at rubber bridge. But why worry about effective bidding when that old black magic works even better, and one can get away with it? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 4 09:34:23 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:34:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] SF NABC #10 In-Reply-To: <47A5CC1A.7090206@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <37780.30467.qm@web86113.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Guthrie wrote: > Richard Willey and I agree to differ whether SAYC 1C > and 1D bids are > potential "Canap?". But I'm happy to concede that > Richard may be right > about SF NABC case #7. > > Under my interpretation (an ostensibly "natural" bid > of shorter suit > before a possible longer), there are other common > potential "Canap?" > bids in most natural systems e.g. > [A] 1H/1S reply to 1C/D with say S:xx H:AKxx D:x > C:xxxxxx > [B] 2C reply to 1S with say S:xxx H:AKxx D:xxx C:AKx I don't think that these are Canap? bids, In these cases the hand simply does not meet the requirements for bidding the longest suit at the two-level. Think of it this way: would you dream of alerting these bids? Are you planning to introduce your longer suit (without prompting, say by a TO double in hand [A])? Canap? bids are done with malice aforethought, where you could have bid the longer suit instead. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 4 09:40:08 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:40:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] L55A ambiguity? In-Reply-To: <00c201c866ac$1caf2eb0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <798789.29594.qm@web86107.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > > Good, because I have been doing this too. I assume > that it is also OK for > > fourth hand to say "I accept it" before partner, > thinking there is no > > difference, plays to the trick? > > Yes. on the same basis. John Thanks, John. Clearly I meant "before partner, thinking there is no difference, makes him play from the correct hand", but you knew what I meant. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 4 09:55:45 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:55:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560802031513q324045d4y7d1c5d0e4e623a26@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <13908.45575.qm@web86107.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Wayne Burrows wrote: > On 04/02/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au > wrote: > > Wayne Burrows: > > > > >You seem to have snipped this: > > > > > >"Of course all of these bids will be anticipated > when the players > > >are simply told in advance that they are in use." > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > In my opinion this is wrenching the word > "anticipated" out of > > context. > > > > Furthermore, in my opinion, "understanding" a 0-8 > hcp Fert is more > > than noting the criteria for its use; it also > involves an > > understanding of which possible defence to the > Fert is most > > sensibly suited for the partnership to employ. > > > > Using your criteria most players do not "understand" > a takeout double > or even a strong 1NT opening. > > The normal meaning for "anticipate" is to foresee or > be forewarned. I > don't see anything in the context that suggests we > should employ some > more obscure meaning. > > "A special partnership understanding is one whose > meaning, in the > opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be > readily understood and > anticipated by a significant number of players in > the tournament." > > Further it is clear from the law that it is only the > 'meaning' of the > 'partnership understanding' that needs to be > 'understood and > anticipated'. There is nothing in this law that > suggests that the > opponents have to have devised some optimal or > reasonable > countermeasure. I think that the point of this passage in the law means that the bid should be readily understood and anticipated if it is not pre-alerted, alerted, or explained in any way. One can quibble about exceptions, but such discussions would not be very interesting. Stefanie Rohan London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 4 12:30:54 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:30:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #1 In-Reply-To: <47A49C37.9000700@ntlworld.com> References: <47A44814.2000700@ntlworld.com> <47A450D0.5040809@ulb.ac.be> <47A49C37.9000700@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <47A6F76E.2080205@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Nige1] > Alain and Harald agree with the committee that double seems OK; I > agree too :) that is what I wrote :) but more relevant is what the > players' *peers* think of it. The appellants consulted a group of > top players who rejected it. I'd very much like to know what they suggested. Remember that the appellants had reasons to present the facts as such ; the Committee apparently didn't find many players who would have rejected it, and that's what counts (well, perhaps they didn't search). > As far as we know, the committee > consulted nobody. > > Alain introduces the C**** word. I'm sure that's a terrible mistake. > Unfortunately, it is an attitude that the committee seemed to share. > It drives players from the game. It encourages the paranoia that makes > players resent adverse rulings, Indeed. I strongly feel that saying "West doubled to cater for a psyche" can only be motivated by the surrounding parano?a, or worse. > especially those that involve possible > use of unauthorized information or concealed partnership > understandings. In the UK, for example, a psych may be ruled > suspicious, on the *balance of probability*, without slanderous > imputation against the individual. > Indeed; but do you really feel, deep in your heart, that the double was suspect "on the balance of probability" ? Try feeding the hand into a poll. In France, you would get about 80% votes for a double. Less in America, I guess, because the tendency towards "major first" isn't as strong, and you'll get votes for 2D. But even so, double stands out. So I say it once again : you're allowed to make an obvious bid, even if it turns out to be the best one facing partner's semi-psyche. (in fact, I wouldn't call East's 1C opening a psyche. It isn't a *gross* misrepresentation. He only lied by one card, and notabout HCP) Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 4 14:29:21 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:29:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com> <200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 5:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook > it's just that the DSC didn't bother to do anything about > the Laws from 1997 and earlier that weren't changed. > > -Bob > +=+ It is not right to say "didn't bother". A positive majority view existed that nothing should be done. It is not that such view was not explored. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 4 14:30:49 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:30:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000001c866f3$b2af5420$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <00bc01c8673b$2ff18d30$f4ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 6:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > ............. >> Seriously, would you look at her hand? DWS once sternly told me that >> a director does not look at hands. Would you believe her if she said >> that she intended to show 6--9 HCP if she had 12? Would you believe >> her if she intended to show 16--18? This idea of not looking at a >> hand frankly baffles me. Any clarification would be appreciated. > > If a Director looks at a hand and then issues a ruling that apparently > could > be influenced by what he has seen, he is giving away information about > that > hand to all players at the table. Essentially he has made "normal" play of > the board impossible. > > The case mentioned above is no problem: The Director should stand ready to > look at the hand after the play and then come back with an adjustment > ruling > if he finds that the lady's assertion about her intention must have been > incorrect. > > Regards Sven > +=+ The Director must bend over backwards not to be the instrument that conveys UI +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 4 14:45:35 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:45:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <13908.45575.qm@web86107.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00bd01c8673b$313a87f0$f4ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> Further it is clear from the law that it is only the >> 'meaning' of the >> 'partnership understanding' that needs to be >> 'understood and >> anticipated'. There is nothing in this law that >> suggests that the >> opponents have to have devised some optimal or >> reasonable >> countermeasure. > +=+ That is a matter for regulation in the discretion of the Regulating Authority - and could be tournament specific. +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 4 17:01:56 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:01:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C In-Reply-To: <007201c86534$baafb040$afd5403e@Mildred> References: <6B84EBBB-C5D1-4C50-84D7-CDC37AB84059@starpower.net><2b1e598b0801311056k64b6ea95o408da513ec0c3347@mail.gmail.com> <815843EF-361D-4789-9342-CE48DACCBDD3@starpower.net> <007201c86534$baafb040$afd5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2D68C87B-7064-4E96-97D2-C6E8F31742CF@starpower.net> On Feb 1, 2008, at 7:43 PM, wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > >>> 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. I was actually Jerry who wrote that. I responded (snipped by Grattan) with, "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." > +=+ In my discussions of Law 27C currently I introduced > Wayne's comment. Here is a response I received from the > WBF CTD: > "In drawing his Venn diagrmans, I assume Laurie Kelso began > with a fairly small circle for the information 'I have 0-12 points', > (or whatever the example was) as this doesn't really contain > very much information at all. Then he drew a larger circle around > it for the information 'I have 5-9 points', as this contains quite a > lot of additional information. > > Then he drew a huge circle around both of these to represent > the information 'I have 6 points', as this contains all the > information > in the universe as far as point count is concerned. > > The little old lady you describe below would not then have > followed her confused line of logic, and would have seen > that it is 5-9 which incorporates 0-12, and not the other > way round." So my Venn diagrams would be sized in the opposite order from Grattan's, and Alain's analysis ("The fact is, we have here an interesting example of definitional inclusion") would apply. The obvious conclusion from this is that Venn diagrams are *not* a useful tool for explaining L27C! Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 4 17:10:47 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:10:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] L79B Is "subsequent" needed? In-Reply-To: <200802020253.AA12301@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200802020253.AA12301@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: On Feb 1, 2008, at 9:53 PM, Robert Geller wrote: > I'm trying to understand the meaning of "subsequent" in L79B > (see below). It looks to me like this law makes perfect sense > if the word "subsequent" is deleted. In that case 79A applies > in the vast majority of cases when there is agreement, and in > the small minority of cases where there is disagreement the > director is called and he sorts things out. > > If anyone out there, especially a member of the DSC, thinks that > the word "subsequent" is actually needed in L79B could they > please explain this. Thanks. > > LAW 79 - TRICKS WON > A. Agreement on Tricks Won > 1. The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands > have been returned to the board. > 2. A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick > that > his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents > could not lose. > B. Disagreement on Tricks Won > If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, > then: > 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or > concession > and, if so, applies Law 69. > 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be > recorded. > If the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in > accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall > be no > obligation to increase a side?s score. I read "subsequent" to refer to L79A1, so it means after "all four hands have been returned to the board". That would leave L66D to control what happens if the disagreement arises before that. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 4 17:19:55 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:19:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C In-Reply-To: <025201c86571$3edb04f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <6B84EBBB-C5D1-4C50-84D7-CDC37AB84059@starpower.net><2b1e598b0801311056k64b6ea95o408da513ec0c3347@mail.gmail.com><815843EF-361D-4789-9342-CE48DACCBDD3@starpower.net><007201c86534$baafb040$afd5403e@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080202174219.038ebec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> <025201c86571$3edb04f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <1BEA0B57-C988-4F24-8210-3CAC9C86FAF8@starpower.net> On Feb 2, 2008, at 2:57 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > TM: > >> They bid 1C (1S) 1H (insufficient). >> >> I find out that the 1H bidder did not see the intermediate 1S. >> The previous correction to 2H would show 10+ points and >> 5+hearts, so I do not allow it (it gives more information than >> the 1H would have). However, I can offer the perpetrator >> a negative double if it means (in their system) 'I would have >> bid 1H). > > I don't think so. Surely a negative double does not deliver an > ironclad > guarantee of four hearts. Some do, some don't. > Also the 1H response normally promises diamonds no > longer than hearts, information that is not normally incorporated > into the > negative double. I suppose it's a legitimate question of interpretation whether the "information" in L27C1 includes those troublesome "negative inferences". But ISTM that if we go down that road, we will discover that L27C1 will almost never apply. > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Feb 4 17:20:34 2008 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:20:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #1 In-Reply-To: <47A6F76E.2080205@ulb.ac.be> References: <47A44814.2000700@ntlworld.com> <47A450D0.5040809@ulb.ac.be> <47A49C37.9000700@ntlworld.com> <47A6F76E.2080205@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47A73B52.8070502@ntlworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] Indeed. I strongly feel that saying "West doubled to cater for a psyche" can only be motivated by the surrounding parano?a, or worse. [Nige1] Alain's quotation marks are spurious. I wrote something subtly different and manifestly true. Anyway, what I actually wrote should be judged in context: a group of the players' peers queried the double; I thought it was OK. [Alain] Indeed; but do you really feel, deep in your heart, that the double was suspect "on the balance of probability" ? Try feeding the hand into a poll. In France, you would get about 80% votes for a double. Less in America, I guess, because the tendency towards "major first" isn't as strong, and you'll get votes for 2D. But even so, double stands out. So I say it once again : you're allowed to make an obvious bid, even if it turns out to be the best one facing partner's semi-psyche. (in fact, I wouldn't call East's 1C opening a psyche. It isn't a *gross* misrepresentation. He only lied by one card, and notabout HCP) [Nige1] (i) Roy Welland opened 1C with S:KJ942 H:J982 D:K3 C:KQ (not alerted) IMO, a definite psych; but that does not matter. What matters is that, according to Jeff Goldsmith, Roy has a *habit* of opening 1C with a doubleton. Had North known this he might not have overcalled. (ii) Alain wonders "do you really feel, deep in your heart, that the double was suspect "on the balance of probability?". I've clearly stated again and again that, to me, the double seems OK. But my view is of less importance than the views of the players' peers. Before appealing, the appellants consulted a group of their peers who advanced a unanimous contrary opinion. As far as we know, the committee consulted nobody. On the basis of their consultations before the appeal, NS felt that they had been damaged by a possible infraction. I disagree strongly that their only recourse should be a player memo. In my view it is the psychers themselves who should record their own exploits. It is hard to imagine what incentive their opponents could have. A lot of hassle and bad feeling with no prospect of redress! Far better to report a potential infraction to the director in the hope that he will rectify it. What is the point of procedural and disciplinary penalties, if you never even consider imposing them? The committee seem to have been disconcerted by the case. I think its proceedings were flawed. In such a context, it is difficult to comment on their ruling. But an AWMW does seem ludicrous. Even as revenge for the embarrassment that the committee may have suffered. From john at asimere.com Mon Feb 4 17:49:22 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:49:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001501c8674d$e47f4d70$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 10:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Wayne Burrows: > >>You seem to have snipped this: >> >>"Of course all of these bids will be anticipated when the players >>are simply told in advance that they are in use." > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion this is wrenching the word "anticipated" out of > context. > > Furthermore, in my opinion, "understanding" a 0-8 hcp Fert is more > than noting the criteria for its use; it also involves an > understanding of which possible defence to the Fert is most > sensibly suited for the partnership to employ. > I do not believe that the Law requires us to know how to defend a fert. The SO is responsible for regulating the use of a fert. I do agree that where the meaning of a call could be anticipated then no real need for pre-alerts exists. eg I'd expect partnerships to know about plastic club; strong club; short club; etc without pre-alert. I'd also expect partnerships to pre-alert some of these, but would not view it as an offence unless the SO had regulated its use, or put it into an pre-alertable category. John > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills From john at asimere.com Mon Feb 4 17:50:57 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:50:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] new laws in book form [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002601c8674e$1d8589e0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 1:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] new laws in book form [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Nigel Guthrie asked: > >>Is any local judiciary intending to *merge* their local >>regulations into the new laws; and publish the result >>as a single volume? > > Richard Hills notes: > > The first 93 clauses of the EBU White Book sensibly > correspond to the 93 Laws. I agree it would be even > more sensible to copy and paste the relevant 2007 Law > into the beginning of each clause for the revised 2008 > EBU White Book. Why? A TD has a copy of the laws. Putting them into the Orange book would infringe the Portland Club's copyright. john > > > 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 ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 4 18:58:04 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:58:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #10 In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0802030425j44358f6audf6217c046274ee1@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0802022144i5df42f14yc7c0a9c73d576f2a@mail.gmail.com> <47A59C84.6010700@ntlworld.com> <2da24b8e0802030425j44358f6audf6217c046274ee1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Feb 3, 2008, at 7:25 AM, richard willey wrote: >> Incidentally, I don't understand the American use of the term >> "Canap?". For me a "Canap? bid" is a bid of a suit with the systemic >> agreement that you may hold a longer suit. (As NS did in this appeal >> #10). When I referred to SAYC "1C" and "1D" bids as "Canap?", >> however, >> Americans contradicted me! In another appeal [SF NABC #7] the >> committee fined a pair 1/6 of a board for failing to "pre-alert" an >> opening of 1H with four-four in the red suits as "Canap?"! Seems >> weird >> to me :( >> >> This illustrates another problem with (IMO unnecessary and >> idiosyncratic) local regulations. Not only do they render appeals >> much >> less useful as case law. Typically, their proliferation also >> engenders a vast new vocabulary. When that vocabulary uses familiar >> words in inconsistent new ways, confusion is inevitable. > > I agree with your basic point about the accurate use of vocabulary. > However, I think that this is an example where you don't understand > what the expression canape means. SAYC type 1C and 1D openings are > not in any way, shape, or form canape openings. > > The canape bidding style primarily applies to two suited hands. On > occasion, some players will use a canape style with single suited > patterns. For example, they might systemically overcall 1S with a 3 > card major and a six card minor. Playing SAYC, there are a number of > situations in which a player might chose to open a three card minor > ahead of a four card major. However, this is always in the context of > a balanced hand pattern. Opener will hold a 4-3-3-3 or 4-4-3-2 shape. > He does not intend to pattern out after a 1NT advance. > > In a similar vein, if we look at case 7, North alerted South's 1H > opening because the pair was playing a canape opening style. Here, > South is sitting on a balanced hand pattern. (4=4=3=2 shape) Its > quite standard to open 1H with that shape, intending to raise a 1S > response to 2S, pass a 1NT advance or 2H advance, and rebid 2N over > 2m. > > The one (potential) application of canape in a SAYC type style is > pattern like 3=1=4=5 / 1=3=4=5 where some players might prefer to open > 1D and rebid 2C. The ACBL defines "canape" as "a bidding method in which the long suit is usually bid on the second round". It applies to auctions in which the partner of a player who bids two suits naturally will expect the second suit to normally be no shorter than the first, rather than no longer. Opening 1D with those patterns in SAYC to avoid rebid problems if partner responds in your short major does not meet the definition of a canape; although the bidder's clubs may be longer than his diamonds, they will usually not be, and his partner will not assume that they are (as he would were he playing a genuine canape method). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 19:23:25 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:23:25 +1300 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00bd01c8673b$313a87f0$f4ce403e@Mildred> References: <13908.45575.qm@web86107.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <00bd01c8673b$313a87f0$f4ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802041023o7e7d1f33y1947d017019b5485@mail.gmail.com> On 05/02/2008, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************* > "Continuing to do the same thing > hoping for a different outcome." > Einstein: definition of madness. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 8:55 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> Further it is clear from the law that it is only the > >> 'meaning' of the > >> 'partnership understanding' that needs to be > >> 'understood and > >> anticipated'. There is nothing in this law that > >> suggests that the > >> opponents have to have devised some optimal or > >> reasonable > >> countermeasure. > > > +=+ That is a matter for regulation in the discretion > of the Regulating Authority - and could be tournament > specific. +=+ > What is "That" to which you refer? "A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament." This law plainly says it is the meaning of the understandings that need to be not readily understood or anticipated. The discretion that the regulation authority have is subject to them legitimately holding the opinion that "0-8 any shape" is not understandable. Richard Hills view that 'understood' includes knowing how best to defend is not supported by the phrase "is one whose meaning". Anticipation is easily solved by telling everyone that all bids "whose meanings" are "readily understood" will be allowed. If I tell everyone in the tournament I am playing ferts they will "anticipate" that I will play ferts then the regulating authority will need to rely on these simple 0-8 any distribution bids being not understood in order to regulate. I think they will find that hard to justify when they allow, for example, 1C = 16+ any distribution as I cannot see how 0-8 is harder to understand than 16+. Wayne From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 4 19:28:49 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:28:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <47A672B7.8010305@ntlworld.com> References: <47A672B7.8010305@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: On Feb 3, 2008, at 9:04 PM, Guthrie wrote: > There used to be an excellent HTML version of the old EBU Orange book > at http:www.math.auc.dk. and an HTML version of the old law-book on > the ACBL website. > > Currently, however, although there are pdf and word versions there > seems to be no official HTML version of the current laws and > regulations. > > IMO, for directors and players, HTML pages are the best way of > presenting such information. > - They're ideally suited for linkage into an integrated expert > system with a minimum of palaver. > - They're small, compact and quick to download and display. The > whole law book and local regulations would load and fit easily into a > modern mobile device, taking up less space than a pop-song. I suspect the overwhelming majority of directors and players would disagree. ISTM that if "best" means most useful, the best way to present such information is via paper pages with ink on them. A lot more directors and players own pockets or purses than own "modern mobile devices". OK, that's a semi-troll; I couldn't resist. I suppose we know what Nigel really meant. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 4 20:15:25 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:15:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Does L12B1 void some rub-of-the-green outcomes? In-Reply-To: <195536.76628.qm@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <195536.76628.qm@web86104.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Feb 4, 2008, at 2:54 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > JF > >> Had I written this, I would have inserted "expected" >> before "table >> result." Suppose my side commits an infraction and >> we end up in 3NT. >> It is expected to be really bad given that we have a >> nine-card spade >> fit, but it turns out that everyone will make nine >> tricks in either >> contract. 3NT is expected to be bad, but somehow, >> given some rare, >> weird quirks of how the cards lie, 3NT is a top. Is >> the director >> called upon to take away my rub-of-the-green top >> because of L12B1 due >> its focus on table result instead of expected table >> result? > > This rub-of-the-green thing was a hobbyhorse of Bobby > Wolff's. The idea was that the NOS already got their > benefit by way of the equity at the beginning of the > hand. > > However, the idea was entirely discredited quite a few > years ago. Damage to the opponents is calculated AFTER > the hand is played. >> >> I am saying that, in this law, "Damage exists" is >> defined poorly. It >> should be in terms of expected results and not >> actual table results. > > See above. > >> My reading of this law, if correct, means that a NOS >> should never end >> up with a score below 50% as long as it plays bridge >> throughout. And, >> if I am reading it right, the OS should never get >> above 50% unless >> perhaps the NOS started the auction (or play) poorly >> before the >> irregularity. Why 50%?---it is the expectation. > > No, you do not get the expectation from the moment the > hand is taken out of the board! The OS might have had > a successful auction until the infraction -- they may > have bid a disallowed slam which is ruled back to > game, but still get a top if the rest of the field is > languishing in a partscore. For this to matter requires a rather peculiar situation to have arisen. You are talking about a case where unauthorized -- but presumably accurate -- information demonstrably suggests a call that ultimately leads to a odd and inferior contract over a call that would have led to the normal, superior one. Only then can the question of what to do when the inferior contract produces a better score than the normal one arise. Has anyone in this forum ever actually encountered such a case? I am at a loss to construct a non- silly example. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 4 20:28:58 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:28:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] SF Non-NABC Appeal 8 In-Reply-To: <830821.63069.qm@web86108.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <830821.63069.qm@web86108.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9863F62F-8F16-431E-898D-74B88A38D18C@starpower.net> On Feb 4, 2008, at 3:07 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > --- Guthrie wrote: > >> I sympathise a little with EW. We are informed that >> they are a new >> partnership and NS had five times more masterpoints. >> At the appeal, I >> feel that, had West taken advice or had more >> experience, she would not >> have volunteered that she treated her partner's 4N >> as "Natura1". >> Arguably, without that self-incrimination, the >> ruling would have been >> in her favour. In the circumstances, I feel that an >> AMWM was a bit cruel. > > I agree in principle that inexperienced pairs should > never or almost never receive an AWMW, but looking at > the masterpoint totals one can see that EW are not > inexperienced players. > > If they are a new partnership, then it was silly for > East to introduce a non-systemic bid. How can a hand > be "too big" for Unusual vs Unusual? Surely a bid of > 3-minor is not going to be passed out. > > I think that large tournaments should have an appeals > consultant onsite. I'm sure it would be easy to get a > volunteer if the position came with a guarantee not to > have to serve on appeals committees! Then AWMWs would > not be issued unless the consultant warned the pair > that this might happen. The ACBL does this at their NABCs (unless they have recently discontinued the practice). The "appeals consultant" is a member of the directing staff. It is rumored that this official routinely warns all potential appellants about AWMWs in rather strong terms. Indeed, there is a widespread perception that his remit is not to the benefit of the players, but of the committee volunteers, that his real, albeit unacknowledged, job is to keep to a minimum the number of cases that actually reach the AC. My (admittedly limited) personal experience supports this. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 4 21:01:51 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:01:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Sykes and Mist Beads In-Reply-To: <13908.45575.qm@web86107.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <13908.45575.qm@web86107.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Feb 4, 2008, at 3:55 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > --- Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> Using your criteria most players do not "understand" >> a takeout double >> or even a strong 1NT opening. >> >> The normal meaning for "anticipate" is to foresee or >> be forewarned. I >> don't see anything in the context that suggests we >> should employ some >> more obscure meaning. >> >> "A special partnership understanding is one whose >> meaning, in the >> opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be >> readily understood and >> anticipated by a significant number of players in >> the tournament." >> >> Further it is clear from the law that it is only the >> 'meaning' of the >> 'partnership understanding' that needs to be >> 'understood and >> anticipated'. There is nothing in this law that >> suggests that the >> opponents have to have devised some optimal or >> reasonable >> countermeasure. > > I think that the point of this passage in the law > means that the bid should be readily understood and > anticipated if it is not pre-alerted, alerted, or > explained in any way. One can quibble about > exceptions, but such discussions would not be very > interesting. I don't think this passage has any point at all. At best it can be interpreted as a vague suggestion of some sort of guideline. Its meaning depends entirely on "the opinion of the Regulating Authority" and it applies to whatever "in its discretion, the Regulating Authority may designate". If it is any kind of operative constraint on what the RA may designate "as 'special partnership understandings'" I'm a banana. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 4 21:38:19 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:38:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred> References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com> <200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com> <00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net> On Feb 4, 2008, at 8:29 AM, wrote: > ******************************* > "Continuing to do the same thing > hoping for a different outcome." > Einstein: definition of madness. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Geller" > >> it's just that the DSC didn't bother to do anything about >> the Laws from 1997 and earlier that weren't changed. > > +=+ It is not right to say "didn't bother". A positive majority > view existed that nothing should be done. It is not that such > view was not explored. And how is that different from, "A positive majority view existed that the committee shouldn't bother to do anything," as Robert asserts and Grattan calls "not right"? OK, so they thought about doing something about it. But they didn't do anything about it, and that's the bottom line. ISTM that this has been the practice of the DSC for the past several go-arounds, and that on every occasion the result has been a lawbook containing inconsistencies, ambiguities, and outright misstatements, resulting in confusion, consternation, arguments and leopard-loo interpretations that only the well-connected cognoscenti know about. I would urge Grattan, on the next go-around, to open the first meeting of the DSC by writing that quote from Einstein on the blackboard. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 4 21:47:44 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:47:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #8 In-Reply-To: <47A4555C.6030908@ntlworld.com> References: <47A4555C.6030908@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: On Feb 2, 2008, at 6:34 AM, Guthrie wrote: > [San Francisco NABC+ Appeal 8] > Blue Ribbon Pairs. 2nd Qualifying. Board 7. Both vul. South deals > East (Mitch Dunitz): S:84 H:T96 D:JT8643 C:AK > > The auction: > -- -- -- 1S > _P 2S AP > > The Facts: The director was called at trick one. North?s convention > card was marked ? four-card majors; South?s card ? four plus hearts. > West looked at card in pass out seat and decided to pass. When dummy > was spread, West discovered a disparity between the convention cards > on major suit opening length, called the director and said he would > have balanced. > > The Ruling: Misinformation was ruled. Three of three players who were > consulted would pass 3S with the North hand. Therefore, the result was > adjusted to 3D by East making three, E/W plus 110. I am confused. What 3S? How can we judge a finding as to what might be done with the North hand when we are not given the North hand? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 21:52:49 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:52:49 -0600 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net> References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com> <200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com> <00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred> <4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com> Eric: > > ISTM that this has been the practice of the DSC for the past several > go-arounds, and that on every occasion the result has been a lawbook > containing inconsistencies, ambiguities, and outright misstatements, > resulting in confusion, consternation, arguments and leopard-loo > interpretations that only the well-connected cognoscenti know about. > > I would urge Grattan, on the next go-around, to open the first > meeting of the DSC by writing that quote from Einstein on the > blackboard. > I would urge Grattan to do it even now. I am thinking of something like an exposure draft---is that your thinking, Eric? Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 4 21:53:33 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:53:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #9 In-Reply-To: <47A45C82.3000205@ntlworld.com> References: <47A45C82.3000205@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <5793C602-F1F1-489B-8A0B-A6E833C0F98F@starpower.net> On Feb 2, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Guthrie wrote: > [San Francisco NABC+ Appeal 9] > Blue Ribbon Pairs. 2nd Qualifying. Board 7. Both vul. South deals > West (Lew Stansby): S:AT2 H:853 D:AK97 C:J42 > -- -- -- 1S > _P 2S .P _P > 3D AP > East's .P Agreed break in tempo (BIT) of 8-15 seconds. > > The Facts: The director was called after the play. The deal occurred > near the end of the session. Two players were consulted as to their > actions with the West hand. Both said they would double. > > The Ruling: The director deemed that pass was not a logical > alternative (LA); therefore, the table result of 3D making three, E/W > plus 110 was allowed to stand. > > The Appeal: Only North and South were present. N/S explained that they > believed that they considered pass extremely logical, and they had > asked many top players about the hand and they agreed. The appeals > committee asked why the director was called only after the end of play > and N/S explained that they were not sure when would have been the > appropriate time to call. > > The Decision: We were not concerned about the timing of the tournament > director (TD) call. It is best to call immediately after the UI, in > order to allow the TD ascertain the facts, but calling later does not > waive a pair's rights when the facts can be determined. Here the facts > were not in question. The committee discounted the N/S testimony > regarding players they had consulted because of the many impairments > to credibility of this type of evidence. To paraphrase Kaplan, pass > would not be an egregious error, in fact, it would be right quite > often. By the numbers: Was there UI? Yes. Did the UI demonstrably > suggest the action chosen (double) over a less successful alternative > (Pass)? Yes. Did somebody actually at the table double anything? Was the committee ruling on the action of its consultees? This is even more confusing than the 3S bid that wasn't there in the previous one. > Would the less successful action have been logical? Yes. > We then moved on to 12C2 to adjust the score. It looked to us as > though 2S should be held to two for NS +110 on routine defense. We > weren't certain, though, that the defense would be found, and we > wouldn't want to give the offenders the benefit of the doubt so we > asked a TD to look up the frequencies that occurred in the Blue > Ribbon sessions. We were surprised to learn that N/S went +140 > substantially more often than they went +110. We thus judged that N/S > +140 was both the most favorable result that was likely for N/S absent > the illegal double and also the most unfavorable result for E/W that > was at all probable. Therefore, the committee adjusted the result to > 2S making three, N/S plus 140 and E/W minus 140. > The appeal was judged to have merit. > The committee did not issue a procedural penalty against E/W. West > must have considered balancing automatic. Had he thought it was at all > close he'd surely have passed as a matter of self-interest, knowing > that his side would keep a poor result and lose the benefit of any > good result. > > The Committee: Adam Wildavsky (Chair), Laurie Kranyak and Bob White. > > [nige1] > 1. Notice that in appeal 9, both the director and committee judge that > balancing is normal; but in appeal 8, on the same board with the same > auction, the committee judge it to be most unlikely. > > 2. Here, The the committee seems to have ruled correctly; but the > committee's argument against issuing a PP is a bit pathetic: > "West must have considered balancing automatic. Had he thought it was > at all close he'd surely have passed as a matter of self-interest, > knowing that his side would keep a poor result and lose the benefit of > any good result." > In so far as it goes, surely that statement should always be true for > players at this level? > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 22:09:00 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:09:00 +1300 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #1 In-Reply-To: <47A6F76E.2080205@ulb.ac.be> References: <47A44814.2000700@ntlworld.com> <47A450D0.5040809@ulb.ac.be> <47A49C37.9000700@ntlworld.com> <47A6F76E.2080205@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802041309g44c196d9j56ae75da705168af@mail.gmail.com> On 05/02/2008, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Guthrie a ?crit : > > [Nige1] > > Alain and Harald agree with the committee that double seems OK; I > > agree too :) that is what I wrote :) but more relevant is what the > > players' *peers* think of it. The appellants consulted a group of > > top players who rejected it. > I'd very much like to know what they suggested. Remember that the > appellants had reasons to present the facts as such ; the Committee > apparently didn't find many players who would have rejected it, and > that's what counts (well, perhaps they didn't search). > > > As far as we know, the committee > > consulted nobody. > > > > Alain introduces the C**** word. I'm sure that's a terrible mistake. > > Unfortunately, it is an attitude that the committee seemed to share. > > It drives players from the game. It encourages the paranoia that makes > > players resent adverse rulings, > Indeed. I strongly feel that saying "West doubled to cater for a psyche" > can only be motivated by the surrounding parano?a, or worse. > > > especially those that involve possible > > use of unauthorized information or concealed partnership > > understandings. In the UK, for example, a psych may be ruled > > suspicious, on the *balance of probability*, without slanderous > > imputation against the individual. > > > Indeed; but do you really feel, deep in your heart, that the double was > suspect "on the balance of probability" ? Try feeding the hand into a > poll. In France, you would get about 80% votes for a double. Less in > America, I guess, because the tendency towards "major first" isn't as > strong, and you'll get votes for 2D. But even so, double stands out. > So I say it once again : you're allowed to make an obvious bid, even if > it turns out to be the best one facing partner's semi-psyche. > > (in fact, I wouldn't call East's 1C opening a psyche. It isn't a *gross* > misrepresentation. He only lied by one card, and notabout HCP) > Some one cards are more "gross" than other one cards. This "one card" thing is an over simplication IMHO. Wayne From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Feb 4 22:28:39 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:28:39 -0600 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #1 In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560802041309g44c196d9j56ae75da705168af@mail.gmail.com> References: <47A44814.2000700@ntlworld.com> <47A450D0.5040809@ulb.ac.be> <47A49C37.9000700@ntlworld.com> <47A6F76E.2080205@ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560802041309g44c196d9j56ae75da705168af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802041328h532afda9g739d09fc8a08933e@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 4, 2008 3:09 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > On 05/02/2008, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > > (in fact, I wouldn't call East's 1C opening a psyche. It isn't a *gross* > > misrepresentation. He only lied by one card, and notabout HCP) > > > > Some one cards are more "gross" than other one cards. > > This "one card" thing is an over simplication IMHO. > > Wayne > I'm with Wayne. He opened 1C with 5 spades and 2 clubs, and he has done it before, and that tendency was undisclosed. If he had had 3=3=4=3 shape and opened 1C because of excellent club honors, I would call it not a gross misrepresentation. Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 4 22:39:49 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:39:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com> References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com> <200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com> <00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred> <4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> On Feb 4, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Eric: >> >> ISTM that this has been the practice of the DSC for the past several >> go-arounds, and that on every occasion the result has been a lawbook >> containing inconsistencies, ambiguities, and outright misstatements, >> resulting in confusion, consternation, arguments and leopard-loo >> interpretations that only the well-connected cognoscenti know about. >> >> I would urge Grattan, on the next go-around, to open the first >> meeting of the DSC by writing that quote from Einstein on the >> blackboard. > > I would urge Grattan to do it even now. > > I am thinking of something like an exposure draft---is that your > thinking, Eric? I am not familiar with the term, so I can't answer. My thinking was simply that the DSC's decision not to review for rewrite any laws whose substance they decided to leave unchanged was a proven mistake that should not be repeated. And, in the portion snipped, to denigrate Grattan's suggestion that it was somehow less egregious to proactively decide not to do so than it would have been had they failed to realize they had the opportunity. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 5 01:34:49 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:34:49 -0600 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com> <200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com> <00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred> <4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com> <5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 4, 2008 3:39 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > > On Feb 4, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > Eric: > >> > >> ISTM that this has been the practice of the DSC for the past several > >> go-arounds, and that on every occasion the result has been a lawbook > >> containing inconsistencies, ambiguities, and outright misstatements, > >> resulting in confusion, consternation, arguments and leopard-loo > >> interpretations that only the well-connected cognoscenti know about. > >> > >> I would urge Grattan, on the next go-around, to open the first > >> meeting of the DSC by writing that quote from Einstein on the > >> blackboard. > > > > I would urge Grattan to do it even now. > > > > I am thinking of something like an exposure draft---is that your > > thinking, Eric? > > I am not familiar with the term, so I can't answer. My thinking was > simply that the DSC's decision not to review for rewrite any laws > whose substance they decided to leave unchanged was a proven mistake > that should not be repeated. And, in the portion snipped, to > denigrate Grattan's suggestion that it was somehow less egregious to > proactively decide not to do so than it would have been had they > failed to realize they had the opportunity. > Paraphrased from the web, the purpose of the exposure draft is to "solicit comments" from interested parties. Respondents should refer to specific law numbers and "include reasons" for any suggestions or comments. I admit it would be rather remarkable for Grattan to be a party of this, because, as he said a day or two ago in the thread "Seven...", "The laws, the rules of a game, have no need of justification; they simply state 'if X occurs then Y'." While I can see his point if he talking about the part where an ace beats a king, I hardly think that the law makers wanted the game to have lots of UI and MI. Anyone with half a brain can see that the law writers thought MI and UI were bad. But Grattan asserts that the laws related to MI and UI (at least the seven I mentioned) have no reasons, no need for justification, no rhyme, no reason. It follows that giving a reason for a law change is a waste of time when talking to Grattan. If I take his assertion seriously, I cannot imagine how Grattan functions in a discussion of the laws if he thinks that justifications are irrelevant. If justifications are not needed for law changes, what is needed? A random-word generator? But I digress. I am asking if Eric also wishes that the DSC would prepublish the text of possible new laws or interpretations (before finalizing them) so that comments can help improve the final product. And does Eric wish they would do it starting this month or next month or whenever they have possible new laws or new interpretations. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 5 01:36:51 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:36:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is "no agreement" like a get-out-of-jail-free card? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801312157tff6a9fcyd158ad091601367a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >In the ACBL, though I have not played as often as I would like >recently, it seems that when a player says "no agreement," the >director is delighted, echos "no agreement!" as if his job is done, >and leaves. [snip] >Proof is rarely asked for. Followups rarely occur. It functions >like a get-out-of-jail-free card. Do you think this hypothesis is >right? If so, does anyone see this a weakness in how we rule the >game? 2007 Law 85A1: When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows: In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. Richard Hills: Some players have the mistaken belief that they need to disclose only their explicit agreements. For those players some of their "Undiscussed" explanations are MI, since on those occasions they should be saying, "We have an implicit agreement that.....". While a gullible TD who automatically rules "Undiscussed" is true has committed a director's error in applying Law 85A1, a cynical TD who automatically rules "Undiscussed" is false has committed a more damaging Law 85A1 director's error (in that the TD has deemed a player is a liar without bothering to weigh the evidence). One such cynical TD made the remarkable suggestion that since he was automatically going to rule "Undiscussed" as MI, a player should therefore lie about the actual partnership's non-agreement, and instead pretend that the partnership did have an agreement. The rationale was that if the pretended agreement corresponded to the cynical TD's erroneous ruling, then the partnership would get a better score by its ch**t*ng. 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 5 01:50:47 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 00:50:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Seven pillars of folly In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c86791$27c0e150$7742a3f0$@com> [JF] For me, the great irony is that David Burn, who recently asserted that MI is harmful and UI is harmless, is also the one who argued most eloquently that 6 and 7 are cases where the law often requires MI to remain to avoid the risk of UI. He certainly convinced me. If one wanted to argue that UI is the greater risk, one would do well to echo David's words. 1. David Burn If your opponents have misinformed your side, then there are ways in which you may obtain redress at the end of the hand. There are also positions in which it may be possible, by judicious questioning, to rectify the situation at the table. But you must not use questions either to communicate with partner, or to deceive an opponent. 8. David Burn If, despite your best intentions, it is held that your question could have communicated with partner, or could have deceived an opponent, then you are subject to penalty and your score may be adjusted. Infractions committed by the opponents are *not* mitigating circumstances in judging infractions committed by your side. 15. David Burn It is a fundamental assumption in the Laws that information possessed by the opponents should be available in equal measure to you. Since you don't play their methods, the only ways in which this information can be made available to you are: they write it all down beforehand and you commit it to memory; or they impart it to you as the need arises at the table. Of these, the latter is considered the more practical in most situations. But there are other fundamental assumptions in the Laws also; among them the presumption that the gravest possible offence is illegal communication with partner. Now, when these two great principles conflict, as conflict they will if bridge is played without screens or similar devices, something has to give. Since illegal communication is "the gravest possible offence", then anything that might be used as a means of such communication must not be allowed, and you are not allowed to transmit information to partner by means of questions. 20. David Burn Whereas you are (almost) correct in saying that there are forms of illegal communication which are not "the gravest possible offence", that does not mean that there are some forms of illegal communication that are not an offence at all. So serious are such offences that *anything* which follows as a consequence of *any* communication between partners other than by calls or plays must be annulled, and any advantage therefrom removed. [DALB] I am only mildly surprised, on re-reading these words, to find that I agree with myself completely (I have been known to change my mind, although cases of the kind are rare and, since I have just played a match in which I changed my mind and did the wrong thing instead of the right one, I have vowed that they will become rarer still). You are not allowed to ask questions for the purpose of communicating with partner - indeed, you are not allowed to initiate any kind of communication with partner except by means of legal calls and plays. I am not sure, however, that I see the relevance of "Kaplan questions" to the dWS. The KQ is used to rectify misinformation created by an opponent, and is a voluntary act on the part of the questioner. As I remarked, there are situations in which the KQ may actually be helpful in terms of allowing the game to progress without recourse to the constabulary. It is not a matter of "allowing MI to remain at the risk of creating UI" in the sense that lying about one's methods per the dWS allows MI to remain, because the MI has not been created by your own side. It is still my view that you would do better not to ask KQs, because you must not create UI voluntarily. But when one replies to a question from an opponent, or when one alerts (or does not alert) according to the regulations, one is not acting voluntarily. Of course partner can hear your explanations, or your alerts, just as he can hear your KQs. A KQ, though, is asked for the express purpose of communicating with partner - it would not be asked unless partner could hear it and act on it, which is why it is illegal. An explanation is given for the express purpose of communicating with the opponents - the notion is that while you are giving it, partner turns his deaf aid off so that he cannot hear it. As Grattan and I have said many times, an explanation given to fulfil a legal requirement is not, for legal purposes, an indication to partner per L20F5. No dWS apologist has actually gainsaid this obvious fact, doubtless because [a] it cannot be gainsaid and [b] if it is accepted (as it has been by the WBFLC) then the dWS evaporates into thin air, from which it should never have been condensed in the first place. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 5 03:30:03 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:30:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: [big snip] >If I take his assertion seriously, I cannot imagine how Grattan >functions in a discussion of the laws if he thinks that >justifications are irrelevant. Ed Reppert: >>"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. :-) Jerry Fusselman: >If justifications are not needed for law changes, what is needed? [snip] Richard Hills: But the next law changes are scheduled for 2017. So I think that Jerry has misinterpreted Grattan's point. In an earlier posting Grattan noted that at this time, because the 2007 Lawbook has just been published, his attention was now drawn to the implementation and interpretation of the 2007 Lawbook, not to the discussion of possible changes in the 2017 Lawbook. 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 Tue Feb 5 04:59:21 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:59:21 +0900 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred> References: <00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200802050359.AA12362@geller204.nifty.com> >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robert Geller" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 5:08 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook > > >> it's just that the DSC didn't bother to do anything about >> the Laws from 1997 and earlier that weren't changed. >> >> -Bob >> >+=+ It is not right to say "didn't bother". A positive majority >view existed that nothing should be done. It is not that such >view was not explored. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Did the "positive majority" who felt that "nothing should be done" say so because they knew about all the problems with the 1997 laws or because they didn't know? (I'm not sure which is worse, but I'm curious.) You'd at least think someone would have wanted to add that 0-10 is 0 imps in L78B...... ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 5 05:31:45 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 04:31:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <200802050359.AA12362@geller204.nifty.com> References: <00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred> <200802050359.AA12362@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000201c867b0$042381c0$0c6a8540$@com> [RG] You'd at least think someone would have wanted to add that 0-10 is 0 imps in L78B...... [DALB] No, no. This can easily be proved by induction. If you can't prove things by induction, you have no business trying to understand the Laws of bridge, because almost nothing therein can be proved by deduction either. David Burn London, England From geller at nifty.com Tue Feb 5 05:37:50 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:37:50 +0900 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <000201c867b0$042381c0$0c6a8540$@com> References: <000201c867b0$042381c0$0c6a8540$@com> Message-ID: <200802050437.AA12364@geller204.nifty.com> David Burn ????????: >[RG] > >You'd at least think someone would have wanted to add that 0-10 is 0 imps in >L78B...... > >[DALB] > >No, no. This can easily be proved by induction. If you can't prove things by >induction, you have no business trying to understand the Laws of bridge, >because almost nothing therein can be proved by deduction either. I hope you're kidding David. I think you are. But seriously, the law book of our game ought to be well-edited and complete. On the other hand, speaking of induction..... L17B and 17C read as follows: ********************************************************* B. The First Call The player designated by the board as dealer makes the first call. C. Successive Calls The player to dealer?s left makes the second call, and thereafter each player calls in turn in a clockwise rotation. ***************************************************** The naive reader might mistakenly think that 17C could be simplified to ******************************************************** Thereafter each player calls in turn in a clockwise rotation. ******************************************************** but the naive reader would be wrong because the WBFLC draft caters to the case of a player to the dealer's left who is NOT next in a clockwise rotation. This is a so-called "belt and braces provision," I suppose. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 5 06:40:22 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:40:22 -0600 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful than MI in the laws Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802042140y3cbeb0d1p2bdf9ba949a23a83@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 4, 2008 6:50 PM, David Burn wrote: > [JF] > > For me, the great irony is that David Burn, who recently asserted that MI is > harmful and UI is harmless, is also the one who argued most eloquently that > 6 and 7 are cases where the law often requires MI to remain to avoid the > risk of UI. He certainly convinced me. If one wanted to argue that UI is > the greater risk, one would do well to echo David's words. > > 1. David Burn > > If your opponents have misinformed your side, then there are ways in which > you may obtain redress at the end of the hand. There are also positions in > which it may be possible, by judicious questioning, to rectify the situation > at the table. But you must not use questions either to communicate with > partner, or to deceive an opponent. > > 8. David Burn > > If, despite your best intentions, it is held that your question could have > communicated with partner, or could have deceived an opponent, then you are > subject to penalty and your score may be adjusted. Infractions committed by > the opponents are *not* mitigating circumstances in judging infractions > committed by your side. > > 15. David Burn > > It is a fundamental assumption in the Laws that information possessed by the > opponents should be available in equal measure to you. Since you don't play > their methods, the only ways in which this information can be made available > to you are: they write it all down beforehand and you commit it to memory; > or they impart it to you as the need arises at the table. Of these, the > latter is considered the more practical in most situations. > > But there are other fundamental assumptions in the Laws also; among them the > presumption that the gravest possible offence is illegal communication with > partner. > > Now, when these two great principles conflict, as conflict they will if > bridge is played without screens or similar devices, something has to give. > Since illegal communication is "the gravest possible offence", then anything > that might be used as a means of such communication must not be allowed, and > you are not allowed to transmit information to partner by means of > questions. > > 20. David Burn > > Whereas you are (almost) correct in saying that there are forms of illegal > communication which are not "the gravest possible offence", that does not > mean that there are some forms of illegal communication that are not an > offence at all. So serious are such offences that *anything* which follows > as a consequence of *any* communication between partners other than by calls > or plays must be annulled, and any advantage therefrom removed. > > [DALB] > > I am only mildly surprised, on re-reading these words, to find that I agree > with myself completely (I have been known to change my mind, although cases > of the kind are rare and, since I have just played a match in which I > changed my mind and did the wrong thing instead of the right one, I have > vowed that they will become rarer still). You are not allowed to ask > questions for the purpose of communicating with partner - indeed, you are > not allowed to initiate any kind of communication with partner except by > means of legal calls and plays. > Would MS supporters like to append "and actions" to the end of this last sentence? If not, you've sunk your own position---do you see why? > I am not sure, however, that I see the relevance of "Kaplan questions" to > the dWS. So what? I never said it did. In fact, I never mentioned the DWS or MS in this thread. Would the supporters of the notion that UI is harmless please focus on the question I have asked more than a dozen times: Do you really think that UI is harmless? And if so, how do you reconcile ... . No. Apparently it is too many words. I will try one question at a time. Do you reaffirm that UI is harmless? If no, great. If yes, I have a followup question (which I have mentioned about ten times, but I can bring it up again). > The KQ is used to rectify misinformation created by an opponent, > and is a voluntary act on the part of the questioner. OK. > As I remarked, there > are situations in which the KQ may actually be helpful in terms of allowing > the game to progress without recourse to the constabulary. OK. > It is not a > matter of "allowing MI to remain at the risk of creating UI" David's first red herring in this post. I never said what he put in quotes. I wish people would stop misquoting me. I'll assume it was a typo, and David meant to quote something that I actually did write before disagreeing, which is usually the best style. I'll assume David wants to disagree with this: "The law often requires MI to remain to avoid the risk of UI." I hope I am not mistaking his meaning here. Which part is he disagreeing with? Is he saying that these seven cases don't require MI to remain---or is he saying that the reason MI is required to remain in these seven cases has nothing to do with the risk of UI? Can anyone guess which is being asserted? Be creative, but please be specific! > in the sense > that lying about one's methods per the dWS allows MI to remain, Another perfect red herring. Two red herrings in one sentence. Impressive. I asserted nothing about DWS. I did not even mention DWS. I had no plans to mention DWS in this thread. I am primarily focusing on the assertion that UI is harmless, and wondering if those seriously smart fellows who claimed that will ever own up to their obvious error. > because the > MI has not been created by your own side. I don't mind classifying different kinds of MI and UI. But David's statement was that UI is harmless---he did not classify different kinds of UI. If his position is that some kinds of UI are harmless, well, let's hear it. > It is still my view that you would > do better not to ask KQs, because you must not create UI voluntarily. I agree. > > But when one replies to a question from an opponent, or when one alerts (or > does not alert) according to the regulations, one is not acting voluntarily. > Of course partner can hear your explanations, or your alerts, just as he can > hear your KQs. David is focusing too closely on the title of thread from 2002. In particular, David said quite a few things that go beyond Kaplan questions. "Kaplan question" is just a title of a thread, and that title played no essential role in my discussion. > A KQ, though, is asked for the express purpose of > communicating with partner - it would not be asked unless partner could hear > it and act on it, which is why it is illegal. An explanation is given for > the express purpose of communicating with the opponents - the notion is that > while you are giving it, partner turns his deaf aid off so that he cannot > hear it. Hmm. What is being asserted here? Is it that UI is not UI (or it is it maybe UI that causes no harm whatsoever?) if it was given for the express purpose of communicating with the opponents? Is motivation or timing the key to when UI either cannot possibly exist or cannot possibly be harmful? Can someone be more specific about David's position? > As Grattan and I have said many times, an explanation given to > fulfil a legal requirement is not, for legal purposes, an indication to > partner per L20F5. No dWS apologist has actually gainsaid this obvious fact, > doubtless because [a] it cannot be gainsaid and [b] if it is accepted (as it > has been by the WBFLC) then the dWS evaporates into thin air, from which it > should never have been condensed in the first place. Again, I was not talking about DWS, so bringing it up here is a red herring. > > David Burn > London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 5 08:17:27 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:17:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful than MI in the laws In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802042140y3cbeb0d1p2bdf9ba949a23a83@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0802042140y3cbeb0d1p2bdf9ba949a23a83@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301c867c7$2a5b52c0$7f11f840$@com> [JF, quoting DALB] You are not allowed to ask questions for the purpose of communicating with partner - indeed, you are not allowed to initiate any kind of communication with partner except by means of legal calls and plays. [JF] Would MS supporters like to append "and actions" to the end of this last sentence? If not, you've sunk your own position - do you see why? [DALB] No, I don't. What "actions" should be added to the list of permissible communication between partners? Giving explanations? Asking questions? Doubling slowly? Holding your cards with two fingers showing when you have two hearts? [JF] Would the supporters of the notion that UI is harmless please focus on the question I have asked more than a dozen times: Do you really think that UI is harmless? [DALB] I have not answered it a dozen times, but there is no need - once is enough. UI is harmless, unless both the transmitter and the receiver are cheats and their cheating goes undetected. [JF] Do you reaffirm that UI is harmless? [DALB] Yes, subject to the caveats above. [JF, quoting DALB] It is not a matter of "allowing MI to remain at the risk of creating UI" [JF] David's first red herring in this post. I never said what he put in quotes. I wish people would stop misquoting me. [JF, from previous post] "The law often requires MI to remain to avoid the risk of UI." I hope I am not mistaking his meaning here. [DALB, in the current post, for those who might otherwise have been confused] Whether or not I actually misrepresented your position may be judged by others from the excerpts above. If I did, I am sorry. If I didn't... well, I am still sorry, for I don't understand at all the contribution you are trying to make to the question of whether UI or MI is "the more harmful". Not that this is your fault - I have never understood Herman's views either. But well it was said by the bard: It may be we were meant to mark, with our riot and our rest, God's scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best. David Burn London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 5 10:19:03 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:19:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is "no agreement" like a get-out-of-jail-free card? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47A82A07.9070301@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Jerry Fusselman: > >> In the ACBL, though I have not played as often as I would like >> recently, it seems that when a player says "no agreement," the >> director is delighted, echos "no agreement!" as if his job is done, >> and leaves. > > [snip] > >> Proof is rarely asked for. Followups rarely occur. It functions >> like a get-out-of-jail-free card. Do you think this hypothesis is >> right? If so, does anyone see this a weakness in how we rule the >> game? > > 2007 Law 85A1: > > When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or > regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as > follows: > In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the > balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the > weight of the evidence he is able to collect. > > Richard Hills: > > Some players have the mistaken belief that they need to disclose > only their explicit agreements. For those players some of their > "Undiscussed" explanations are MI, since on those occasions they > should be saying, "We have an implicit agreement that.....". > > While a gullible TD who automatically rules "Undiscussed" is true > has committed a director's error in applying Law 85A1, a cynical > TD who automatically rules "Undiscussed" is false has committed a > more damaging Law 85A1 director's error (in that the TD has deemed a > player is a liar without bothering to weigh the evidence). > > One such cynical TD made the remarkable suggestion that since he was > automatically going to rule "Undiscussed" as MI, a player should > therefore lie about the actual partnership's non-agreement, and > instead pretend that the partnership did have an agreement. The > rationale was that if the pretended agreement corresponded to the > cynical TD's erroneous ruling, then the partnership would get a > better score by its ch**t*ng. > We really need to define our circumstances here. There are two quite distinct kinds of "undiscussed": 1) Partner opens 1Di, and we have agreed to play 5-card majors, but have not discussed how to deal with the minors. The reply will be: "5-card majors, minors undiscussed, so presumably more diamonds than clubs, but not necessarily 4". 2) Opponents open 1Sp, partner overcalls 2NT. No particular agreements, but most people play this for the minors (in this setting) so that is what one should explain. In the first case, "undiscussed" is true, and given that everything else has already been said, this is a complete explanation. In the second case, while "undiscussed" is basically true, the explanation should include, "so it's most probably minors". A director who cannot make the distinction between the first and the second kind isn't worth talking about. If Richard, in his veiled attempt to disguise "One such cynical TD" did indeed mean myself, I would like to suggest that maybe I was only talking about the second case. If a player, holding a minor 2-suiter, bids 2NT, and his partner, with 3 Diamonds and 2 Clubs, bids 3Di, then I am going to rule that there was at least some understanding. If they then insist that "no agreement" is everything they are going to say, I don't need more evidence to rule MI. If anyone disgrees, they do give a free out-of-jailcard to the players. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 5 10:23:16 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:23:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven pillars of folly In-Reply-To: <000001c86791$27c0e150$7742a3f0$@com> References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com> <000001c86791$27c0e150$7742a3f0$@com> Message-ID: <47A82B04.8010009@skynet.be> David makes an even more severe error in argumentation than some of the recent ones. Richard can probably name this logical error. Let me explain. Jerry explains seven cases supporting the dws. David creates a new thread "seven pillars of folly". He then discredits one of the seven cases. Rather correctly, I should add. It is one of the weaker pillars in Jerr's argumentation. By discrediting one case, and naming all seven "pillars of folly", David thinks he has discredited Jerry. He has done nothing of the sort. What he has left are six very decent pillars of wisdom. David Burn wrote: [snip - read the original, it is a correct argument] -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 5 03:49:07 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 02:49:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com><200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com><00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com><5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001a01c867db$517044b0$dacb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook > > I am asking if Eric also wishes that the DSC would prepublish the text > of possible new laws or interpretations (before finalizing them) so > that comments can help improve the final product. And does Eric wish > they would do it starting this month or next month or whenever they > have possible new laws or new interpretations. > > Jerry Fusselman > +=+ The DSC did publish the drafts last November to NBOs for their comments. We received much from the NBOs in response. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 5 10:40:17 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:40:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com><200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com><00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com><5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001c01c867db$5c0e5100$dacb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook > > But Grattan asserts that the laws related to MI and UI > (at least the seven I mentioned) have no reasons, no > need for justification, no rhyme, no reason. It follows > that giving a reason for a law change is a waste of time > when talking to Grattan. If I take his assertion seriously, > I cannot imagine how Grattan functions in a discussion of > the laws if he thinks that justifications are irrelevant. If > justifications are not needed for law changes, what is > needed? A random-word generator? But I digress. > +=+ I do not believe I said that the DSC did not discuss the reasons for its decisions. My opinion is that the DSC is not required to do more than state the laws that emanate from its discussions, is not required to justify its decisions (although it may choose on an occasion to say 'this is why we did what we did'). If people choose to debate reasons why the laws are what they are, or why they should be different, that's fine. No doubt the arguments will be put to the drafting body when the laws are next reviewed. However, since the WBF responds to its member NBOs it is these that should be persuaded first. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 5 11:35:30 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:35:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful than MI in the laws In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802042140y3cbeb0d1p2bdf9ba949a23a83@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <719440.90174.qm@web86103.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Would the supporters of the notion that UI is > harmless please focus on the question I have asked > more than a dozen > times: Do you really think that UI is harmless? The point has been made several times -- UI is harmless to the NOS. It is potentially harmful to the OS, but that is their problem. The laws do not exist to save infractors, like those who have given MI, from the consequences of their actions. The above refers to UI created at the table. Other kinds of UI, like hearing the next table discussing the proper auction or play of the hand, or the board arriving with an ace face-up in one of the slots, are harmful to everyone, and result in rendering a board unplayable. In cases such as this, everyone at the table is a NO, and they are protected by receiving A+. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 5 11:38:57 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:38:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Seven pillars of folly In-Reply-To: <47A82B04.8010009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <871583.53465.qm@web86113.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Herman, why do you and your followers persist? The dWS is not going to be legal until 2017 at the earliest. By that time there may be an entirely different set of people on the DSC and also on BLML. So what is the use trying to persuade the present lot? Stefanie Rohan London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 5 11:58:26 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:58:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00df01c867ea$75dd3a60$dacb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 2:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] : > Richard Hills: > > But the next law changes are scheduled for 2017. So I think that > Jerry has misinterpreted Grattan's point. In an earlier posting > Grattan noted that at this time, because the 2007 Lawbook has just > been published, his attention was now drawn to the implementation and > interpretation of the 2007 Lawbook, not to the discussion of possible > changes in the 2017 Lawbook. > +=+ Right +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 5 12:26:43 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:26:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com><200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com><00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com> <5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> Message-ID: <00e001c867ea$7808a5e0$dacb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook > On Feb 4, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> Eric: >>> >>> ISTM that this has been the practice of the DSC for the past several >>> go-arounds, and that on every occasion the result has been a lawbook >>> containing inconsistencies, ambiguities, and outright misstatements, >>> resulting in confusion, consternation, arguments and leopard-loo >>> interpretations that only the well-connected cognoscenti know about. >>> >>> I would urge Grattan, on the next go-around, to open the first >>> meeting of the DSC by writing that quote from Einstein on the >>> blackboard. >> >> I would urge Grattan to do it even now. >> >> I am thinking of something like an exposure draft---is that your >> thinking, Eric? > > I am not familiar with the term, so I can't answer. My thinking was > simply that the DSC's decision not to review for rewrite any laws > whose substance they decided to leave unchanged was a proven mistake > that should not be repeated. And, in the portion snipped, to > denigrate Grattan's suggestion that it was somehow less egregious to > proactively decide not to do so than it would have been had they > failed to realize they had the opportunity. > +=+ For the first two-and-a-half years of its life the DSC worked on a wholly new version of the laws. I had proposed, and obtained a hearing for, scrapping the 1997 book and rewriting. Around two- and-a-half years ago that enterprise was abandoned. The reason was that opposition had grown to it, very largely and highly significantly in the ACBL.. Thus my project for a revolution did not bear fruit. So do not accuse me, and do not accuse the DSC, of lack of ambition to revise the laws fundamentally. Once we had been informed that changes to the laws should accrue "incrementally" it became pretty inevitable that much of what had been would remain for the future. In its intermediate, half finished, state at the time of abandonment the 'work in progress' gathers dust in the archives of the WBF - and a few copies are also located around the world. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 5 12:51:29 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:51:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven pillars of folly In-Reply-To: <871583.53465.qm@web86113.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <871583.53465.qm@web86113.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <47A84DC1.7080307@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Herman, why do you and your followers persist? The dWS > is not going to be legal until 2017 at the earliest. I still maintain that it is acceptable. Perhaps if the WBFLC decide to issue the text they've been discussing I might have to change that view but until then, I want to insist on them that they would be very very wrong in changing anything to the status-quo. Have you already seen my seven arguments why the dws is better for the game of bridge? No? Then allow me to persist. Really, it is better. > By that time there may be an entirely different set of > people on the DSC and also on BLML. So what is the use > trying to persuade the present lot? > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 5 12:53:36 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:53:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful than MI in the laws In-Reply-To: <719440.90174.qm@web86103.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <719440.90174.qm@web86103.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <47A84E40.2030000@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > --- Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> Would the supporters of the notion that UI is >> harmless please focus on the question I have asked >> more than a dozen >> times: Do you really think that UI is harmless? > > The point has been made several times -- UI is > harmless to the NOS. It is potentially harmful to the > OS, but that is their problem. The laws do not exist > to save infractors, like those who have given MI, from > the consequences of their actions. > The other other point has been made also. UI is certainly harmful to the NOS. Only after the ruling is it harmless to the NOS. And so is MI. That argument is so totally wrong as to defy imagination. And also: we are not talking about harm to the players, but harm to the game! > The above refers to UI created at the table. Other > kinds of UI, like hearing the next table discussing > the proper auction or play of the hand, or the board > arriving with an ace face-up in one of the slots, are > harmful to everyone, and result in rendering a board > unplayable. In cases such as this, everyone at the > table is a NO, and they are protected by receiving A+. > > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 5 12:53:19 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:53:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook References: <00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><200802050359.AA12362@geller204.nifty.com> <000201c867b0$042381c0$0c6a8540$@com> Message-ID: <00ff01c867ed$d3696930$dacb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 4:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook > [RG] > > You'd at least think someone would have wanted to add > that 0-10 is 0 imps in L78B...... > > [DALB] > > No, no. This can easily be proved by induction. If you > can't prove things by induction, you have no business trying > to understand the Laws of bridge, because almost nothing > therein can be proved by deduction either. > [GE] > +=+ I am not sure the concept of induction is greatly understood among these contributors. From experience its exercise is almost wholly absent. We do have Herman of course, his induction is without parallel. +=+ From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Feb 5 14:30:33 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:30:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <00ff01c867ed$d3696930$dacb403e@Mildred> References: <00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><200802050359.AA12362@ge ller204.nifty.com><000201c867b0$042381c0$0c6a8540$@com> <00ff01c867ed$d3696930$dacb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47A864F9.2040504@meteo.fr> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************* > "The development of the laws > should be incremental" > - ACBL Laws Commission. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 4:31 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook > > >> [RG] >> >> You'd at least think someone would have wanted to add >> that 0-10 is 0 imps in L78B...... i don't see any omission here. L78B indicates circumstances in which to attribute imps. 0-10 is not such a circumstance. jpr >> >> [DALB] >> >> No, no. This can easily be proved by induction. If you >> can't prove things by induction, you have no business trying >> to understand the Laws of bridge, because almost nothing >> therein can be proved by deduction either. >> > [GE] > +=+ I am not sure the concept of induction is greatly understood > among these contributors. From experience its exercise is almost > wholly absent. We do have Herman of course, his induction is > without parallel. +=+ -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 5 14:30:40 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:30:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #9 In-Reply-To: <5793C602-F1F1-489B-8A0B-A6E833C0F98F@starpower.net> References: <47A45C82.3000205@ntlworld.com> <5793C602-F1F1-489B-8A0B-A6E833C0F98F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47A86500.4010501@NTLworld.com> {Eric Landau] Did somebody actually at the table double anything? Was the committee ruling on the action of its consultees? This is even more confusing than the 3S bid that wasn't there in the previous one. [Nigel] I apologise, Eric (and everybody else). Yet another typo. In fact the auction was -- -- -- 1S _P 2S .P _P _X _P 3D AP I was trying to save BLMLers the trouble of downloading Adam's originals but now I reckon you would be much better to use them ... His index is ... The PDF version of appeal 9 is Sorry for the confusion, I've caused From svenpran at online.no Tue Feb 5 14:44:51 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:44:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful than MI in the laws In-Reply-To: <47A84E40.2030000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c867fd$48b46d70$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .................. > We are not talking about harm to the players, but harm to > the game! A game is what the laws dictate it to be If you were serious you should rather argue that every call made by a player is accompanied by a description of that call, for instance: "1S, I have 12 to 19 HCP and at least five spades" "4C, I have a singleton or void in clubs and force to game in spades" "4NT, how many aces (out of 5) do you have?" "5D, I have one or four" "5S, please pass or correct" "6S, I have four so I correct" "pass, fine" Is this (according to your opinion) better for bridge? It eliminates all misinformation to opponents and also all UI because such rules make it legal to describe all calls made together with the call. Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 5 15:19:17 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:19:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful than MI in the laws In-Reply-To: <000201c867fd$48b46d70$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000201c867fd$48b46d70$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47A87065.7060205@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] If you were serious you should rather argue that every call made by a player is accompanied by a description of that call, for instance: "1S, I have 12 to 19 HCP and at least five spades" "4C, I have a singleton or void in clubs and force to game in spades" "4NT, how many aces (out of 5) do you have?" "5D, I have one or four" "5S, please pass or correct" "6S, I have four so I correct" "pass, fine" Is this (according to your opinion) better for bridge? It eliminates all misinformation to opponents and also all UI because such rules make it legal to describe all calls made together with the call. [nige1] Sven's question was rhetorical but IMO the answer is *yes*, except ... [A] You should explain *partner's* calls. There are many problems with alerting or explaining only some calls (people forget local regulations; what is natural to you may not seem so to opponents; questions give rise to unauthorised information and so on). [B] You should have the option to *switch off* opponents' explanations. These rules are a drastic simplification, they eliminate a lot of unauthorised information and IMO they would actually *speed up* the game. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 5 15:22:10 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:22:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook References: <00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><200802050359.AA12362@ge ller204.nifty.com><000201c867b0$042381c0$0c6a8540$@com><00ff01c867ed$d3696930$dacb403e@Mildred> <47A864F9.2040504@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <009401c86802$833103f0$69cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ******************************* > "The development of the laws > should be incremental" > - ACBL Laws Commission. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 4:31 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook > > >> [RG] >> >> You'd at least think someone would have wanted to add >> that 0-10 is 0 imps in L78B...... i don't see any omission here. L78B indicates circumstances in which to attribute imps. 0-10 is not such a circumstance. jpr +=+ absolutely right. Robert has a more complex mind than any of us+=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 5 15:37:13 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:37:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com> <200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com> <00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred> <4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com> <5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <87BA8720-5C78-4D40-8FE7-3EC55C07957C@starpower.net> On Feb 4, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Feb 4, 2008 3:39 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> I am not familiar with the term, so I can't answer. My thinking was >> simply that the DSC's decision not to review for rewrite any laws >> whose substance they decided to leave unchanged was a proven mistake >> that should not be repeated. And, in the portion snipped, to >> denigrate Grattan's suggestion that it was somehow less egregious to >> proactively decide not to do so than it would have been had they >> failed to realize they had the opportunity. > > Paraphrased from the web, the purpose of the exposure draft is to > "solicit comments" from interested parties. Respondents should refer > to specific law numbers and "include reasons" for any suggestions or > comments. > > I admit it would be rather remarkable for Grattan to be a party of > this, because, as he said a day or two ago in the thread "Seven...", > "The laws, the rules of a game, have no need of justification; they > simply state 'if X occurs then Y'." While I can see his point if he > talking about the part where an ace beats a king, I hardly think that > the law makers wanted the game to have lots of UI and MI. Anyone with > half a brain can see that the law writers thought MI and UI were bad. > But Grattan asserts that the laws related to MI and UI (at least the > seven I mentioned) have no reasons, no need for justification, no > rhyme, no reason. It follows that giving a reason for a law change is > a waste of time when talking to Grattan. If I take his assertion > seriously, I cannot imagine how Grattan functions in a discussion of > the laws if he thinks that justifications are irrelevant. If > justifications are not needed for law changes, what is needed? A > random-word generator? But I digress. > > I am asking if Eric also wishes that the DSC would prepublish the text > of possible new laws or interpretations (before finalizing them) so > that comments can help improve the final product. And does Eric wish > they would do it starting this month or next month or whenever they > have possible new laws or new interpretations. It's my understanding that there is no DSC; it has completed its work for 2007 and has disbanded, to be reconstituted when it's time to work on the draft of the 201x lawbook. I do hope that that group will see fit to circulate their draft outside their own circle before it is finalized and can no longer be changed (unlike this time). Even if they do not actively solicit input or comments, at least it will be possible that any egregious language or oversight will generate enough of a clamor in forums like this one to reach their ears before it is too late to do anything (beyond leopard-loo minutes) for ten more years. But this goes beyond the point of my earlier comments. Those were objecting to the DSC's decision not to review or revise any laws which were to remain unchanged in substance from the 1997 laws. They somehow convinced themselves that if the previous language remained unchanged the established meaning would remain unchanged -- *even if the established meaning was derived from a post- publication minute which stated explicitly that the law was to be read as if it had been differently written*. That put them in the position of having to assert that brand new law meant something other than it said, because it was to be re-interpreted according to an interpretive minute written years before the law it allegedly interpreted. And it will undoubtedly require, in the future, new minutes to clear up new ambiguities that were introduced by the DSC failing to revise those substantively unchanged laws to be consistent with newly introduced language. What they did, in effect, was to vote themselves finished with the job half-done, then disband before the demands to get it right could reach them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 5 15:38:07 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:38:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <009401c86802$833103f0$69cd403e@Mildred> References: <00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><200802050359.AA12362@ge ller204.nifty.com><000201c867b0$042381c0$0c6a8540$@com><00ff01c867ed$d3696930$dacb403e@Mildred> <47A864F9.2040504@meteo.fr> <009401c86802$833103f0$69cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47A874CF.90302@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ absolutely right. Robert has a more > complex mind than any of us+=+ [Nige1] Grattan, you are too modest. Robert Geller does have a fine mind but for complexity and sophistication, WBFLC law-makers are in a class of their own :) From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 5 15:46:34 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:46:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful than MI in the laws In-Reply-To: <000201c867fd$48b46d70$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000201c867fd$48b46d70$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47A876CA.1030100@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .................. >> We are not talking about harm to the players, but harm to >> the game! > > A game is what the laws dictate it to be > > If you were serious you should rather argue that every call made by a player > is accompanied by a description of that call, for instance: > > "1S, I have 12 to 19 HCP and at least five spades" > "4C, I have a singleton or void in clubs and force to game in spades" > "4NT, how many aces (out of 5) do you have?" > "5D, I have one or four" > "5S, please pass or correct" > "6S, I have four so I correct" > "pass, fine" > > Is this (according to your opinion) better for bridge? It eliminates all > misinformation to opponents and also all UI because such rules make it legal > to describe all calls made together with the call. > > Sven > Sven, you are right about asking this question. Do you think this is better for the game than the way it is played now? Then by all means tell us so, and we'll have a vote. But don't tell me that this question cannot be asked. You have just illustrated one point though. This way is a certain way of insuring perfect zero MI. Yet you seem not to want to play it this way? Why? Because deep down you know that perfect zero MI is _not_ the way bridge is played today, nor is it how bridge should be played. If you realize that, it is just one small step to realizing that the dws has got a point, and the argumentation against it ("but it's lying to opponents!") is flawed. MI is not the worst crime in history. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Feb 5 15:53:50 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:53:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Mobile_lawbook?= Message-ID: <1JMPBG-0j0nMO0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> > +=+ I am not sure the concept of induction is greatly understood > among these contributors. ?From experience its exercise is almost > wholly absent. ?We do have Herman of course, his induction is > without parallel. +=+ oh please, don't be so rashly !! We have in Germany a man, who developes scoring-programs (scorer#1). One of his main theorems is a follows: Nowhere in Law 77 is says, that the score of the non-playing side is the "reciprocal" score of the playing side. And this man is wright (in saying, that Law 77 is silent about this); it's just "common pratice" and "a matter of induction". Now, after reading the new laws, and after finding the new sentence "If all players pass each side enters a zero score." within Law 77 he feels himself confirmed. Therefore he scores bridge tournaments with all pairs, that did not bid the contract, getting zero points. In the same way he interprets Law 78A in a way that comparable scores are those which are played ont the same distribution (board) regardless of the "side" of the hand ... (mmmpfff...) And in an (absurd) way this man is correct again, as Law 78A is silent about the conditions one need to compare two scores. You won't believe what this man is uttering ... btw, if anybody wants to spoil his/her evening, I can give you an advice on www.bridgeassistant.com. But, please, only if you're in a firm mood (and not on suicide). Not to be misunderstood: I'm not advocating the laws to be too inductive. But, if one leaves too much room for interpretation, one willl get views as scorer#1 and dWS. Peter Eidt Warendorf, Germany From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 5 16:05:24 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:05:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <001a01c867db$517044b0$dacb403e@Mildred> References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com><200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com><00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com><5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> <001a01c867db$517044b0$dacb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <7900B785-9F08-4E62-B794-E38D4F05D527@starpower.net> On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:49 PM, wrote: > +=+ The DSC did publish the drafts last November to NBOs for > their comments. We received much from the NBOs in response. Speaking as a member of one particularly large NBO, I can say that anything you received from the ACBL must have been written in secret by a single individual or small group of administrators. As far as being seen by the people actually affected, they might as well have been circulated into a black hole. I am extremely fortunate to count among my fairly close friends two (out of a total of six) of the ACBL's most senior and experienced directors (those who the ACBL has named as qualified to serve as DIC at NABCs). Neither had any knowledge or awareness of the existence of a draft of the 2008 laws until after they were finalized. They got their very first look only when I forwarded to them the PDF that was offered to BLML. Did the DSC really not want even these folks to see their work product? If the DSC thought that sending a draft to the ACBL was in any way "publishing" it, they were either sadly mistaken or deliberately fooling themselves. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 5 16:15:44 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:15:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <000201c867b0$042381c0$0c6a8540$@com> References: <00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred> <200802050359.AA12362@geller204.nifty.com> <000201c867b0$042381c0$0c6a8540$@com> Message-ID: On Feb 4, 2008, at 11:31 PM, David Burn wrote: > [RG] > > You'd at least think someone would have wanted to add that 0-10 is > 0 imps in > L78B...... > > [DALB] > > No, no. This can easily be proved by induction. If you can't prove > things by > induction, you have no business trying to understand the Laws of > bridge, > because almost nothing therein can be proved by deduction either. The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge is not a workbook of math problems. A book of laws is not supposed to go out of its way to challenge its readers' problem-solving skills. If you prefer to leave things to be "proved by induction" when you could have just written them down in plain language, you have no business trying to write the Laws of bridge. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From picatou at picatou.com Tue Feb 5 16:26:01 2008 From: picatou at picatou.com (Picatou) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:26:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <7900B785-9F08-4E62-B794-E38D4F05D527@starpower.net> References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com><200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com><00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com><5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> <001a01c867db$517044b0$dacb403e@Mildred> <7900B785-9F08-4E62-B794-E38D4F05D527@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000d01c8680b$6a45afe0$3ed10fa0$@com> Eric Landeau writes: I am extremely fortunate to count among my fairly close friends two (out of a total of six) of the ACBL's most senior and experienced directors (those who the ACBL has named as qualified to serve as DIC at NABCs). Neither had any knowledge or awareness of the existence of a draft of the 2008 laws until after they were finalized. They got their very first look only when I forwarded to them the PDF that was offered to BLML. Did the DSC really not want even these folks to see their work product? __________________________________________________________________ Having work, some years ago, with Henry Cukoff, one of the best ACBL DIC, I used to speak about the process of law revision and was always surprised to see that he seems to know nothing about it... or was very cautious.. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 5 16:37:06 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:37:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <00e001c867ea$7808a5e0$dacb403e@Mildred> References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com><200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com><00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com> <5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> <00e001c867ea$7808a5e0$dacb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Feb 5, 2008, at 6:26 AM, wrote: > +=+ For the first two-and-a-half years of its life the DSC worked > on a wholly new version of the laws. I had proposed, and obtained > a hearing for, scrapping the 1997 book and rewriting. Around two- > and-a-half years ago that enterprise was abandoned. The reason was > that opposition had grown to it, very largely and highly significantly > in the ACBL.. Thus my project for a revolution did not bear fruit. So > do not accuse me, and do not accuse the DSC, of lack of ambition > to revise the laws fundamentally. Once we had been informed that > changes to the laws should accrue "incrementally" it became pretty > inevitable that much of what had been would remain for the future. > In its intermediate, half finished, state at the time of > abandonment > the 'work in progress' gathers dust in the archives of the WBF - and > a few copies are also located around the world. IOW, the DSC failed to do its job properly not out of laziness or foolishness, but out of its typical craven refusal to stand up to the 800-pound gorilla in its midst. And then they insult us by calling the 800-pound gorilla "the ACBL", knowing full well that they are talking not about a consituency of bridge players, directors and club- level admistrators, but of a small, insulated, secretive and parochial body of insiders. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Feb 5 16:52:04 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:52:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com><200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com><00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com> <5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> <00e001c867ea$7808a5e0$dacb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <047201c8680f$139b92a0$3ad2b7e0$@nl> I understand your frustration, but the way the WBF is organized you can hardly blame them for communicating with its members. That not all of these members are as democratically organized as, say Iraq, is hardly something you can blame the WBF for. In the Netherlands there are also lots of things wrong with the organization of the Dutch Bridge Federation, but in this respect they did their job. The proposed law changes were circulated among the top directors for comment. I think that would also have happened if Ton had not been part of the drafting committee. You will have to accept that changes to the ACBL can only be made by the members thereof. Hans van Staveren -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Eric Landau Sent: dinsdag 5 februari 2008 16:37 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook On Feb 5, 2008, at 6:26 AM, wrote: > +=+ For the first two-and-a-half years of its life the DSC worked > on a wholly new version of the laws. I had proposed, and obtained > a hearing for, scrapping the 1997 book and rewriting. Around two- > and-a-half years ago that enterprise was abandoned. The reason was > that opposition had grown to it, very largely and highly significantly > in the ACBL.. Thus my project for a revolution did not bear fruit. So > do not accuse me, and do not accuse the DSC, of lack of ambition > to revise the laws fundamentally. Once we had been informed that > changes to the laws should accrue "incrementally" it became pretty > inevitable that much of what had been would remain for the future. > In its intermediate, half finished, state at the time of > abandonment > the 'work in progress' gathers dust in the archives of the WBF - and > a few copies are also located around the world. IOW, the DSC failed to do its job properly not out of laziness or foolishness, but out of its typical craven refusal to stand up to the 800-pound gorilla in its midst. And then they insult us by calling the 800-pound gorilla "the ACBL", knowing full well that they are talking not about a consituency of bridge players, directors and club- level admistrators, but of a small, insulated, secretive and parochial body of insiders. 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 Feb 5 17:05:38 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:05:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <1JMPBG-0j0nMO0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> References: <1JMPBG-0j0nMO0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <47A88952.7090604@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > > Not to be misunderstood: I'm not advocating the laws to > be too inductive. But, if one leaves too much room for > interpretation, one willl get views as scorer#1 and dWS. > I find this a very personal and very rude insult. > Peter Eidt > Warendorf, Germany > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Feb 5 17:04:34 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:04:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Mobile_lawbook?= In-Reply-To: <7900B785-9F08-4E62-B794-E38D4F05D527@starpower.net> References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com><200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com><00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com><5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> <001a01c867db$517044b0$dacb403e@Mildred> <7900B785-9F08-4E62-B794-E38D4F05D527@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1JMQHi-2CYyuG0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> From: Eric Landau > > +=+ The DSC did publish the drafts last November to NBOs for > > their comments. ?We received much from the NBOs in response. > > Speaking as a member of one particularly large NBO, I can say that > anything you received from the ACBL must have been written in secret > by a single individual or small group of administrators. ?As far as > being seen by the people actually affected, they might as well have > been circulated into a black hole. ?I am extremely fortunate to count > among my fairly close friends two (out of a total of six) of the > ACBL's most senior and experienced directors (those who the ACBL has > named as qualified to serve as DIC at NABCs). ?Neither had any > knowledge or awareness of the existence of a draft of the 2008 laws > until after they were finalized. ?They got their very first look only > when I forwarded to them the PDF that was offered to BLML. ?Did the > DSC really not want even these folks to see their work product? > If the DSC thought that sending a draft to the ACBL was in any way > "publishing" it, they were either sadly mistaken or deliberately > fooling themselves. This was the second mail I recieved from Anna Gudge via the DBV (German) office: > From: Anna Gudge [mailto:anna at ecats.co.uk] > Sent: Montag, 5. Februar 2007 10:31 > To: Nicole Wilbert > Betreff: Confidential: WBF Draft Laws Revisions February > > For the attention of : Nicole Wilbert > General Secretary > Deutscher Bridge-Verband e. V. > > Dear Nicole > > There are some revised documents on the website which > you may wish to download for consideration. > > You will see in each one that text has been highlighted in > green ? this is to indicate revisions that are under consideration ? > the original text is still there for you to compare. > > The Laws concerned are: > > Law 12 > Laws 80-81 > Laws 84 ? 85 and > Laws 86 ? 89 > > As before [Eidt: the whole draft, all laws], please ensure > that these are not made public, > but are circulated within your own Laws Committee and > authorised personnel only. > I remind you that the URL is > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/lawsprivate/default.asp > the login for these pages is ...., and the password is ..... > > Kind regards > anna I guess, that this invitation to take part in the final drafting precess was sent to the ACBL office, too. From geller at nifty.com Tue Feb 5 17:13:21 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:13:21 +0900 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <009401c86802$833103f0$69cd403e@Mildred> References: <009401c86802$833103f0$69cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200802051613.AA12371@geller204.nifty.com> Oh dear, a little snarky today, are we. Just for the record, let's look at L78B. ************************************************ B. International Matchpoint Scoring In international matchpoint scoring, on each board the total point difference between the two scores compared is converted into IMPs according to the following scale. Difference in points IMPs 20-40 1 50-80 2 90-120 3 4000 & upward 24 ************************************************** As a practical matter "everyone knows" that 0-10 points is 0 imps, so it can be argued that the failure by the DSC to ensure that this was stated explicitly is no big deal. But the law book of any sport or game should be as nearly complete and correct and self-consistent as possible. I don't see anything in L78B that allows one to infer from the text that 0-10 points is 0 imps. This just is something we all "already know." But to my mind this means someone from the DSC ought to say, "Oops, sorry, we'll fix it right away." "Oops, sorry." is optional, but "we'll fix it right away" should be mandatory. Why should the world bridge community have to wait till 2017 for stuff like this to get fixed? -Bob gesta at tiscali.co.uk ????????: > >Grattan Endicott[following address discontinued: >grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >******************************* >"The development of the laws > should be incremental" > - ACBL Laws Commission. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jean-Pierre Rocafort" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:30 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook > > >gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?rit : >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ******************************* >> "The development of the laws >> should be incremental" >> - ACBL Laws Commission. >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "David Burn" >> To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" >> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 4:31 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook >> >> >>> [RG] >>> >>> You'd at least think someone would have wanted to add >>> that 0-10 is 0 imps in L78B...... > >i don't see any omission here. L78B indicates circumstances >in which to attribute imps. 0-10 is not such a circumstance. > >jpr > >+=+ absolutely right. Robert has a more > complex mind than any of us+=+ > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Tue Feb 5 18:25:12 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:25:12 +0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <1JMQHi-2CYyuG0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com><200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com><00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com><5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> <001a01c867db$517044b0$dacb403e@Mildred> <7900B785-9F08-4E62-B794-E38D4F05D527@starpower.net> <1JMQHi-2CYyuG0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <47A89BF8.9060903@NTLworld.com> [Anna Gudge] There are some revised documents on the website which you may wish to download for consideration. You will see in each one that text has been highlighted in green ? this is to indicate revisions that are under consideration ? the original text is still there for you to compare. The Laws concerned are: Law 12 Laws 80-81 Laws 84 ? 85 and Laws 86 ? 89 As before [Eidt: the whole draft, all laws], please ensure that these are not made public, but are circulated within your own Laws Committee and authorised personnel only. I remind you that the URL is http://www.ecatsbridge.com/lawsprivate/default.asp the login for these pages is ...., and the password is ..... [Nige1] The WBF seems go to extraordinary lengths to keep deliberations under wraps. The WBFLC maintains the fiction that it solicits comment and criticism from ordinary players indirectly via NBOs. How can an NBO do that, when it must keep all relevant information hidden from the rude gaze of the ordinary player? Just as in the wider world, it seems that laws are determined by and for lawmen. The interests of the pubic (or, in this case, ordinary player) are unrepresented. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 5 18:35:34 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:35:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <47A88952.7090604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <45441.91060.qm@web86103.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Herman De Wael wrote: > Peter Eidt wrote: > > > > Not to be misunderstood: I'm not advocating the > laws to > > be too inductive. But, if one leaves too much room > for > > interpretation, one willl get views as scorer#1 > and dWS. > > > > I find this a very personal and very rude insult. > Why? You are well aware that everyone thinks that the dWS is an unfortunate and misguided "interpretation", and have said yourself that you would not try to argue its legality if the DSC had spelled out their intentions in the new Laws. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 5 18:42:21 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:42:21 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful than MI in the laws In-Reply-To: <47A876CA.1030100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <195443.78868.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Herman De Wael wrote: > You have just illustrated one point though. [explaining all of your own calls as they are made] > is a certain way > of insuring perfect zero MI. Yet you seem not to > want to play it this > way? Why? Because deep down you know that perfect > zero MI is _not_ the > way bridge is played today, nor is it how bridge > should be played. If > you realize that, it is just one small step to > realizing that the dws > has got a point, and the argumentation against it > ("but it's lying to > opponents!") is flawed. It's not clear to me how or why this "step" should be taken. >MI is not the worst crime in history. No. Intentional MI, though, might be. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 5 18:54:06 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:54:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] SF NABC #9 In-Reply-To: <5793C602-F1F1-489B-8A0B-A6E833C0F98F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <651494.73248.qm@web86112.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > On Feb 2, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Guthrie wrote: > > 2. Here, The the committee seems to have ruled > correctly; but the > > committee's argument against issuing a PP is a bit > pathetic: > > "West must have considered balancing automatic. > Had he thought it was > > at all close he'd surely have passed as a matter > of self-interest, > > knowing that his side would keep a poor result and > lose the benefit of > > any good result." > > In so far as it goes, surely that statement should > always be true for > > players at this level? I would have thought that this goes without saying. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 5 18:57:18 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:57:18 +0000 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful than MI in the laws In-Reply-To: <195443.78868.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <195443.78868.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <47A8A37E.1050405@NTLworld.com> [Herman De Wael] MI is not the worst crime in history. [Stefanie Rohan] No. Intentional MI, though, might be. [Nige1] Glad that we're keeping a sense of proportion. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Feb 5 19:01:59 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:01:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <1JMPBG-0j0nMO0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> References: <1JMPBG-0j0nMO0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <47A8A497.9030901@aol.com> Hola Peter! In einer fr?heren Email habe ich auf ein Paar Typos aufmerksam gemacht. Ich hatte d. Eindruck von Deiner Antwort da? Du so 'ewas nicht gerne hast und willst nicht auf m?glichen englischen Fehler aufmerksam gemacht werden. Wenn das so ist, gib mir bescheid und h?re ich auf. (Und ich wei? da? mein Deutsch fehlerhaft ist.) Aber wenn so 'was Dich interessiert, darf ich auf folgende "Fehler" in d. untenstehenden Text aufmerksam machen. (Typos habe ich weggelassen.) Von Oben: "rash", nicht "rashly", kein Adverb in einem solchen Satz, f?r einen Adverb w?re ein transitives Verbum notwendig. Dann (m?gliches Typo): "develops", nicht "developes". Sp?ter (Satz beginnt "Nowhere in...)"is says" ist nicht gut, wahrscheinlich "it says". Dann: "right", nicht "wright". (Typo?) Dann: "bid the contract" klinkt holprig, ist aber wohl, streng genommen, nicht falsch. "ont" is vermutlich ein Typo (f?r "on" aber da w?re "with" besser. "One needs" ist vermutlich besser dann "one need". Sp?ter: "an advice" ist falsch, entweder "advice" ohne Article, oder "a tip" oder "a recommendation" oder so 'was ?hnliches. Und irgendetwas stimmt nicht (there is something wrong with) "not on suicide". H?ngt von Bedeutung ab aber wahrscheinlich so etwas wie "nicht suicidal". Alles kleinkram aber ich bin halt pedantisch und habe, vor einige Jahrhunderte als Englischlehrer, ?bersetzer, "proofreader" und "copyreader" gearbeitet und da wird man leicht penetrant pedantisch. Wie gesagt, wenn es Dir lieber ist, h?re ich mit so 'was auf. Ciao, JE PS: D. Email ist jedoch klasse und ich werde mir, trotz drohender anschliessenden Depression, d. angegebene Website mal anschauen. >>+=+ I am not sure the concept of induction is greatly understood >>among these contributors. From experience its exercise is almost >>wholly absent. We do have Herman of course, his induction is >>without parallel. +=+ > > > oh please, don't be so rashly !! > > We have in Germany a man, who developes scoring-programs > (scorer#1). > One of his main theorems is a follows: Nowhere in Law 77 is says, > that the score of the non-playing side is the "reciprocal" score of > the playing side. And this man is wright (in saying, that Law 77 > is silent about this); it's just "common pratice" and "a matter of > induction". Now, after reading the new laws, and after finding > the new sentence "If all players pass each side enters a > zero score." within Law 77 he feels himself confirmed. > Therefore he scores bridge tournaments with all pairs, > that did not bid the contract, getting zero points. In the same > way he interprets Law 78A in a way that comparable scores > are those which are played ont the same distribution (board) > regardless of the "side" of the hand ... (mmmpfff...) And in > an (absurd) way this man is correct again, as Law 78A is silent > about the conditions one need to compare two scores. > > You won't believe what this man is uttering ... > btw, if anybody wants to spoil his/her evening, I can give you an > advice on www.bridgeassistant.com. But, please, only if you're in > a firm mood (and not on suicide). > > Not to be misunderstood: I'm not advocating the laws to > be too inductive. But, if one leaves too much room for > interpretation, one willl get views as scorer#1 and dWS. > > Peter Eidt > Warendorf, Germany > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 5 19:10:09 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:10:09 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful than MI in the laws In-Reply-To: <47A84E40.2030000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <293602.79883.qm@web86113.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Herman De Wael wrote: > The other other point has been made also. > UI is certainly harmful to the NOS. Only after the > ruling is it > harmless to the NOS. And so is MI. > That argument is so totally wrong as to defy > imagination. OK, this is fine then. UI and MI both cause damage at first, and the NOS are protected against the damage by a ruling. So why make a big deal about which is "worse", and accept what the lawmakers have said about creating/avoiding different damaging forms of information? Accept if you must that there are arguments for two or more different kinds of practice, and believe that the lawmakers have chosen one arbitrarily simply because one had to be chosen. > > And also: we are not talking about harm to the > players, but harm to > the game! As has been mentioned many times before, harm to the game consists of playing in in some manner apart rom according to its rules. Loads of people have their own ideas about variations which would produce a game superior to bridge, and no one is stopping them from promulgating such a game, even producing a national organisation and running tournaments. This would give players the chance to vote with their feet, and it the new game wins players while the poularity of bridge wanes, then so be it. I think that what peole must realise is that even though their pet variant is not part of the Laws of Bridge, the Laws as they exist are the same for everyone, and so create a level playing field. Thus there is no real cause for complaint if one disagrees with part of the Laws. One may feel that the Laws disadvantage him in some way, but must remember that the entire field suffers the same disadvantage. So there is no real problem. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 5 19:20:25 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:20:25 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Seven pillars of folly In-Reply-To: <47A84DC1.7080307@skynet.be> Message-ID: <880129.69531.qm@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Herman De Wael wrote: > Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > Herman, why do you and your followers persist? The > dWS > > is not going to be legal until 2017 at the > earliest. > > I still maintain that it is acceptable. Perhaps if > the WBFLC decide to > issue the text they've been discussing I might have > to change that > view but until then, I want to insist on them that > they would be very > very wrong in changing anything to the status-quo. Grattan, please! We are all waiting for this interpretation that has been dangled in front of us! Issue it and put an end to all this nonsense. > > Have you already seen my seven arguments why the dws > is better for the > game of bridge? No? Then allow me to persist. > Really, it is better. I have not been using my regular computer lately, so I have not seen these arguments. But if they end up failing to impress me or anyone else, THEN will you give it up? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 5 19:27:48 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:27:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00df01c867ea$75dd3a60$dacb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <767872.30092.qm@web86111.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> > Richard Hills: > > > > But the next law changes are scheduled for 2017. > So I think that > > Jerry has misinterpreted Grattan's point. In an > earlier posting > > Grattan noted that at this time, because the 2007 > Lawbook has just > > been published, his attention was now drawn to the > implementation and > > interpretation of the 2007 Lawbook, not to the > discussion of possible > > changes in the 2017 Lawbook. > > > +=+ Right +=+ But as Eric has pointed out, issuing the 2007 Laws in the present form as a result of pressure from the ACBL is something we have to accept, but is, excusing the oxymoron, unacceptable. Perhaps the WBFLC can be disbanded, if there is someone who actually has the power to do this, and the "new" WBFLC can take on, as their first project, the drafting of the 2009 Lawbook. Stefanie Rohan London, England From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Feb 5 19:35:27 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:35:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mein Posting "Mobile Lawbook" Message-ID: <47A8AC6F.5020402@aol.com> Beg forgiving. The above posting was intended for Peter personally and thus sent to the blml erroneously. It is quite embarrassing for me to have it appear there. (Fortunately it isn't in English.) JE From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 5 19:41:31 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:41:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Because that's what's printed on the inside of the box In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <968809.22602.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Jerry Fusselman wrote: > "The laws, the rules of a game, have no need of > justification; they > simply state 'if X occurs then Y'." While I can see > his point if he > talking about the part where an ace beats a king, I > hardly think that > the law makers wanted the game to have lots of UI > and MI. Anyone with > half a brain can see that the law writers thought MI > and UI were bad. > But Grattan asserts that the laws related to MI and > UI (at least the > seven I mentioned) have no reasons, no need for > justification, no > rhyme, no reason. It follows that giving a reason > for a law change is > a waste of time when talking to Grattan. If I take > his assertion > seriously, I cannot imagine how Grattan functions in > a discussion of > the laws if he thinks that justifications are > irrelevant. If > justifications are not needed for law changes, what > is needed? The DSC need justifications for their decisions; the members must present them to one another and form a common opinion, and presumably, also gain the approval of the WBFLC as a whole. As far as justifying existing laws and law changes to the players, why should they? Someone recently posted a quote from the inventor of Dungeons and Dragons that said something like "this rule is what it is because I say so". This is the way it works for a game. Though the WBFLC and its DSC are pretty remote from most of us, they are actually chosen by us in a long chain of events beginning with the election of our local officials. Not much needs to be said about how poor, in reality, this process is in most (all?) places, but it is what we have got. We have delegated the DSC to write the Laws of the game, and our part consists of playing the game according to the Laws that they have given us. What most of us are concerned with, however, is not changing the intentions of the Laws. What we would like is for the Laws to say what they mean, and for the published version to be intelligible to even the lowliest club director. One might have optimistically assumed that this was one of the main objectives of the DSC, but apparently it was not. Stefanie Rohan London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 5 18:48:56 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:48:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com><200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com><00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com><5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> <87BA8720-5C78-4D40-8FE7-3EC55C07957C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <004a01c86828$8d8281a0$dccf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook > > It's my understanding that there is no DSC; it has completed its work > for 2007 and has disbanded, << +=+ Wrong. The 2008 Directory of the World Bridge Federation, just received, lists the Laws Drafting Subcommittee as : John Wignall (Chairman), Grattan Endicott (Coordinator), Max Bavin, Maurizio Di Sacco, Joan Gerard, Ton Kooijman, Jeffrey Polisner, William Schoder. A change has been made. Maurizio replaces Antonio Riccardi. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 5 19:52:57 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:52:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook References: <00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><200802050359.AA12362@ge ller204.nifty.com><000201c867b0$042381c0$0c6a8540$@com><00ff01c867ed$d3696930$dacb403e@Mildred> <47A864F9.2040504@meteo.fr><009401c86802$833103f0$69cd403e@Mildred> <47A874CF.90302@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <004b01c86828$8ebada90$dccf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook > [Grattan Endicott] >> +=+ absolutely right. Robert has a more >> complex mind than any of us+=+ > > [Nige1] > Grattan, you are too modest. Robert Geller does > have a fine mind but for complexity and sophistication, > WBFLC law-makers are in a class of their own :) > +=+ Oh, if you could read the howls of scorn of DSC colleagues rejecting my suggestion that it would be helpful if we actually issued as a DSC document our agreed position on Herman's perceptions of the law. Nothing sophisticated, I assure you - I am informed in the plainest language that his posturing does not merit a DSC response. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Feb 5 20:06:12 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:06:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mein Posting "Mobile Lawbook" In-Reply-To: <47A8AC6F.5020402@aol.com> References: <47A8AC6F.5020402@aol.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0802051106j44cc5230g780c78b35f519d64@mail.gmail.com> Viele Leute k?nnen Deutsch lesen. (Sogar unwissende Amerikaner) On 2/5/08, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Beg forgiving. The above posting was intended for Peter personally and > thus sent to the blml erroneously. It is quite embarrassing for me to > have it appear there. (Fortunately it isn't in English.) JE > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 5 20:27:54 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:27:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com><200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com><00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com><5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> <001a01c867db$517044b0$dacb403e@Mildred> <7900B785-9F08-4E62-B794-E38D4F05D527@starpower.net><1JMQHi-2CYyuG0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47A89BF8.9060903@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <008401c8682d$bac5c780$dccf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 5:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook The WBFLC maintains the fiction that it solicits comment and criticism from ordinary players indirectly via NBOs. How can an NBO do that, when it must keep all relevant information hidden from the rude gaze of the ordinary player? <> +=+ Incorrect. The WBF does not suggest that it solicits comment and criticism on the draft laws from players . It solicits such comments from the NBOs (in particular the Laws Committees and CTDs of the NBOs) and Zones. What it says of players is that, if they have opinions on what the laws should be, and wish to put them forward, they should canvass their NBOs with their views. The DSC expects NBOs and Zones to put forward whatever ideas and recommendations they wish. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 5 22:07:05 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:07:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Because that's what's printed on the inside of the box In-Reply-To: <968809.22602.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <968809.22602.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9E22E930-7E8A-40E3-92CC-AE9ED2657C3F@starpower.net> On Feb 5, 2008, at 1:41 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > The DSC need justifications for their decisions; the > members must present them to one another and form a > common opinion, and presumably, also gain the approval > of the WBFLC as a whole. > > As far as justifying existing laws and law changes to > the players, why should they? To give credence to the notion that the World Bridge Federation exists for the benefit of the body of competitive bridge players as a whole rather than just themselves and a few powerful administrators of member NBOs. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 5 22:19:14 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:19:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <008401c8682d$bac5c780$dccf403e@Mildred> References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com><200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com><00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com><5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> <001a01c867db$517044b0$dacb403e@Mildred> <7900B785-9F08-4E62-B794-E38D4F05D527@starpower.net><1JMQHi-2CYyuG0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47A89BF8.9060903@NTLworld.com> <008401c8682d$bac5c780$dccf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Feb 5, 2008, at 2:27 PM, wrote: > From: "Guthrie" > > The WBFLC maintains the fiction that it solicits comment > and criticism from ordinary players indirectly via NBOs. > How can an NBO do that, when it must keep all relevant > information hidden from the rude gaze of the ordinary player? > <> > +=+ Incorrect. The WBF does not suggest that it solicits > comment and criticism on the draft laws from players . We all know it does not. But it should. > It > solicits such comments from the NBOs (in particular the > Laws Committees and CTDs of the NBOs) and Zones. > What it says of players is that, if they have opinions on > what the laws should be, and wish to put them forward, > they should canvass their NBOs with their views. > The DSC expects NBOs and Zones to put forward > whatever ideas and recommendations they wish. As the WBF knows full well, certain NBOs also do not suggest that they solicit comment and criticism on the draft laws -- or anything else, for that matter. What they say of players is that, if they have opinions on what the laws should be, and wish to put them forward, fuck 'em. It is pure sophistry for the WBF to claim that they blindly solicit criticism from NBOs and trust them to serve their respective constituencies fairly and appropriately when they know very well that they do not. Their well-precedented head-in-the- sand policy serves only to echo the sentiments, previously noted, of the most egregiously undemocratic of their member NBOs. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 5 21:55:35 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:55:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com><200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com><00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com><5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com><001a01c867db$517044b0$dacb403e@Mildred><7900B785-9F08-4E62-B794-E38D4F05D527@starpower.net> <1JMQHi-2CYyuG0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <00bb01c8683d$3a434500$dccf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook From: Eric Landau > > +=+ The DSC did publish the drafts last November to NBOs for > > their comments. We received much from the NBOs in response. > > Speaking as a member of one particularly large NBO, I can say that > anything you received from the ACBL must have been written in secret > by a single individual or small group of administrators. < +=+ It may have been overlooked that the minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission contained various examinations of the drafts. In addition other comments were received, apparently in the name of the Commission. That seemed like an appropriate body to speak for the ACBL on the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schoderb at msn.com Tue Feb 5 22:37:17 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:37:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook References: <009401c86802$833103f0$69cd403e@Mildred> <200802051613.AA12371@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Because stuff like this doesn't need fixing. Getting lost in silly trivia is a dangerous and slippery slope on BLML. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook > Oh dear, a little snarky today, are we. > > Just for the record, let's look at L78B. > ************************************************ > B. International Matchpoint Scoring > In international matchpoint scoring, on each board the total point > difference between the two scores compared is converted into IMPs > according to the following scale. > Difference > in points IMPs > 20-40 1 > 50-80 2 > 90-120 3 > > 4000 & upward 24 > ************************************************** > > As a practical matter "everyone knows" that 0-10 points is 0 imps, > so it can be argued that the failure by the DSC to ensure that this was > stated explicitly is no big deal. But the law book of any sport or game > should > be as nearly complete and correct and self-consistent as possible. > I don't see anything in L78B that allows one to infer from the text that > 0-10 points is 0 imps. This just is something we all "already know." > But to my mind this means someone from the DSC ought to say, "Oops, sorry, > we'll fix it right away." > > "Oops, sorry." is optional, but "we'll fix it right away" should be > mandatory. > Why should the world bridge community have to wait till 2017 for stuff > like this > to get fixed? > > -Bob > > > gesta at tiscali.co.uk ????????: > > > >Grattan Endicott >[following address discontinued: > >grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > >******************************* > >"The development of the laws > > should be incremental" > > - ACBL Laws Commission. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Jean-Pierre Rocafort" > >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:30 PM > >Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook > > > > > >gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?rit : > >> Grattan Endicott >> [following address discontinued: > >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > >> ******************************* > >> "The development of the laws > >> should be incremental" > >> - ACBL Laws Commission. > >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "David Burn" > >> To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 4:31 AM > >> Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook > >> > >> > >>> [RG] > >>> > >>> You'd at least think someone would have wanted to add > >>> that 0-10 is 0 imps in L78B...... > > > >i don't see any omission here. L78B indicates circumstances > >in which to attribute imps. 0-10 is not such a circumstance. > > > >jpr > > > >+=+ absolutely right. Robert has a more > > complex mind than any of us+=+ > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blml mailing list > >blml at amsterdamned.org > >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Tue Feb 5 22:57:22 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:57:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mein Posting "Mobile Lawbook" References: <47A8AC6F.5020402@aol.com> Message-ID: Yahwol. Du hast recht. Die englishsprechende Welt wird dass nicht verstehen. Aber alte Deutsche Schwanzen werden ess gut benuetzen, und wie Sie in Wiesbaden sagen "alles klar." Besten gruesse, Kojak. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:35 PM Subject: [blml] Mein Posting "Mobile Lawbook" > Beg forgiving. The above posting was intended for Peter personally and > thus sent to the blml erroneously. It is quite embarrassing for me to > have it appear there. (Fortunately it isn't in English.) JE > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 5 23:46:22 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:46:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >talking not about a constituency of bridge players, directors >and club-level administrators, but of a small, insulated, >secretive and parochial body of insiders. Richard Hills: Yes, active posters to blml are small (only 5 who had 100 or more postings in January), insulated (one blmler resides in the ultramontane and ultramundane city of Canberra), secretive (the Belgian NBO has not yet been asked for a formal ruling on the legality of the De Wael School) and parochial (Aussie blmlers believe that the Aussie alert regs are the world's best). 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 Wed Feb 6 00:17:49 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 00:17:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful than MI in the laws In-Reply-To: <47A876CA.1030100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c8684d$53d249c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > .................. I wrote: > > If you were serious you should rather argue that every call made by a > player > > is accompanied by a description of that call, for instance: > > > > "1S, I have 12 to 19 HCP and at least five spades" > > "4C, I have a singleton or void in clubs and force to game in spades" > > "4NT, how many aces (out of 5) do you have?" > > "5D, I have one or four" > > "5S, please pass or correct" > > "6S, I have four so I correct" > > "pass, fine" > > > > Is this (according to your opinion) better for bridge? It eliminates all > > misinformation to opponents and also all UI because such rules make it > legal > > to describe all calls made together with the call. > > > > Sven > > > > Sven, you are right about asking this question. Do you think this is > better for the game than the way it is played now? Then by all means > tell us so, and we'll have a vote. But don't tell me that this > question cannot be asked. > > You have just illustrated one point though. This way is a certain way > of insuring perfect zero MI. Yet you seem not to want to play it this > way? Why? Because deep down you know that perfect zero MI is _not_ the > way bridge is played today, nor is it how bridge should be played. If > you realize that, it is just one small step to realizing that the dws > has got a point, and the argumentation against it ("but it's lying to > opponents!") is flawed. MI is not the worst crime in history. Listen carefully; I shall say this only wunce (free quote from "'ello 'ello") Bridge has always been a game where the players may not use any aid to their memory and where the players in a partnership may not assist each other with extraneous information. However, more important than anything else is that a partnership must not apply any kind of secret agreements, opponents are always entitled to a complete knowledge of everything "known" within the partnership. Bridge is a fair competition between brains and is best left that way. If a player makes a mistake then so be it, he has to live with it and face the consequences. If he from any of his partner's actions becomes aware of his mistake he must still continue as if he never realized this because he is deemed not to having become aware of his mistake in any legal way. If you didn't understand the irony in my sample auction above then fair enough. I once read a tale from when Culbertson had just introduced his new asking bids in his system. A young lady came to a bridge club and asked her ad hoc partner if they used asking bids? Sure they did. So they started to play, and after some time, during one auction, the lady suddenly said: "Do you have the King of Diamonds, partner?" This is not Bridge, and God forbid that it shall ever be. Sven From schoderb at msn.com Wed Feb 6 00:37:38 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:37:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Because that's what's printed on the inside of the box References: <968809.22602.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <9E22E930-7E8A-40E3-92CC-AE9ED2657C3F@starpower.net> Message-ID: Interesting segue, Eric. Now that you find you can't run the ACBL why not take on the WBF, the WBFLC, and the DSC of the WBF? You clearly know about as much about them as you have demonstrated knowledge of the ACBL in so many years. Tell me, do you keep up your membership and masterpoint totals in your clearly detested ACBL or is that too personal a question? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Because that's what's printed on the inside of the box > On Feb 5, 2008, at 1:41 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > > The DSC need justifications for their decisions; the > > members must present them to one another and form a > > common opinion, and presumably, also gain the approval > > of the WBFLC as a whole. > > > > As far as justifying existing laws and law changes to > > the players, why should they? > > To give credence to the notion that the World Bridge Federation > exists for the benefit of the body of competitive bridge players as a > whole rather than just themselves and a few powerful administrators > of member NBOs. > > > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 6 00:59:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:59:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is "no agreement" like a get-out-of-jail-free card? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47A82A07.9070301@skynet.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Some players have the mistaken belief that they need to disclose >>only their explicit agreements. For those players some of their >>"Undiscussed" explanations are MI, since on those occasions they >>should be saying, "We have an implicit agreement that.....". [snip] Herman De Wael: >We really need to define our circumstances here. There are two quite >distinct kinds of "undiscussed": > >1) Partner opens 1Di, and we have agreed to play 5-card majors, but >have not discussed how to deal with the minors. The reply will be: >"5-card majors, minors undiscussed, so presumably more diamonds than >clubs, but not necessarily 4". > >2) Opponents open 1Sp, partner overcalls 2NT. No particular >agreements, but most people play this for the minors (in this >setting) so that is what one should explain. > >In the first case, "undiscussed" is true, and given that everything >else has already been said, this is a complete explanation. >In the second case, while "undiscussed" is basically true, the >explanation should include, "so it's most probably minors". [snip] Richard Hills: We seem to be quibbling over semantics. In the second case my explanation would be, "We have an implicit partnership understanding that it shows both minors". 2007 Law 40A1(a). I am pleased to note that Herman has mellowed from his previous hard-line position of a few years ago ("undiscussed" always false), and is now willing to concede that in the first case "undiscussed" is true. 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 Feb 6 01:40:37 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 00:40:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C References: <6B84EBBB-C5D1-4C50-84D7-CDC37AB84059@starpower.net><2b1e598b0801311056k64b6ea95o408da513ec0c3347@mail.gmail.com><815843EF-361D-4789-9342-CE48DACCBDD3@starpower.net><007201c86534$baafb040$afd5403e@Mildred><6.1.0.6.2.20080202174219.038ebec0@mail.optusnet.com.au><025201c86571$3edb04f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <1BEA0B57-C988-4F24-8210-3CAC9C86FAF8@starpower.net> Message-ID: <0a0901c86858$e44cd370$0100a8c0@stefanie> {SR} >> Also the 1H response normally promises diamonds no >> longer than hearts, information that is not normally incorporated >> into the >> negative double. > {EL} > I suppose it's a legitimate question of interpretation whether the > "information" in L27C1 includes those troublesome "negative > inferences". OK, well, the inference in question does not have to be a negative one. It can be a positive one -- eg hearts is my longer red suit, unless (certain point range where equal or longer diamonds may be bypassed. >But ISTM that if we go down that road, we will discover > that L27C1 will almost never apply. This is probably for the best. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 6 03:09:24 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 02:09:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful thanMI in the laws References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0a4101c86865$4bc3fc20$0100a8c0@stefanie> JF > Below are seven seven cases I have found in the laws where UI is > deemed worse than MI---seven cases where the laws tell us to allow MI > to be created or not removed, for no other reason than to reduce UI. > The recent argument by a few on BLML that our law makers consider UI > harmless when compared to MI is therefore false. > All of the Laws you mention should be obeyed, and I don't imagine that anyone would disagree with this. What on earth is there to dispute about? Stefanie Rohan London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Feb 6 03:13:15 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 02:13:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <008401c8682d$bac5c780$dccf403e@Mildred> References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com><200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com><00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com><5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> <001a01c867db$517044b0$dacb403e@Mildred> <7900B785-9F08-4E62-B794-E38D4F05D527@starpower.net><1JMQHi-2CYyuG0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47A89BF8.9060903@NTLworld.com> <008401c8682d$bac5c780$dccf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47A917BB.7000907@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Incorrect. The WBF does not suggest that it solicits comment and criticism on the draft laws from players . It solicits such comments from the NBOs (in particular the Laws Committees and CTDs of the NBOs) and Zones. What it says of players is that, if they have opinions on what the laws should be, and wish to put them forward, they should canvass their NBOs with their views. The DSC expects NBOs and Zones to put forward whatever ideas and recommendations they wish. [nige1] Thank you, Grattan, for correcting me. Although I am disappointed. I confess that previous postings by WBFLC members left me with the impression that the WBFLC was keen to receive feedback from the rank and file. I fooled myself that it was bad luck that it chose a dysfunctional communication channel. Grattan now makes it clear that this all accords with WBF policy. Before offering germane constructive criticism, a player must *guess* what the WBFLC intend (or hack into the WBFLC security system) :( Then he must bend the sympathetic ear of the local Kojak :) From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 6 03:17:47 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 02:17:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #13 References: <47A468CE.5090306@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <0a6701c86866$772f98a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> I find this format very difficult to read. Can you supply links for the cases? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 12:57 PM Subject: [blml] SF NABC #13 [San Francisco NABC+ Appeal 13] Blue Ribbon Pairs. 1st Final. Board 22. EW vul. East deals West (Shirley Blum)...: S:J3 H:KQ95 D:AT C:AKQ83 East (Steve McConnell): S:AKQ542 H:A74 D:K73 C:9 The auction: -- -- 1S _P 2C _P 3D _P 4N _P 5C _P 5D _P 5H _P 7N AP 5C = Shows three controls. 5H = A break in tempo (BIT) before bid, which denied the SQ. The Facts: The director was called after the hand and after the opponents had left the table. When the E/W pair was questioned about the 5? call, both players agreed that there had been a BIT. There was no agreement by either pair as to the length of the BIT. The Ruling: The director determined that there was UI and that the BIT suggested additional values. If West didn?t care about the SQ, she should have bid 7NT after 5C. Therefore, in accordance with laws 16 and 12C2, the result was adjusted to 6NT by West making seven, E/W plus 1470. The Appeal: E/W were relatively inexperienced as a partnership, having played ?a bit? on the Internet. Their system is two over one. The 3S bid showed 16-17 HCP and did not promise solid or semi-solid spades (They seemed to be unfamiliar with that treatment.). 4NT was Roman Keycard Blackwood in spades and the follow-up was the queen ask. At that point, East did not know how to show the queen and decided that he would bid 5H, uncertain of its meaning, and then bid more later. West thought 5H denied the SQ but bid 7NT anyway thinking that East had to have other good card to make up his compliment of HCP to make his hand good enough to bid 3S. She thought that two side jacks instead of the SQ could make 7NT playable, so she bid it. The committee asked West why she asked for the SQ if she was going to bid 7NT anyway. She said she asked for it so that she wouldn?t have to think about whether to bid 7NT. When her partner denied the SQ, she thought about hand possibilities that would make 7NT playable without bringing in the spade suit. She decided in favor of 7NT. The Decision: When West made her decision to bid 7NT she already had interpreted her partner?s hand to be 16-17 HCP with six spades. Her partner?s BIT may have suggested his lack of certainty about how to deny the SQ more than anything else, which his bidding had already shown. In fact, in terms of HCP, East was at the bottom of his bid, thus not possessing extra strength according to this partnership?s understanding. Since East?s hesitation seems to be the result of random confusion, the committee decided that the BIT did not demonstrably suggest a line of action to West. West was permitted to make her choice of bid unconstrained. Therefore, the committee restored the table result of 7NT by West making seven, E/W plus 2220. The Committee: Michael Huston (Chair), Shannon Cappelletti and Jacob Morgan. [Nige1] It doesn't matter what East was really thinking about before denying SQ with is 5H bid. It matters what the hesitation implies to West. For West the inference is *either* [A] *He holds SQ* but is minimum for his jump rebid and seems to hold a misfit, so is reluctant to encourage partner *or* [B] He lacks SQ but has *substantial extra values*, so is reluctant to sign off. In either case, the unauthorised information makes 7N a better prospect than the lesser scoring logical alternative of a small slam; hence IMO the committee ruled incorrectly. Worse: they encouraged more pairs to adopt "hesitation Blackwood". _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Feb 6 03:23:48 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 02:23:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <767872.30092.qm@web86111.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <767872.30092.qm@web86111.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <47A91A34.6020109@NTLworld.com> [Stefanie Rohan] But as Eric has pointed out, issuing the 2007 Laws in the present form as a result of pressure from the ACBL is something we have to accept, but is, excusing the oxymoron, unacceptable. Perhaps the WBFLC can be disbanded, if there is someone who actually has the power to do this, and the "new" WBFLC can take on, as their first project, the drafting of the 2009 Lawbook. [Nige1] The entire WBFLC are likely to be snapped up immediately by National Security head-hunters :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 6 03:32:32 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:32:32 +1100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Swiss Teams with imps converted to WBF VPs (including difference of 0-10 = 0 imps) Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1S 3H(1) ? (1) Weak jump overcall You, South, hold: 6432 Q Q97 98543 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? 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 Wed Feb 6 03:33:26 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 02:33:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #13 In-Reply-To: <0a6701c86866$772f98a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A468CE.5090306@ntlworld.com> <0a6701c86866$772f98a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47A91C76.6060009@NTLworld.com> [Stephaie Rohan] I find this format very difficult to read. Can you supply links for the cases? [Nige1] My pleasure Stefanie. Adam's index is The PDF version of appeal 13 is FWIW, my view is ... It doesn't matter what East was really thinking about before denying SQ with is 5H bid. It matters what the hesitation implies to West. For West the inference is *either* [A] *He holds SQ* but is minimum for his jump rebid and seems to hold a misfit, so is reluctant to encourage partner *or* [B] He lacks SQ but has *substantial extra values*, so is reluctant to sign off. In either case, the unauthorised information makes 7N a better prospect than the lesser scoring logical alternative of a small slam; hence IMO the committee ruled incorrectly. Worse: they encouraged more pairs to adopt "hesitation Blackwood". From adam at irvine.com Wed Feb 6 03:41:47 2008 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:41:47 -0800 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #13 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 06 Feb 2008 02:17:47 GMT." <0a6701c86866$772f98a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <200802060233.SAA13917@mailhub.irvine.com> > I find this format very difficult to read. Can you supply links for the > cases? There appear to be other problems with this... For example, here's how one of the paragraphs appeared in my news reader: The Facts: The director was called after the hand and after the opponents had left the table. When the E/W pair was questioned about the 5? call, both players agreed that there had been a BIT. There was no agreement by either pair as to the length of the BIT. The E/W pair was questioned about the *what* call? Then, I saw this auction: -- -- 1S _P 2C _P 3D _P 4N _P 5C _P 5D _P 5H _P 7N AP 5C = Shows three controls. 5H = A break in tempo (BIT) before bid, which denied the SQ. It sure looked to me like the break in tempo was possibly because opener wasn't sure what suit had been set as trumps. (She had both SK and DK so this wouldn't have been a problem last round.) But later I saw this: The Appeal: E/W were relatively inexperienced as a partnership, having played "a bit" on the Internet. Their system is two over one. The 3S bid showed 16-17 HCP and did not promise solid or semi-solid spades What 3S bid? I haven't read beyond that. I guess I'll have to go to the online link. -- Adam From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 6 04:26:17 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 03:26:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful thanMI in the laws References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com><001d01c86642$0abc81e0$81d5403e@Mildred> <47A5A923.3090007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0b5101c86870$0939ade0$0100a8c0@stefanie> HDW: > Jerry has done his best in finding a number of examples where the > actions of a player might lead to either UI or MI. In all these seven > cases, the player has options: one option leads to less MI but more > UI, the other to more MI and less UI. There may be other cases, I > would suggest that you try and find them. In these seven cases, the > law tells the player what to do. In all seven cases, the law tells him > to select the option that leads to more MI but less UI. SR: Fine. He should follow these Laws. And so should we all. HDW: > Now, the lawmakers do not need to tell us why they write laws, but > after they have written them, it is allowed for us to guess those > reasons. When in all seven cases, the same option is selected, is it > so unwise of Jerry and myself that there is a pattern there? Any "pattern" you see is an optical illusion. See below. > > Now, we are looking at an eighth case: the dws problem. Jerry, and I, > have inferred from the seven other cases that it might well be good to > do the same thing here. These inferences are not valid. See below. > We even read a number of laws supporting our > idea. Now the WBFLC tells us that we are wrong. We grant the WBFLC the > > right to say so. You say this, but then continue with... > > Now Grattan, if you tell me that the WBFLC have thought this through, > have looked at the inconsistency, admitted that it is there, and > decided to still go ahead with this law change (yes, I believe it is a > change - you are making inacceptable things that I thought were > acceptable), then OK, I will accept that. SR: Have you or have you not been told that you are wrong? Do you or do you not "grant" the WBFLC the right to say that you are? Anyway, I don't think that you understand the purpose of the Laws. The Laws are not a philosophical treatise; they are a practical guide as to how to play a game. So questions of consistency or inconsistency are meaningless, and if there is some "pattern" that can be spotted among some Laws, the rest of the Laws are not required to follow it. There is no document at the front of the Laws setting out a principle that the Laws are an attempt to achieve, with everything that follows an example of how that principle is to be applied. Instead there are specific situations set out, and the Laws tell what to do in each specific situation. If I am playing Monopoly, I collect $200 when I pass GO. But when I land on a space that my opponent owns, I must instead pay money to him. This is not an inconsistency. The situations are different, and the rules of the game dictate what I must do in each. It is tempting, I guess, for people to look at a situation and apply to it what they know from a different situation. This is how we solve problems, and manage to adapt to new environments and experiences. One of the keys to this type of reasoning is recognising how the two situations are different and how they are the same. Perhaps if you look at the Laws you find problematical in this light, you will find certain similarities and differences which will make it easier to understand why X applies in case A, but Y applies in case B. Or perhaps not. But if you feel a great need to find consistency in the underlying principles upon which the individual Laws rest, I suggest that you try. You may find a solution which you can happily live with. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 6 04:39:29 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:39:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0801311056k64b6ea95o408da513ec0c3347@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: [snip] >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. Richard Hills: Apparently means? I do not think Jerry's conclusion follows from his premise since the old Law 27 test was "non-conventional" while the new Law 27 test is "incorporates". It is possible that the law makers believe that a strict requirement of A + B = B under the 2007 Law 27 causes the insufficient bidder's partner to be barred less often than for the strict requirement of non- conventional under the 1997 Law 27. 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 Feb 6 05:34:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:34:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47A91C76.6060009@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >FWIW, my view is ... > >It doesn't matter what East was really thinking about before denying >SQ with is 5H bid. It matters what the hesitation implies to West. Richard Hills: Correct. Nigel Guthrie: >For West the inference is *either* >[A] *He holds SQ* but is minimum for his jump rebid and seems to hold >a misfit, so is reluctant to encourage partner *or* >[B] He lacks SQ but has *substantial extra values*, so is reluctant >to sign off. Richard Hills: A reasonable view to hold, but the Appeals Committee chose another determination of fact - that West inferred East was randomly confused, thus the hesitation did not demonstrably suggest any action. Nigel Guthire: >In either case, the unauthorised information makes 7N a better >prospect than the lesser scoring logical alternative of a small slam; >hence IMO the committee ruled incorrectly. Richard Hills: _If_ the AC's determination of fact was accurate, _then_ the AC ruled correctly. Nigel Guthrie: >Worse: they encouraged more pairs to adopt "hesitation Blackwood". Richard Hills: A TD or AC should strive give an accurate ruling, not skewing a ruling to encourage others. If it hesitates, shoot it? 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 Feb 6 08:05:31 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 01:05:31 -0600 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802052305sc085d2ercf29c5304ffae2b4@mail.gmail.com> Assuming 1S shows 5+, I bid 3S. I don't consider anything else worth considering. Well, I might consider pass for a second before rejecting it with absolute certainty, but I am a slow thinker, so I still say it is not worth considering. Jerry Fusselman From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 6 08:26:39 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:26:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <19E72BB6-46F9-48D4-A215-A3D9A6616BDA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <00b201c86891$a348c120$20cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> >> The Danish NBO is trying for an alternative >> approach for more normal auctions to be >> provisionally allowed, but a backstop of the >> Director being able to change his mind. For >> example, provisionally allowed auctions (with >> possible later adjusted scores) are permitted >> to occur under Law 13A and Law 16C2(c). >> >> >> It seems that Jesper Dybdal and the Danish >> NBO will have to wait for 2018 before they >> can hope for a more flexible Law 27C2. > > The only issue here is the extent to which > TPTB will allow individual RAs to "interpret" > (i.e. redefine) "incorporates". ----------------------------------------------- +=+ The above has been sitting in my file. If we are patient there is now hope that there will be a further pronouncement very soon from the DSC on Law 27C. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Feb 7 03:25:14 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:25:14 -0800 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802052305sc085d2ercf29c5304ffae2b4@mail.gmail.com > References: <2b1e598b0802052305sc085d2ercf29c5304ffae2b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080206182420.0c5c2a40@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 11:05 PM 5/02/2008, you wrote: >Assuming 1S shows 5+, I bid 3S. I don't consider anything else worth >considering. Well, I might consider pass for a second before >rejecting it with absolute certainty, but I am a slow thinker, so I >still say it is not worth considering. > >Jerry Fusselman I think Victorians might pass :) Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 08:35:12 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:35:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 06/02/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Swiss Teams with imps converted to WBF VPs > (including difference of 0-10 = 0 imps) > > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1S 3H(1) ? > > (1) Weak jump overcall > > You, South, hold: > > 6432 > Q > Q97 > 98543 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? I pass, and don't consider other calls for now. If RHO overcalled 2H I'd have bid a preemptive 3S. As it is, 3S shows values I don't hod; thus pass. Btw, I know this case from two other forums. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > 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 schoderb at msn.com Tue Feb 5 22:33:20 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:33:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook References: <1JMPBG-0j0nMO0@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> <47A88952.7090604@skynet.be> Message-ID: Nevertheless 100% accurate. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook Peter Eidt wrote: > > Not to be misunderstood: I'm not advocating the laws to > be too inductive. But, if one leaves too much room for > interpretation, one willl get views as scorer#1 and dWS. > I find this a very personal and very rude insult. > Peter Eidt > Warendorf, Germany > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080205/7a10e826/attachment-0001.htm From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 6 09:07:08 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:07:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C References: <6B84EBBB-C5D1-4C50-84D7-CDC37AB84059@starpower.net><2b1e598b0801311056k64b6ea95o408da513ec0c3347@mail.gmail.com><815843EF-361D-4789-9342-CE48DACCBDD3@starpower.net><007201c86534$baafb040$afd5403e@Mildred><6.1.0.6.2.20080202174219.038ebec0@mail.optusnet.com.au><025201c86571$3edb04f0$0100a8c0@stefanie><1BEA0B57-C988-4F24-8210-3CAC9C86FAF8@starpower.net> <0a0901c86858$e44cd370$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <00fd01c86897$50a685a0$20cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C > {SR} >>> Also the 1H response normally promises diamonds no >>> longer than hearts, information that is not normally incorporated >>> into the >>> negative double. >> > {EL} >> I suppose it's a legitimate question of interpretation whether the >> "information" in L27C1 includes those troublesome "negative >> inferences". > > OK, well, the inference in question does not have to be a negative one. It > can be a positive one -- eg hearts is my longer red suit, unless (certain > point range where equal or longer diamonds may be bypassed. > >>But ISTM that if we go down that road, we will discover >> that L27C1 will almost never apply. > > This is probably for the best. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > +=+ Wait for it! Grattan Endicott Mossley Hill, The World. +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 6 09:09:06 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:09:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0802052305sc085d2ercf29c5304ffae2b4@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080206182420.0c5c2a40@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <010601c86897$8e7d8400$20cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 2:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > At 11:05 PM 5/02/2008, you wrote: >>Assuming 1S shows 5+, I bid 3S. I don't consider anything else worth >>considering. Well, I might consider pass for a second before >>rejecting it with absolute certainty, but I am a slow thinker, so I >>still say it is not worth considering. >> >>Jerry Fusselman > > I think Victorians might pass :) > > Tony (Sydney) > +=+ And Edwardians? +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 6 09:17:00 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:17:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com><200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com><00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com><5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> <001a01c867db$517044b0$dacb403e@Mildred> <7900B785-9F08-4E62-B794-E38D4F05D527@starpower.net><1JMQHi-2CYyuG0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de><47A89BF8.9060903@NTLworld.com><008401c8682d$bac5c780$dccf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <011b01c86898$abdb41d0$20cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook > On Feb 5, 2008, at 2:27 PM, > wrote: > >> From: "Guthrie" >> >> The WBFLC maintains the fiction that it solicits comment >> and criticism from ordinary players indirectly via NBOs. >> How can an NBO do that, when it must keep all relevant >> information hidden from the rude gaze of the ordinary player? >> <> >> +=+ Incorrect. The WBF does not suggest that it solicits >> comment and criticism on the draft laws from players . > > We all know it does not. But it should. > >> It >> solicits such comments from the NBOs (in particular the >> Laws Committees and CTDs of the NBOs) and Zones. >> What it says of players is that, if they have opinions on >> what the laws should be, and wish to put them forward, >> they should canvass their NBOs with their views. >> The DSC expects NBOs and Zones to put forward >> whatever ideas and recommendations they wish. > > As the WBF knows full well, certain NBOs also do not suggest that > they solicit comment and criticism on the draft laws -- or anything > else, for that matter. What they say of players is that, if they > have opinions on what the laws should be, and wish to put them > forward, fuck 'em. It is pure sophistry for the WBF to claim that > they blindly solicit criticism from NBOs and trust them to serve > their respective constituencies fairly and appropriately when they > know very well that they do not. Their well-precedented head-in-the- > sand policy serves only to echo the sentiments, previously noted, of > the most egregiously undemocratic of their member NBOs. > +=+ We are not responsible for any flaws in the democratic processes of NBOs. However, the NBOs - not the players - are the members of the WBF. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jkljkl at gmx.de Wed Feb 6 09:18:55 2008 From: jkljkl at gmx.de (Stefan Filonardi) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:18:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] mocking [was Re: Return to Oz] Message-ID: <47A96D6F.2060607@gmx.de> Hello, richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Swiss Teams with imps converted to WBF VPs > (including difference of 0-10 = 0 imps) to tell the truth I do not understand why the blml is going on so heavy on this matter. I would consider it too the most natural thing to make a complete table of possible results. And it seems that there are others that think so too, since on every team score sheet I have seen the complete scale is given starting with the lowest difference possible 0-10 = 0 IMP Even the WBF seems to be inconsistent about this. On their IMP - VP scale they put the nonsensical, according to blml, 15-15 instead of starting with 16-14. So while I do not care a lot about the matter itself, I cringe sometimes about the tone in this mailing list. Back to the "maybe I will get a nugget" read-only modus, with best regards, stefan filonardi germany From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Feb 7 04:20:54 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 19:20:54 -0800 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080206191627.0c6c8ec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 02:46 PM 5/02/2008, you wrote: >Eric Landau: > >[snip] > > >talking not about a constituency of bridge players, directors > >and club-level administrators, but of a small, insulated, > >secretive and parochial body of insiders. > >Richard Hills: > >Yes, active posters to blml are small (only 5 who had 100 or >more postings in January), insulated (one blmler resides in the >ultramontane and ultramundane city of Canberra), secretive (the >Belgian NBO has not yet been asked for a formal ruling on the >legality of the De Wael School) and parochial (Aussie blmlers >believe that the Aussie alert regs are the world's best). It is sobering to realise that the chatterings that go on here do not impinge on the great and good. I presume the Belgian NBO's have been beseiged by De Wael's 3 volume novel and have passed it on to the WBF for their lucubrations (sorry Grattan its the biggest word I know). *That* NBO's transmission was treated with derision and so Herman is now trying the back door. Is this correct? Cheers Tony (Sydney) From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 6 09:38:38 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:38:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080206191627.0c6c8ec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <014301c8689b$af4c9370$20cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > It is sobering to realise that the chatterings that go on here do not > impinge on the great and good. I presume the Belgian NBO's have > been beseiged by De Wael's 3 volume novel and have passed it > on to the WBF for their lucubrations (sorry Grattan its the biggest > word I know). *That* NBO's transmission was treated with derision > and so Herman is now trying the back door. Is this correct? > > Cheers > > Tony (Sydney) > +=+ It is part of the difference of opinion in the DSC that I wonder at times whether HDW is not 'the Belgian Bridge Federation' whereas others are persuaded he is merely the Belgian BF. +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 6 09:54:52 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:54:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is "no agreement" like a get-out-of-jail-free card? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47A975DC.6070209@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> Some players have the mistaken belief that they need to disclose >>> only their explicit agreements. For those players some of their >>> "Undiscussed" explanations are MI, since on those occasions they >>> should be saying, "We have an implicit agreement that.....". > > [snip] > > Herman De Wael: > >> We really need to define our circumstances here. There are two quite >> distinct kinds of "undiscussed": >> >> 1) Partner opens 1Di, and we have agreed to play 5-card majors, but >> have not discussed how to deal with the minors. The reply will be: >> "5-card majors, minors undiscussed, so presumably more diamonds than >> clubs, but not necessarily 4". >> >> 2) Opponents open 1Sp, partner overcalls 2NT. No particular >> agreements, but most people play this for the minors (in this >> setting) so that is what one should explain. >> >> In the first case, "undiscussed" is true, and given that everything >> else has already been said, this is a complete explanation. >> In the second case, while "undiscussed" is basically true, the >> explanation should include, "so it's most probably minors". > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > We seem to be quibbling over semantics. In the second case my > explanation would be, "We have an implicit partnership understanding > that it shows both minors". 2007 Law 40A1(a). > I don't think we're quibbling at all. We are in perfect agreement! > I am pleased to note that Herman has mellowed from his previous > hard-line position of a few years ago ("undiscussed" always false), > and is now willing to concede that in the first case "undiscussed" > is true. > I haven't mellowed at all. Then, as now, I feel that "undiscussed" in the second case is always false. Then, as now, you failed to understand that I was only talking about the second type of case, not the first. > > Best wishes > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 6 10:11:56 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:11:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful thanMI in the laws In-Reply-To: <0b5101c86870$0939ade0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com><001d01c86642$0abc81e0$81d5403e@Mildred> <47A5A923.3090007@skynet.be> <0b5101c86870$0939ade0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47A979DC.6080903@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > HDW: > >> Jerry has done his best in finding a number of examples where the >> actions of a player might lead to either UI or MI. In all these seven >> cases, the player has options: one option leads to less MI but more >> UI, the other to more MI and less UI. There may be other cases, I >> would suggest that you try and find them. In these seven cases, the >> law tells the player what to do. In all seven cases, the law tells him >> to select the option that leads to more MI but less UI. > > SR: > > Fine. He should follow these Laws. And so should we all. > OK, I'm glad we agree about that. > HDW: > >> Now, the lawmakers do not need to tell us why they write laws, but >> after they have written them, it is allowed for us to guess those >> reasons. When in all seven cases, the same option is selected, is it >> so unwise of Jerry and myself that there is a pattern there? > > Any "pattern" you see is an optical illusion. See below. Seven laws in the same direction - an optical illusion? Sorry, but with arguments like that you can diffuse any seriousn discussion. >> Now, we are looking at an eighth case: the dws problem. Jerry, and I, >> have inferred from the seven other cases that it might well be good to >> do the same thing here. > > These inferences are not valid. See below. > Well, I did not say they were valid, did I? I said we drew this inference. I'd like to see why it should be wrong to believe that in an eighth case it would be good to do the same thing as in seven others? But let's see below. >> We even read a number of laws supporting our >> idea. Now the WBFLC tells us that we are wrong. We grant the WBFLC the > >> right to say so. > > You say this, but then continue with... Yes. >> Now Grattan, if you tell me that the WBFLC have thought this through, >> have looked at the inconsistency, admitted that it is there, and >> decided to still go ahead with this law change (yes, I believe it is a >> change - you are making inacceptable things that I thought were >> acceptable), then OK, I will accept that. > > SR: > > Have you or have you not been told that you are wrong? Do you or do you not > "grant" the WBFLC the right to say that you are? > No, I do not believe I have been told by the WBFLC that I am wrong. I have been told by Grattan and Ton, who, in many far less important cases have always stressed that they speak for themselves, not the WBFLC. Grattan has further told me that the WBFLC are considering issueing a text. That text has not been made official yet. Until then, I reserve the right to try and convince the WBFLC that they might be wrong in issueing the text that is on the table. > Anyway, I don't think that you understand the purpose of the Laws. The Laws > are not a philosophical treatise; they are a practical guide as to how to > play a game. > I perfectly understand that. > So questions of consistency or inconsistency are meaningless, and if there > is some "pattern" that can be spotted among some Laws, the rest of the Laws > are not required to follow it. There is no document at the front of the Laws > setting out a principle that the Laws are an attempt to achieve, with > everything that follows an example of how that principle is to be applied. > Why should questions of consistency be meaningless? If the laws are not yet settled, and we want to settle them, is it not a good thing to be searching for consistency? What you are saying, Stefanie, is that you prefer the laws to be like this, and that you happen to be in the same camp as Grattan, and that for that reason alone, I should shut up. I shall do no such thing. I urge you to look at this not from the point of view of what you believe the current laws to be, but from the point of view of not yet settled laws. I give you a seat on the WBFLC, with full powers to settle this. Now look at it without prior impressions and tell me if you want to go for consistent laws or for inconsistent ones. > Instead there are specific situations set out, and the Laws tell what to do > in each specific situation. If I am playing Monopoly, I collect $200 when I > pass GO. But when I land on a space that my opponent owns, I must instead > pay money to him. This is not an inconsistency. The situations are > different, and the rules of the game dictate what I must do in each. > Exactly, but have you applied that sentence to this situation? "The situations are different, and the rules of the game dictate what I must do in each". So, at one table, West looks at the system card, trying to find out how many aces 5Di promises. At another table, West asks this of North. At one table, the laws dictate that North should not reveal that 4NT was not Blackwood. At the other table, you insist that the laws should dictate North to reveal the mistake. Do you find these two situations so terribly different that they warrant this absolutely different treatment? At both tables, West was interested in only one thing. At both tables, he eventually got that one thing. But at the second table, he got an additional windfall in the form of the knowledge of the misunderstanding, and the inability for South to land on his feet because of the UI. You are right in saying that two different cases in monopoly warrant two different rules. But then see in how much these two cases in our story really differ. An analogy would be that if you land on the go to jail case, you should go to jail unless there is a blue pawn on a blue house somewhere on the board, owned by a person in a blue sweater, in which case you get 2000$. It might make for an interesting game of monopoly, but it would not be very consistent, would it? > It is tempting, I guess, for people to look at a situation and apply to it > what they know from a different situation. This is how we solve problems, > and manage to adapt to new environments and experiences. One of the keys to > this type of reasoning is recognising how the two situations are different > and how they are the same. > Indeed, please recognise how the two situations are different: one west looks at the SC, another asks an innocent question. > Perhaps if you look at the Laws you find problematical in this light, you > will find certain similarities and differences which will make it easier to > understand why X applies in case A, but Y applies in case B. Or perhaps not. > But if you feel a great need to find consistency in the underlying > principles upon which the individual Laws rest, I suggest that you try. You > may find a solution which you can happily live with. > Well, I have been trying, for 10 years, and I haven't found arguments which favour the MS. Maybe it should be for you to point them out to me? And maybe if you can't find them either, that means that I am right in pressing for the laws to support dws? Look at it with an open mind, will you try that, Stefanie? > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 6 10:13:14 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:13:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven pillars of folly In-Reply-To: <880129.69531.qm@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <880129.69531.qm@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <47A97A2A.3030606@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > --- Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> Herman, why do you and your followers persist? The >> dWS >>> is not going to be legal until 2017 at the >> earliest. >> >> I still maintain that it is acceptable. Perhaps if >> the WBFLC decide to >> issue the text they've been discussing I might have >> to change that >> view but until then, I want to insist on them that >> they would be very >> very wrong in changing anything to the status-quo. > > Grattan, please! We are all waiting for this > interpretation that has been dangled in front of us! > Issue it and put an end to all this nonsense. >> Have you already seen my seven arguments why the dws >> is better for the >> game of bridge? No? Then allow me to persist. >> Really, it is better. > > I have not been using my regular computer lately, so I > have not seen these arguments. But if they end up > failing to impress me or anyone else, THEN will you > give it up? > I will, if you look at them with open eyes and not with blinders on. And I will, if you produce some counterarguments. I have never seen any arguments as to why the MS is better. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 6 10:16:24 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:16:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Seven pillars of folly References: <880129.69531.qm@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <47A97A2A.3030606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <008a01c868a0$f24d2fe0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > I will, if you look at them with open eyes and not with blinders on. > And I will, if you produce some counterarguments. I have never seen > any arguments as to why the MS is better. Back to regular computer, but still have not seen. Probably will not bother with counterarguments, though. Stefanie Rohan London, England From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 10:32:35 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 03:32:35 -0600 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful thanMI in the laws In-Reply-To: <47A979DC.6080903@skynet.be> References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com> <001d01c86642$0abc81e0$81d5403e@Mildred> <47A5A923.3090007@skynet.be> <0b5101c86870$0939ade0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47A979DC.6080903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802060132m7961063bmb513a6c1f3412993@mail.gmail.com> Herman: > So, at one table, West looks at the system card, trying to find out > how many aces 5Di promises. At another table, West asks this of North. > At one table, the laws dictate that North should not reveal that 4NT > was not Blackwood. At the other table, you insist that the laws should > dictate North to reveal the mistake. Do you find these two situations > so terribly different that they warrant this absolutely different > treatment? At both tables, West was interested in only one thing. At > both tables, he eventually got that one thing. But at the second > table, he got an additional windfall in the form of the knowledge of > the misunderstanding, and the inability for South to land on his feet > because of the UI. > The part of DWS that worries me the most is this: If we imagine the opponents have a complete and an oh-so-well-indexed full description of my agreements, then they will know just from that that we have a misunderstanding. It would be nice if they have this full description. It seems to me that they deserve this, even though neither DWS nor MS can be sure that it is provided. Why do you assert that are the opponents not entitled to this knowledge? In other words, while the opponents are not entitled to the knowledge that we have a misunderstanding, it seems to me that they are entitled to the same information that I have about our system that would make it clear to anyone (in possession of a perfect description of our agreements) that a misunderstanding is underway. Do you see my problem? Jerry Fusselman From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 6 10:34:16 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:34:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws Message-ID: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> As promised to Stefanie, I will show you the seven arguments as to why I believe the dws would be the better principle to inscribe in law. ONE: consistency Under the MS, a player must not reveal that a mistake has been made, but when he is asked a question about some next bid, he is obliged to reveal that the mistake was made. Under the DWS, the same rule applies throughout: you must not reveal that a mistake has been made, never ever. TWO: bias The change in situation that occurs within the MS does not occur at all tables every time. It only occurs when a question is asked. If the opponent is not, at the moment, interested in the meaning of the reply, or if he knows his opponents' system already, or if he looks on the SC, he will not get to know about the misunderstanding. The MS is beneficial to the "lazy" opponent, and to the opponent who knows about this bias and askes every time. The DWS treats all opponents equally. They all get the MI, none of them gets to hear about the misunderstanding. THREE: completeness The DWS gives the players a set of rules that they can always follow. The MS is incomplete in this regard. What should a player do who is somewhat certain that his partner gave a correct explanation? The MS is silent about that. FOUR: mind reading If the MS would try to issue guidelines as to how certain a player ought to be before he is allowed to give the consistent explanation, the player will always explain that he is that certain. There is no way for a director to know that this is false. If the MS tries to tell that the player should always have corrected unless the misbid is proven, you will get even more players trying to claim misbid. That makes that there is more at stake, and we know that directors tend to disbelieve players who have something to gain from their statements. FIVE: penalising As it stands, L20F5 has not penalties. As I believe that it is in a player's best interest not to reveal a misunderstanding, that is not a bad thing. Breaking L20F5 has its own demerits and does not need extra penalties. The reverse law that the MS wants to write creates benefits when broken. So in order to maintain the force of law, penalties must be introduced. Small procedural penalties might be insufficient to stop the intentional breaking. Large penalties will mean that people who are certain of their misbid will still reveal it in order to escape those penalties. Penalities that restore the previous situation are very difficult to handle. How do you deal with a case in which a player has broken his obligation of giving UI to his partner: impose sanctions that partner may not have taken the suggested action when there was no suggestion and he took the action anyway? SIX: additional UI (with thanks to Jerry) In F2F bridge, one form of UI is inevitable: the "good feeling" that partner has correctly understood. In the DWS, that UI is still present, but only in one direction. Under MS rules, that type of UI exists in both directions. SEVEN: similarity to screens (and on-line) With screens, a player always gets consistent explanations, from one opponent. There is no reason to suspect misunderstandings, and those misunderstandings will not be revealed or taken into account when ruling on the MI. In F2F, with DWS rules, there are no revealed misunderstandings either. But with MS rules, some tables will be entitled to the knowledge of a misunderstanding. I realize that some people on the WBFLC wish to see the misunderstanding becoming an entitlement, but that would make for a complete change in all bridge laws. Maybe a majority can be found for such a change, but it will mean changing the way bridge is played completely. Feel free to tell me which of these "advantages" is actually worse for bridge. But do so with an open mind! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 6 10:37:36 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:37:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful than MI in the laws In-Reply-To: <000b01c8684d$53d249c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000b01c8684d$53d249c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47A97FE0.8050705@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Listen carefully; I shall say this only wunce (free quote from "'ello > 'ello") > > Bridge has always been a game where the players may not use any aid to their > memory and where the players in a partnership may not assist each other with > extraneous information. However, more important than anything else is that a > partnership must not apply any kind of secret agreements, opponents are > always entitled to a complete knowledge of everything "known" within the > partnership. Bridge is a fair competition between brains and is best left > that way. > Exactly Sven, but the manner in which this is realised is not the one you think: Opponents are _entitled_ to the information, and when they don't get it (for whichever reason), they are compensated. Nothing different in my book. What you do wrong is to derive from this absolute entitlement an absolute obligation to give correct information: that is not present in the laws. There are no additional penalties if you accidentally forget your system. Opponents are compensated and that is that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 10:40:33 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 22:40:33 +1300 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802060140x4485f601u5a94203896cb785a@mail.gmail.com> On 06/02/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Swiss Teams with imps converted to WBF VPs > (including difference of 0-10 = 0 imps) > > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1S 3H(1) ? > > (1) Weak jump overcall > > You, South, hold: > > 6432 > Q > Q97 > 98543 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > Pass is standout. 3S is an overbid. I heard about a player who bid 4S over 4H. This is all too rich for me. Wayne From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 6 10:42:31 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:42:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful than MI in the laws In-Reply-To: <293602.79883.qm@web86113.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <293602.79883.qm@web86113.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <47A98107.5000301@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > --- Herman De Wael wrote: >> The other other point has been made also. >> UI is certainly harmful to the NOS. Only after the >> ruling is it >> harmless to the NOS. And so is MI. >> That argument is so totally wrong as to defy >> imagination. > > OK, this is fine then. UI and MI both cause damage at > first, and the NOS are protected against the damage by > a ruling. So why make a big deal about which is > "worse", and accept what the lawmakers have said about > creating/avoiding different damaging forms of > information? Accept if you must that there are > arguments for two or more different kinds of practice, > and believe that the lawmakers have chosen one > arbitrarily simply because one had to be chosen. Yes Stefanie, but you then please do the same: accept that the alternative is also valid! You are telling me that I should accept MS - but I already do - I am trying to have you see that DWS is also acceptable. You are continuing to argue that the MS is "better" because it is the one that has been chosen. I merely say that it is not yet "chosen" and that until that time, everyone should have an open mind and decide which is best. >> And also: we are not talking about harm to the >> players, but harm to >> the game! > > As has been mentioned many times before, harm to the > game consists of playing in in some manner apart rom > according to its rules. > Again Stefanie, your argument is based on what the laws are today (or what you believe them to be) I am talking about what the laws ought to be. If DWS becomes the rule, then DWS is "playing according to its rules". > Loads of people have their own ideas about variations > which would produce a game superior to bridge, and no > one is stopping them from promulgating such a game, > even producing a national organisation and running > tournaments. This would give players the chance to > vote with their feet, and it the new game wins players > while the poularity of bridge wanes, then so be it. > > I think that what peole must realise is that even > though their pet variant is not part of the Laws of > Bridge, the Laws as they exist are the same for > everyone, and so create a level playing field. > > Thus there is no real cause for complaint if one > disagrees with part of the Laws. One may feel that the > Laws disadvantage him in some way, but must remember > that the entire field suffers the same disadvantage. > So there is no real problem. > No, indeed not. But I AM talking about "changing" the rules. So that argument does not apply to me, does it? > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 6 10:51:08 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:51:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven pillars of folly In-Reply-To: <008a01c868a0$f24d2fe0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <880129.69531.qm@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <47A97A2A.3030606@skynet.be> <008a01c868a0$f24d2fe0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47A9830C.5010105@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> I will, if you look at them with open eyes and not with blinders on. >> And I will, if you produce some counterarguments. I have never seen >> any arguments as to why the MS is better. > > Back to regular computer, but still have not seen. Probably will not bother > with counterarguments, though. > Quite a revealing answer: "Herman is mad", but I won't bother giving counterarguments. Yes of course, why should anyone listen. It's only the future of bridge that is at stake. Stick you heads in the sand, all of you. No need to read anything from Herman. How can anything good come out of Belgium? > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 10:57:34 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 03:57:34 -0600 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560802060140x4485f601u5a94203896cb785a@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560802060140x4485f601u5a94203896cb785a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802060157y26942c69j4f77fe0bdd358487@mail.gmail.com> Those of you who like to pass here, how many spades are you assuming the opener shows? Are you assuming 5+? From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 6 11:26:15 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:26:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful thanMI in the laws References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com><001d01c86642$0abc81e0$81d5403e@Mildred> <47A5A923.3090007@skynet.be><0b5101c86870$0939ade0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47A979DC.6080903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00b701c868aa$b4740310$0100a8c0@stefanie> HDW: > Well, I did not say they were valid, did I? I said we drew this > inference. I'd like to see why it should be wrong to believe that in > an eighth case it would be good to do the same thing as in seven > others? You may like the idea aesthetically, but there is no reason that it must be so. Besides, many, including me, will disagree that the seven cases have obvious parallels with the eighth. > Why should questions of consistency be meaningless? If the laws are > not yet settled, and we want to settle them, is it not a good thing to > be searching for consistency? Well, no. The Laws actually are settled, but even if they were not, there is no reason why one requirement should be given some superficial concistency with another requirement that applies in a different situation. > I give you a seat on the WBFLC, with full powers to > settle this. Now look at it without prior impressions and tell me if > you want to go for consistent laws or for inconsistent ones. I want Laws that are appropriate to the situation to which they apply. I do not want to obey some dictate of "consistency" that forces me to make one Law the same as another one, even though the situations are different and should be dealt with differently. > > So, at one table, West looks at the system card, trying to find out > how many aces 5Di promises. At another table, West asks this of North. > At one table, the laws dictate that North should not reveal that 4NT > was not Blackwood. At the other table, you insist that the laws should > dictate North to reveal the mistake. Do you find these two situations > so terribly different that they warrant this absolutely different > treatment? At both tables, West was interested in only one thing. At > both tables, he eventually got that one thing. But at the second > table, he got an additional windfall in the form of the knowledge of > the misunderstanding, and the inability for South to land on his feet > because of the UI. Even if it were possible to make the dWS legal, the fact that its purpose is protect the OS means that it goes against the spirit of the game. Last night there were two revokes at the local club. I received a windfall, because the two-trick penalty let me make a very silly contract. At the other table there was also a two-trick revoke. However, the revoke affected declarer's line of play, and restoring equity would result in awarding the declarer two tricks. So I gained from the infraction, and the other NOS did not. That's the way it goes sometimes. > > An analogy would be that if you land on the go to jail case, you > should go to jail unless there is a blue pawn on a blue house > somewhere on the board, owned by a person in a blue sweater, in which > case you get 2000$. > It might make for an interesting game of monopoly, > but it would not be very consistent, would it? Of course it is consistent, as long as every game of Monopoly had blue pawns, blue houses and a player with a blue sweater. The only real consistency that is needed is that the same Laws are applied to everyone playing the game. > > > Indeed, please recognise how the two situations are different: one > west looks at the SC, another asks an innocent question. Yes, well that is the difference. > Well, I have been trying, for 10 years, and I haven't found arguments > which favour the MS. Maybe it should be for you to point them out to > me? Unfortunately it isn't, because I will no longer take part in discussions about the dWS per se. Everything I have wanted to say about the subject has been said already, either by me or by someone who expresses themselves better than me. And I am certain I wrote the same things ten years ago! > And maybe if you can't find them either, that means that I am > right in pressing for the laws to support dws? The arguments are in numerous current or recent threads. You don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean they haven't been set out. Over and over and over. > > Look at it with an open mind, will you try that, Stefanie? I have always done this. Your posts and those of your acolytes have been interesting to me, because I have not thought much about the issue since those discussions all those years ago. It is good to have had the opportunity to think about your arguments and re-examine my own position, to make sure that it is what I truly believe to be right, and not something I maintain because of habit. I'm afraid that the effect has made me firmer and more confidenrt about my point of view. Stefanie Rohan London, England From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 6 11:53:26 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 11:53:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmfulthanMI in the laws In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802060132m7961063bmb513a6c1f3412993@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000501c868ae$80a84a10$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman ............... > The part of DWS that worries me the most is this: If we imagine the > opponents have a complete and an oh-so-well-indexed full description > of my agreements, then they will know just from that that we have a > misunderstanding. It would be nice if they have this full > description. It seems to me that they deserve this, even though > neither DWS nor MS can be sure that it is provided. Why do you assert > that are the opponents not entitled to this knowledge? > > In other words, while the opponents are not entitled to the knowledge > that we have a misunderstanding, it seems to me that they are entitled > to the same information that I have about our system that would make > it clear to anyone (in possession of a perfect description of our > agreements) that a misunderstanding is underway. > > Do you see my problem? You have no cause for any problem; your position is well taken and perfectly correct. Whether your opponents are entitled to the explicit knowledge that you have a misunderstanding can be questioned. But the fact is that they are at any time entitled to "correct" information from both you and your partner (reflecting the understanding each of you has of your agreements) even when such information from the two of you is conflicting. Consequently they are entitled to the implied knowledge (inference) that you have a misunderstanding. Whether the information is conveyed to your opponents verbally or by means of "a complete and an oh-so-well-indexed full description of your agreements" (as each of you currently understands them) is in this connection immaterial. Regards Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 6 12:49:52 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:49:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful thanMI in the laws In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802060132m7961063bmb513a6c1f3412993@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com> <001d01c86642$0abc81e0$81d5403e@Mildred> <47A5A923.3090007@skynet.be> <0b5101c86870$0939ade0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47A979DC.6080903@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0802060132m7961063bmb513a6c1f3412993@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47A99EE0.5010906@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Herman: > >> So, at one table, West looks at the system card, trying to find out >> how many aces 5Di promises. At another table, West asks this of North. >> At one table, the laws dictate that North should not reveal that 4NT >> was not Blackwood. At the other table, you insist that the laws should >> dictate North to reveal the mistake. Do you find these two situations >> so terribly different that they warrant this absolutely different >> treatment? At both tables, West was interested in only one thing. At >> both tables, he eventually got that one thing. But at the second >> table, he got an additional windfall in the form of the knowledge of >> the misunderstanding, and the inability for South to land on his feet >> because of the UI. >> > > The part of DWS that worries me the most is this: If we imagine the > opponents have a complete and an oh-so-well-indexed full description > of my agreements, then they will know just from that that we have a > misunderstanding. It would be nice if they have this full > description. It seems to me that they deserve this, even though > neither DWS nor MS can be sure that it is provided. Why do you assert > that are the opponents not entitled to this knowledge? > > In other words, while the opponents are not entitled to the knowledge > that we have a misunderstanding, it seems to me that they are entitled > to the same information that I have about our system that would make > it clear to anyone (in possession of a perfect description of our > agreements) that a misunderstanding is underway. > > Do you see my problem? > I think I do, Jerry, and let me try to explain. The opponents are entitled to a complete explanation of our system. That is clear. What is also clear is that the laws recognize that they will not always get this, and so the laws provide for redress if it that is the case. The manner in which the opponents get the explanation can vary - they can read the SC, or they can ask. _but not both_. They must get one explanation, and if it is wrong, they will be compensated for that. But they are not entitled to two explanations, and the additional knowledge that there is a misunderstanding. > Jerry Fusselman > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 13:05:31 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:05:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802060157y26942c69j4f77fe0bdd358487@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560802060140x4485f601u5a94203896cb785a@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0802060157y26942c69j4f77fe0bdd358487@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 06/02/2008, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Those of you who like to pass here, how many spades are you assuming > the opener shows? Are you assuming 5+? > I'm assuming 5, which is what it also showed at the table. The problem with bidding 3S over 3H is that the bid shows values. If you can make 9 tricks partner will probably raise to 4S, and if you can make 10 tricks partner will often move past game level. It is possible to have a wide ranging 3S bid of course. But then your partner will have more of a guess. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 6 13:18:46 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:18:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful thanMI in the laws In-Reply-To: <00b701c868aa$b4740310$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com><001d01c86642$0abc81e0$81d5403e@Mildred> <47A5A923.3090007@skynet.be><0b5101c86870$0939ade0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47A979DC.6080903@skynet.be> <00b701c868aa$b4740310$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47A9A5A6.80604@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > HDW: > >> Well, I did not say they were valid, did I? I said we drew this >> inference. I'd like to see why it should be wrong to believe that in >> an eighth case it would be good to do the same thing as in seven >> others? > > You may like the idea aesthetically, but there is no reason that it must be > so. Besides, many, including me, will disagree that the seven cases have > obvious parallels with the eighth. > That is just because you don't want to admit that you may be wrong in choosing the MS over the DWS. How can you deny that there are parallels? When his partner misexplains, a player has to decide between giving away UI and knowledge about the misunderstanging, or keeping the MI intact. When next the opponent asks him a follow-up question, the player again has to decide between revealing the misunderstanding and giving away UI, or keep the original MI intact. If this is not a parallel, I don't know what is. If this is not an obvious parallel to you, then maybe you need to look a bit closer. You may disagree that the parallel means the eighth case must be treated the same way as the seven others, but to disagree that the eighth case is a parallel to the others is plain silly. >> Why should questions of consistency be meaningless? If the laws are >> not yet settled, and we want to settle them, is it not a good thing to >> be searching for consistency? > > Well, no. The Laws actually are settled, but even if they were not, there is > no reason why one requirement should be given some superficial concistency > with another requirement that applies in a different situation. > No, the laws are not settled. The WBFLC can change them whenever they please. Saying that they are settled and must remain so for another ten years is a fright reaction. Ooh, Herman might be right, let's just bury this in cement so that we won't have to give in. >> I give you a seat on the WBFLC, with full powers to >> settle this. Now look at it without prior impressions and tell me if >> you want to go for consistent laws or for inconsistent ones. > > I want Laws that are appropriate to the situation to which they apply. I do > not want to obey some dictate of "consistency" that forces me to make one > Law the same as another one, even though the situations are different and > should be dealt with differently. You don't need to obey anything, you have free choice. Do you prefer consistent laws or not? If you do, you are still free to select other ones, if they give another advantage. What advantage do the inconsistent MS laws have over the consistent DWS ones? >> So, at one table, West looks at the system card, trying to find out >> how many aces 5Di promises. At another table, West asks this of North. >> At one table, the laws dictate that North should not reveal that 4NT >> was not Blackwood. At the other table, you insist that the laws should >> dictate North to reveal the mistake. Do you find these two situations >> so terribly different that they warrant this absolutely different >> treatment? At both tables, West was interested in only one thing. At >> both tables, he eventually got that one thing. But at the second >> table, he got an additional windfall in the form of the knowledge of >> the misunderstanding, and the inability for South to land on his feet >> because of the UI. > > Even if it were possible to make the dWS legal, the fact that its purpose is > protect the OS means that it goes against the spirit of the game. > But of course it is possible to make the dws legal. If you believe that this is impossible, then you are burying your head in the sand, and the laws in cement. And which OS are protected? In what is the DWS adept who answers the question any better off than the MS whose opponent looks at the SC rather than ask a question? And why should actions that benefit OS (while maintaining equity for NOS) be against the spirit of the game? It's the game itself we're defining, so how can any laws that we define go against the spirit? > Last night there were two revokes at the local club. I received a windfall, > because the two-trick penalty let me make a very silly contract. At the > other table there was also a two-trick revoke. However, the revoke affected > declarer's line of play, and restoring equity would result in awarding the > declarer two tricks. > > So I gained from the infraction, and the other NOS did not. That's the way > it goes sometimes. > And your point is? Sorry, but I don't see any. >> An analogy would be that if you land on the go to jail case, you >> should go to jail unless there is a blue pawn on a blue house >> somewhere on the board, owned by a person in a blue sweater, in which >> case you get 2000$. >> It might make for an interesting game of monopoly, >> but it would not be very consistent, would it? > > Of course it is consistent, as long as every game of Monopoly had blue > pawns, blue houses and a player with a blue sweater. The only real > consistency that is needed is that the same Laws are applied to everyone > playing the game. Of course, but when you have to choose between one sort of game and another, isn't internal consistency one of the paramaters that allows you to decide? >> >> Indeed, please recognise how the two situations are different: one >> west looks at the SC, another asks an innocent question. > > Yes, well that is the difference. > But why is that difference important? Both are trying to find out how many aces are shown - which is their right, after all. >> Well, I have been trying, for 10 years, and I haven't found arguments >> which favour the MS. Maybe it should be for you to point them out to >> me? > > Unfortunately it isn't, because I will no longer take part in discussions > about the dWS per se. Everything I have wanted to say about the subject has > been said already, either by me or by someone who expresses themselves > better than me. And I am certain I wrote the same things ten years ago! > So you see? You keep saying that I am wrong, but when I ask you to prove you are right, you step out of the discussion. I give seven advantages for the dws, but you dismiss them off-hand, without disproving any of them, and without giving any advantages for the MS. And you think you are doing what you must? >> And maybe if you can't find them either, that means that I am >> right in pressing for the laws to support dws? > > The arguments are in numerous current or recent threads. You don't agree > with them, but that doesn't mean they haven't been set out. Over and over > and over. No, I not only not agree with them, I point out very clearly why they are invalid advantages. "because that's what the current laws say" is not a valid argument in the discussion of what we want to future laws to say. >> Look at it with an open mind, will you try that, Stefanie? > > I have always done this. Your posts and those of your acolytes have been > interesting to me, because I have not thought much about the issue since > those discussions all those years ago. It is good to have had the > opportunity to think about your arguments and re-examine my own position, to > make sure that it is what I truly believe to be right, and not something I > maintain because of habit. > > I'm afraid that the effect has made me firmer and more confidenrt about my > point of view. > That's very well. Now try and express those views in words other than "it's like this because it's always been like this". Which it hasn't, BTW, but that's another matter entirely. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john at asimere.com Wed Feb 6 14:49:51 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:49:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002c01c868c7$25bad140$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harald Skj?ran" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 7:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On 06/02/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au > wrote: >> >> Swiss Teams with imps converted to WBF VPs >> (including difference of 0-10 = 0 imps) >> >> Dlr: North >> Vul: East-West >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 1S 3H(1) ? >> >> (1) Weak jump overcall >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> 6432 >> Q >> Q97 >> 98543 >> >> What call do you make? 3S. "support with support" partner knows I may have to stretch or that I'm playing a stupid system. John >> What other calls do you consider making? STOP 3S, if a jump shows pre-emption. > > I pass, and don't consider other calls for now. > If RHO overcalled 2H I'd have bid a preemptive 3S. As it is, 3S shows > values I don't hod; thus pass. > > Btw, I know this case from two other forums. > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran >> >> >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Feb 6 14:59:57 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:59:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <014301c8689b$af4c9370$20cd403e@Mildred> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080206191627.0c6c8ec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> <014301c8689b$af4c9370$20cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47A9BD5D.9090908@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ It is part of the difference of opinion in the DSC that I wonder at times whether HDW is not 'the Belgian Bridge Federation' whereas others are persuaded he is merely the Belgian BF. +=+ [Nige1] This kind of humour tells us less about Herman than it reveals about the DSC. Like Stefan Filonardi, "I cringe sometimes about the tone in this mailing list." :( From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 6 15:06:03 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:06:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Because that's what's printed on the inside of the box In-Reply-To: References: <968809.22602.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <9E22E930-7E8A-40E3-92CC-AE9ED2657C3F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <874415BB-2657-40A3-8B95-5EA66190DFDF@starpower.net> On Feb 5, 2008, at 6:37 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > Interesting segue, Eric. Now that you find you can't run the ACBL > why not > take on the WBF, the WBFLC, and the DSC of the WBF? I don't run the ACBL; I leave that to my wife, a unit past president who currently sits on our district board and the ACBL Board of Governors. But even with those credentials, she has minimal visibility into the decisions of the Board of Directors, and none at all into the workings of the ACBLLC. > You clearly know about > as much about them as you have > demonstrated knowledge of the ACBL in so many years. Tell me, do > you keep up > your membership and masterpoint totals in your clearly detested > ACBL or is > that too personal a > question? That is a bit personal, but the answer is that I dropped out some time ago (foolishly relying on the ACBL's empty promise of Life Member status -- I still have my now-worthless Life Member card) then re-upped when my wife became involved in administration at the national level. > From: "Eric Landau" > >> On Feb 5, 2008, at 1:41 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> >>> The DSC need justifications for their decisions; the >>> members must present them to one another and form a >>> common opinion, and presumably, also gain the approval >>> of the WBFLC as a whole. >>> >>> As far as justifying existing laws and law changes to >>> the players, why should they? >> >> To give credence to the notion that the World Bridge Federation >> exists for the benefit of the body of competitive bridge players as a >> whole rather than just themselves and a few powerful administrators >> of member NBOs. My personal feelings have little to do with the point I was making. One cannot deny that, right or wrong, that notion is out there. With all due respect, Kojak has been a respected and influential insider for so long that he may fail to appreciate what the process looks like from the outside. To reply with personal invective to the mere suggestion that the WBF might improve its image if it were willing to publicly avow the reasoning behind some of its less transparent decisions seems a bit over-sensitive, perhaps even illustrative of a general attitude that outsiders just don't count. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 6 15:15:50 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:15:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook In-Reply-To: <47A917BB.7000907@NTLworld.com> References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com><200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com><00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com><5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> <001a01c867db$517044b0$dacb403e@Mildred> <7900B785-9F08-4E62-B794-E38D4F05D527@starpower.net><1JMQHi-2CYyuG0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47A89BF8.9060903@NTLworld.com> <008401c8682d$bac5c780$dccf403e@Mildred> <47A917BB.7000907@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Feb 5, 2008, at 9:13 PM, Guthrie wrote: > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ Incorrect. The WBF does not suggest that it solicits comment and > criticism on the draft laws from players . It solicits such comments > from the NBOs (in particular the Laws Committees and CTDs of the NBOs) > and Zones. What it says of players is that, if they have opinions on > what the laws should be, and wish to put them forward, they should > canvass their NBOs with their views. The DSC expects NBOs and Zones to > put forward whatever ideas and recommendations they wish. > > [nige1] > Thank you, Grattan, for correcting me. Although I am disappointed. > > I confess that previous postings by WBFLC members left me with the > impression that the WBFLC was keen to receive feedback from the > rank and > file. I fooled myself that it was bad luck that it chose a > dysfunctional > communication channel. Grattan now makes it clear that this all > accords > with WBF policy. > > Before offering germane constructive criticism, a player must *guess* > what the WBFLC intend (or hack into the WBFLC security system) :( > > Then he must bend the sympathetic ear of the local Kojak :) We know that the majority of TPTB at the WBF believe BLML not to be worth the electrons it's written on. We know that the official "right" way to communicate with the WBF is through one's NBO. But the fact is that if there is enough clamor on BLML, it does somehow reach the ears of the WBF, which cannot be said for doing it the "right" way, at least not in North America. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 6 15:32:17 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:32:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] mocking [was Re: Return to Oz] In-Reply-To: <47A96D6F.2060607@gmx.de> References: <47A96D6F.2060607@gmx.de> Message-ID: <9338B5BD-116F-4DAE-8323-DE7D80B877B3@starpower.net> On Feb 6, 2008, at 3:18 AM, Stefan Filonardi wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: >> Swiss Teams with imps converted to WBF VPs >> (including difference of 0-10 = 0 imps) > > to tell the truth I do not understand why the blml is going > on so heavy on this matter. Because it has become a surrogate for the debate over whether the WBFLC's draft review process is currently adequate, or whether a more open process would have produced a better lawbook by raising such questions before it was too late to change the text. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Feb 6 15:43:27 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:43:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080206182420.0c5c2a40@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <2b1e598b0802052305sc085d2ercf29c5304ffae2b4@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080206182420.0c5c2a40@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <47A9C78F.7070707@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Swiss Teams with imps converted to WBF VPs (including difference of 0-10 = 0 imps) Dlr: North Vul: East-West. You, South, hold: S:6432 H:Q D:Q97 C:98543 ---- 1S (3H) ?? - 3H = Weak jump overcall [Nige1] IMO 3S=10 4S=9 P=8 I haven't seen this problem before and for me the decision is close ... 3S is a co-operative bid: At teams you should strive to bid game; hence 3S is not really constructive; but it is descriptive; thus it should help partner with his decision over a probable 4H raise by LHO. At this favourable vulnerability, there is a strong argument for fast arrival in a brave or ?foolhardy? 4S. This may even be a reasonable advance sacrifice. Anyway, it leaves the "last guess" to opponents. Pass is worth consideration, because you have no defence and do not want to prod LHO into game. This clings to the hope that LHO won't raise, anyway. The problem is that if LHO does pass 3H, partner is unlikely to protect, even with a strong hand, because he is likely to have some hearts. Hence your side may miss game. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 6 16:34:45 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:34:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080206182420.0c5c2a40@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <2b1e598b0802052305sc085d2ercf29c5304ffae2b4@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080206182420.0c5c2a40@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <47A9D395.7030405@ulb.ac.be> Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > At 11:05 PM 5/02/2008, you wrote: > >> Assuming 1S shows 5+, I bid 3S. I don't consider anything else worth >> considering. Well, I might consider pass for a second before >> rejecting it with absolute certainty, but I am a slow thinker, so I >> still say it is not worth considering. >> >> Jerry Fusselman >> > > I think Victorians might pass :) > Pass is indded a LA. It is quite unlikely that 4S makes, so letting sleeping dogs lie might be right. 4S isn't a LA IMOBO. Best regards Alain From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 6 17:01:36 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:01:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmfulthanMI in the laws References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com><001d01c86642$0abc81e0$81d5403e@Mildred> <47A5A923.3090007@skynet.be><0b5101c86870$0939ade0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47A979DC.6080903@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0802060132m7961063bmb513a6c1f3412993@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001d01c868d9$8d240880$0100a8c0@stefanie> JF: > The part of DWS that worries me the most is this: If we imagine the > opponents have a complete and an oh-so-well-indexed full description > of my agreements, then they will know just from that that we have a > misunderstanding. It would be nice if they have this full > description. It seems to me that they deserve this, They do. > even though > neither DWS nor MS can be sure that it is provided. Why do you assert > that are the opponents not entitled to this knowledge? This is a mystery. Herman has never, to my knowledge, provided a basis in Law for this assertion. > > In other words, while the opponents are not entitled to the knowledge > that we have a misunderstanding, According to what Law? > it seems to me that they are entitled > to the same information that I have about our system that would make > it clear to anyone (in possession of a perfect description of our > agreements) that a misunderstanding is underway. > > Do you see my problem? Of course. Perhaps it means you need to rethink your support for the dWS. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Feb 6 17:30:25 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:30:25 +0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47A9D395.7030405@ulb.ac.be> References: <2b1e598b0802052305sc085d2ercf29c5304ffae2b4@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080206182420.0c5c2a40@mail.optusnet.com.au> <47A9D395.7030405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47A9E0A1.3010303@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] Pass is indded a LA. It is quite unlikely that 4S makes, so letting sleeping dogs lie might be right. 4S isn't a LA IMOBO. [Nigel Guthrie] In their seminal "Bridge: TNT and Competitive Bidding" (1981), Joe Amsbury and Dick Payne explain how Jean Rene Verne's law of total tricks can guide such decisions. they are vulnerable. We are not. Here you have a 9+ card fit and opponents are likely to have the same kind of fit, so *TNT* is 18+. Hence, roughly speaking ... - If they can make 3H, you can make 3S. - If they go down in 3H, you can make at least game in spades. - If they can make 4H or 5H (-650 or -620) then 4S (-300 or -500) is a reasonable sacrifice. Hence, in the long run, IMO, bidding 3S or 4S will score better than pass. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 6 17:56:44 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:56:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47A9E0A1.3010303@NTLworld.com> References: <2b1e598b0802052305sc085d2ercf29c5304ffae2b4@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080206182420.0c5c2a40@mail.optusnet.com.au> <47A9D395.7030405@ulb.ac.be> <47A9E0A1.3010303@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47A9E6CC.9040800@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Alain Gottcheiner] > Pass is indded a LA. It is quite unlikely that 4S makes, so letting > sleeping dogs lie might be right. 4S isn't a LA IMOBO. > [Nigel Guthrie] > In their seminal "Bridge: TNT and Competitive Bidding" (1981), Joe > Amsbury and Dick Payne explain how Jean Rene Verne's law of total > tricks can guide such decisions. > they are vulnerable. We are not. Here you have a 9+ card fit and > opponents are likely to have the same kind of fit, so *TNT* is 18+. > Hence, roughly speaking ... > - If they can make 3H, you can make 3S. > - If they go down in 3H, you can make at least game in spades. > - If they can make 4H or 5H (-650 or -620) then 4S (-300 or -500) is a > reasonable sacrifice. > > Hence, in the long run, IMO, bidding 3S or 4S will score better than pass. > > This is 100% right, against opponents who always make the right decision. I love to use TNT. But I think it is quite possible they score 170, and in that case -300 or -500 will be worse. Perhap they don't know about the high TNT, unless you tell them. You can always decide to bid 4S over 4H. Also, short honors in their suit tend to lower trick totals. For those reasons and some others, passing is a LA. Best regards Alain From adam at irvine.com Wed Feb 6 17:57:09 2008 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:57:09 -0800 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #13 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:41:47 PST." <200802060233.SAA13917@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200802061648.IAA27112@mailhub.irvine.com> OK, I think I've figured out what really happened now. Here are my thoughts: Every now and then, the question comes up about whether L16 applies when an "illogical" call is suggested. Law 16 makes it illegal to "choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested yada yada yada", which has led some to think that if one chooses an illogical bid, even if the UI suggests that the illogical bid might work out, it's still legal because Law 16 doesn't cover it. In fact, there's someone on rec.games.bridge trying to make this argument right now. My view has always been that the phrase "choose from among logical alternatives" in Law 16 and elsewhere was defectively worded, and that it should apply just as much to an "illogical" call if there are logical alternatives. Unfortunately, they didn't change this in the 2007 Laws. (Others solve the problem by proposing that if a call is suggested by UI, it can't be "illogical" even if it seems illogical to someone looking only at the auction.) After looking at this case, I'm willing to go even further and suggest that if there's UI and the recipient of UI makes an illogical call, we should *presume* that the call was suggested by the UI---otherwise why would the player do something so illogical? Looking at the case in question: West had J3 KQ95 AT AKQ83, and found that her partner had six spades to the AK, missing the queen, the heart ace, and 16-17 HCP. Bidding 7NT seems foolish; if you can't run spades, where are your 13 tricks? Oh, you can *hope* partner's high cards are the AK of spades, the AJ of hearts, the diamond king, and the jack of clubs, but isn't that too much of a miracle to ask for? All right, maybe partner has three clubs instead of the jack and they will break nicely. Although I can see why someone might bid 7NT if needing a swing or a top, to me bidding 7NT after asking for the SQ and getting a "no" answer is quite abnormal. Because of that, I think it's most likely that West somehow suspected, from the UI, that East had the queen anyway. The committee here decided that it wasn't clear what the hesitation suggested, so they refused to adjust. My feeling is that the committee shouldn't have had to figure out what the hesitation suggested; the call chosen by the hesitator's partner was abnormal enough (assuming no extraneous information) that the committee should have just presumed it was based on UI, and upheld the director's decision. Even if they can't quite fit this into Law 16, they could rule that West violated Law 73C. Or at least that's my feeling after looking at this hand. Is this too close to "if it hesitates, shoot it"? Please keep in mind that I'm not talking about a UI recipient making a borderline decision that happens to work out; I'm talking about cases where a UI recipient makes a decision that appears way against the odds, as appears to be the case here. -- Adam From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 6 17:56:28 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:56:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com><200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com><00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com><5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> <001a01c867db$517044b0$dacb403e@Mildred> <7900B785-9F08-4E62-B794-E38D4F05D527@starpower.net><1JMQHi-2CYyuG0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47A89BF8.9060903@NTLworld.com><008401c8682d$bac5c780$dccf403e@Mildred><47A917BB.7000907@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <004e01c868e1$3c1c0a20$e6d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:15 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Mobile lawbook >>> > We know that the majority of TPTB at the WBF believe > BLML not to be worth the electrons it's written on. We > know that the official "right" way to communicate with > the WBF is through one's NBO. But the fact is that if > there is enough clamor on BLML, it does somehow > reach the ears of the WBF, which cannot be said for > doing it the "right" way, at least not in North America. > +=+ The eyes have it +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 6 18:14:01 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 17:14:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Because that's what's printed on the inside of the box References: <968809.22602.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com><9E22E930-7E8A-40E3-92CC-AE9ED2657C3F@starpower.net> <874415BB-2657-40A3-8B95-5EA66190DFDF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <007801c868e3$b1f69010$e6d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Because that's what's printed on the inside of the box > > With all due respect, Kojak has been a respected and influential > insider for so long that he may fail to appreciate what the process > looks like from the outside. To reply with personal invective to the > mere suggestion that the WBF might improve its image if it were > willing to publicly avow the reasoning behind some of its less > transparent decisions seems a bit over-sensitive, perhaps even > illustrative of a general attitude that outsiders just don't count. > +=+Like myself, Kojak is under the procedural constraints that the Constitution and By-Laws of the WBF place upon us. We do see things differently in one way at least. He disagrees with me in the most extreme terms if in expressing a personal view of a subject I let it be seen that it is based upon what the TPTB agree but will not pronounce publicly. But yes, we are both aware of 'what the process looks like' from blml. We might not equate blml with the whole of 'the outside'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 6 18:29:58 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:29:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmful thanMI in the laws In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802060132m7961063bmb513a6c1f3412993@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com> <001d01c86642$0abc81e0$81d5403e@Mildred> <47A5A923.3090007@skynet.be> <0b5101c86870$0939ade0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47A979DC.6080903@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0802060132m7961063bmb513a6c1f3412993@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <69D6EA0A-1FDE-4C74-9EAD-525E8ACE9CBF@starpower.net> On Feb 6, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > The part of DWS that worries me the most is this: If we imagine the > opponents have a complete and an oh-so-well-indexed full description > of my agreements, then they will know just from that that we have a > misunderstanding. It would be nice if they have this full > description. It seems to me that they deserve this, even though > neither DWS nor MS can be sure that it is provided. Why do you assert > that are the opponents not entitled to this knowledge? > > In other words, while the opponents are not entitled to the knowledge > that we have a misunderstanding, it seems to me that they are entitled > to the same information that I have about our system that would make > it clear to anyone (in possession of a perfect description of our > agreements) that a misunderstanding is underway. > > Do you see my problem? Jerry's problem is that Mr. Kaplan's "perfect notes" paradigm was never meant to be viewed in the context of how we play the game today, with our existing disclosure rules. Mr. Kaplan put it forward in the context of the discussion of developing those rules (what became the ACBL's alert procedure), arguing that the rules should be designed to emulate the paradigm as closely as possible. So in the "ideal world" of Mr. Kaplan's metaphor, the "possession of a perfect description" would be the *entirety* of the full disclosure protocol. Imagining the Kaplan paradigm operating *in combination* with our existing disclosure regulations in no way resembles what Mr. Kaplan had in mind, and it's not clear that it would make any sense at all. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 6 19:46:52 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 18:46:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmfulthanMI in the laws References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com><001d01c86642$0abc81e0$81d5403e@Mildred><47A5A923.3090007@skynet.be><0b5101c86870$0939ade0$0100a8c0@stefanie><47A979DC.6080903@skynet.be><2b1e598b0802060132m7961063bmb513a6c1f3412993@mail.gmail.com> <69D6EA0A-1FDE-4C74-9EAD-525E8ACE9CBF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <00b001c868f0$d404e730$e6d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmfulthanMI in the laws > > Jerry's problem is that Mr. Kaplan's "perfect notes" paradigm was > never meant to be viewed in the context of how we play the game > today, with our existing disclosure rules. Mr. Kaplan put it forward > in the context of the discussion of developing those rules (what > became the ACBL's alert procedure), arguing that the rules should be > designed to emulate the paradigm as closely as possible. So in the > "ideal world" of Mr. Kaplan's metaphor, the "possession of a perfect > description" would be the *entirety* of the full disclosure > protocol. Imagining the Kaplan paradigm operating *in combination* > with our existing disclosure regulations in no way resembles what Mr. > Kaplan had in mind, and it's not clear that it would make any sense > at all. > +=+The difficulty in providing opponents with 'full' information is recognized . Law 40B6(b) helps to resolve the problem. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Feb 6 20:33:30 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:33:30 -0600 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmfulthanMI in the laws In-Reply-To: <00b001c868f0$d404e730$e6d4403e@Mildred> References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com> <001d01c86642$0abc81e0$81d5403e@Mildred> <47A5A923.3090007@skynet.be> <0b5101c86870$0939ade0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47A979DC.6080903@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0802060132m7961063bmb513a6c1f3412993@mail.gmail.com> <69D6EA0A-1FDE-4C74-9EAD-525E8ACE9CBF@starpower.net> <00b001c868f0$d404e730$e6d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802061133j545b94afqfa43d0e52f0992af@mail.gmail.com> > +=+The difficulty in providing opponents with 'full' information is > recognized . Law 40B6(b) helps to resolve the problem. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [Law 40B6(b):] The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for opponent's choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged. [Jerry] Alright, suppose an auction with no alertable calls, no alerts, and no questions. Thus, no MS/DWS issue. Suppose also that North had a misunderstanding that was clear to South because he knows their system. But South took all proper actions, and they went down, undoubled. Had West known the system as well as South, West would have realized the misunderstanding had happened and doubled the final contract. Has West been damaged, and should the director compensate him? Jerry Fusselman From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 6 21:11:51 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:11:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmfulthanMI in the laws In-Reply-To: <001d01c868d9$8d240880$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com><001d01c86642$0abc81e0$81d5403e@Mildred> <47A5A923.3090007@skynet.be><0b5101c86870$0939ade0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47A979DC.6080903@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0802060132m7961063bmb513a6c1f3412993@mail.gmail.com> <001d01c868d9$8d240880$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47AA1487.1000301@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > JF: > >> The part of DWS that worries me the most is this: If we imagine the >> opponents have a complete and an oh-so-well-indexed full description >> of my agreements, then they will know just from that that we have a >> misunderstanding. It would be nice if they have this full >> description. It seems to me that they deserve this, > > They do. > >> even though >> neither DWS nor MS can be sure that it is provided. Why do you assert >> that are the opponents not entitled to this knowledge? > > This is a mystery. Herman has never, to my knowledge, provided a basis in > Law for this assertion. But of course they are entitled to it. But don't you see that very often, they don't get it. If West does not ask what 5Di means, he is MI in the MS just as in the DWS! So why do you insist they MUST get it. L20F5 explicitely forbids them getting it! >> In other words, while the opponents are not entitled to the knowledge >> that we have a misunderstanding, > > According to what Law? > According to every single expert - except Ton Kooijman, who admits being in a minority within the WBFLC. >> it seems to me that they are entitled >> to the same information that I have about our system that would make >> it clear to anyone (in possession of a perfect description of our >> agreements) that a misunderstanding is underway. >> >> Do you see my problem? > > Of course. Perhaps it means you need to rethink your support for the dWS. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 6 21:28:33 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:28:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed moreharmfulthanMI in the laws In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802061133j545b94afqfa43d0e52f0992af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000501c868fe$d87d2080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > [Law 40B6(b):] > > The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an > explanation is crucial for opponent's choice of action and > opponent is thereby damaged. > > [Jerry] > > Alright, suppose an auction with no alertable calls, no alerts, and no > questions. Thus, no MS/DWS issue. Suppose also that North had a > misunderstanding that was clear to South because he knows their > system. But South took all proper actions, and they went down, > undoubled. > > Had West known the system as well as South, West would have realized > the misunderstanding had happened and doubled the final contract. Has > West been damaged, and should the director compensate him? It would appear from your description that all relevant information about North/South agreements was available to their opponents. The only way I can imagine South being able to know that North had a misunderstanding is if North has made a call completely incompatible with their agreements (like for instance passing out a demand call). The inference that there has been a misunderstanding should then be obvious to opponents as well as to South so there is no need for South to call attention to it, and failing to notice it is no cause for redress. (However, given that any single piece of relevant information was hidden from East/West the situation changes immediately.) Regards Sven From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 6 22:20:10 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:20:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mobile lawbook References: <47A68A22.6070405@ntlworld.com><200802040508.AA12347@geller204.nifty.com><00bb01c8673b$2e59d630$f4ce403e@Mildred><4C8E8E85-E901-47C9-A117-912D33169B51@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802041252y60ceba94se1480b30b291cbee@mail.gmail.com><5EFB61AA-007A-437B-B6A0-1A445AF48F37@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802041634p7639e3b4w6a6e3416cb88b2f6@mail.gmail.com> <001a01c867db$517044b0$dacb403e@Mildred> <7900B785-9F08-4E62-B794-E38D4F05D527@starpower.net><1JMQHi-2CYyuG0@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47A89BF8.9060903@NTLworld.com><008401c8682d$bac5c780$dccf403e@Mildred><47A917BB.7000907@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <00dd01c86906$0e4062c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> EL: > We know that the majority of TPTB at the WBF believe BLML not to be > worth the electrons it's written on. Obviously people who are interested, knowledgable and who care enough about the Laws to spend a great deal of time and mental effort on them can have nothing to contribute that the WBF might consider to have value. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 6 22:53:05 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:53:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmfulthanMI in the laws References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com><001d01c86642$0abc81e0$81d5403e@Mildred><47A5A923.3090007@skynet.be><0b5101c86870$0939ade0$0100a8c0@stefanie><47A979DC.6080903@skynet.be><2b1e598b0802060132m7961063bmb513a6c1f3412993@mail.gmail.com> <69D6EA0A-1FDE-4C74-9EAD-525E8ACE9CBF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <00eb01c8690a$a799e7d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> EL: > > Jerry's problem is that Mr. Kaplan's "perfect notes" paradigm was > never meant to be viewed in the context of how we play the game > today, with our existing disclosure rules. Mr. Kaplan put it forward > in the context of the discussion of developing those rules (what > became the ACBL's alert procedure), arguing that the rules should be > designed to emulate the paradigm as closely as possible. So in the > "ideal world" of Mr. Kaplan's metaphor, the "possession of a perfect > description" would be the *entirety* of the full disclosure > protocol. Imagining the Kaplan paradigm operating *in combination* > with our existing disclosure regulations in no way resembles what Mr. > Kaplan had in mind, and it's not clear that it would make any sense > at all. I don't think that Jerry literally meant having "perfect notes". If one had those, of course one would not know about a misunderstanding. What he meant, I think, was that that was the level of disclosure the opponents are owed in theory. So if you are asked a question, the ideal is that you give the opponents the equivalent of a "perfect notes" understanding. Obviously you are not doing anything of the sort if you give the opponents some fictional description of your agreements. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 7 00:34:59 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:34:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <010601c86897$8e7d8400$20cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: >>I think Victorians might pass :) >> >>Tony (Sydney) >+=+ And Edwardians? +=+ Swiss Teams with imps converted to WBF VPs (including difference of 0-10 = 0 imps) Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1S 3H(1) Pass 4H Pass Pass ? (1) Weak jump overcall You, South, hold: 6432 Q Q97 98543 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Note that blmlers who chose to bid 3S on the previous round belong to a different class of player than the actual South, so only blmlers who passed initially should answer this second round of questions. 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 Feb 7 00:44:29 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:44:29 +0900 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200802062344.AA12382@geller204.nifty.com> richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >Swiss Teams with imps converted to WBF VPs >(including difference of 0-10 = 0 imps) You mean we've all been kidnapped by aliens and transported to a parallel universe where the 2007 WBF Laws of Duplicate Bridge don't hold sway. :-) -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 7 01:51:35 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:51:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] Nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >But the fact is that they are at any time entitled to "correct" >information from both you and your partner (reflecting the >understanding each of you has of your agreements) Richard Hills: Not "each of you" but "both of you", since a partnership agreement is by definition _mutual_ between two partners, not a single partner having a _unilateral_ understanding. Sven Pran >even when such information from the two of you is conflicting. >Consequently they are entitled to the implied knowledge >(inference) that you have a misunderstanding. [snip] Richard Hills: But that is begging the question, petitio principii. Since a mutual partnership understanding cannot be conflicting, why are the opponents _entitled_ to conflicting information? If the two partners give conflicting explanations, "We play X", "We play Y", then either one partner has given MI - when X is true - or both partners have given MI - when Z is true. But the opponents are merely _entitled_ to the knowledge of the true X or Z agreement, they are not _entitled_ to the knowledge that one partner falsely believes that a Y agreement exists. While it is possible that _bonus_ knowledge of a pair's misunderstanding may fall into the opponents' laps, in my opinion the only time that opponents are _entitled_ to know that a wheel has fallen off is when one partner has chosen a non-systemic call. 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 swillner at nhcc.net Thu Feb 7 02:33:58 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:33:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS In-Reply-To: <200802011625.m11GPxCs020068@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200802011625.m11GPxCs020068@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47AA6006.9090809@nhcc.net> >> Where does it all end and how many intentional law breaks should one >>be allowed in one hand? IMO, none. > From: Herman De Wael > But Raija, it's only and intentional law break if you consider it a > law break. I'd rather say that the argument against "intentional law breaks" cuts just as heavily against the MS as the dWS. > What Steve and I are trying to make happen is that the dws > is accepted as not breaking the law, and maybe even obligatory. What I'm "trying to make happen" is for people to consider carefully what the alternatives are. I'm not at all sure what's best, though so far the arguments for the MS are minimal. (I was about to write "nonexistent," but that's not quite true.) Mostly the MS proponents have relied on non-sequiters and personal attacks. So far, the best approach I've seen is the Rubens School (RS), but it has its problems too. Not the least is that it would require a change of law, at least as far as I can tell. I think we all agree that in an ideal world, there would never be either MI or UI. In the real world, we will have some of each, and the best we can do is try to make the most enjoyable game. To me, one part of that is to make Laws that are most easily enforceable. Another part is to make winning dependent more on inference and calculation than on familiarity with the lawbook. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Feb 7 02:41:13 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:41:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200801312327.m0VNREqL020529@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200801312327.m0VNREqL020529@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47AA61B9.7070305@nhcc.net> > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > When does a convention that is frequently misbid become a misexplanation? The key question is, "What is the true agreement?" Of course answering isn't necessarily easy, but that's what both MI and illegal convention rulings boil down to. I was planning to send some thoughts on this subject but haven't gotten to that task yet. In order to work, though, regulations have to be fair and enforceable. > When does it become a psyche? One thing seems clear to me: if you want to rule psychs and misbids differently, you better have your mind-reading cap handy. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Feb 7 02:50:45 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:50:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C In-Reply-To: <200802041826.m14IQP0l004251@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200802041826.m14IQP0l004251@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47AA63F5.8060502@nhcc.net> > From: > "In drawing his Venn diagrmans, I assume Laurie Kelso began > with a fairly small circle for the information 'I have 0-12 points', > ... Then he drew a larger circle around > it for the information 'I have 5-9 points', Interesting. I would have drawn the circles in the opposite sizes. As (I think) Eric remarked, maybe Venn diagrams are not the best approach to explaining the effect of this new Law. Perhaps it's easier to think of actual bridge hands. One could ask, "Is there any hand the player could hold that would make the corrected bid but not the insufficient bid?" If the answer is "yes," don't allow the penalty-free correction. (I actually wrote that wrong-way-round the first time, which tells you something either about the new Law or about me. To be fair, it's now after dinner, and I did have some wine with.) Of course if you literally mean "any hand whatsoever, even one," the penalty-free correction will almost never be allowed. If, on the contrary, you mean something looser than that, defining it will be far from easy. It will be interesting to see what the DSC comes up with. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Feb 7 02:56:40 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:56:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Does L12B1 void some rub-of-the-green outcomes? In-Reply-To: <200802042147.m14LlJZq005154@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200802042147.m14LlJZq005154@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47AA6558.5020907@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > You are talking about a case where unauthorized -- but > presumably accurate -- information demonstrably suggests a call that > ultimately leads to a odd and inferior contract over a call that > would have led to the normal, superior one. Only then can the > question of what to do when the inferior contract produces a better > score than the normal one arise. Has anyone in this forum ever > actually encountered such a case? I am at a loss to construct a non- > silly example. It's easy to construct examples, though silly or not is a matter of judgment. Suppose NS use Hesitation Blackwood to bid a slam, which turns out to be an inferior contract based on the NS hands. (Perhaps N or S overbid earlier or they just misjudged.) Today, however, it happens to make because of a lucky lie of the cards. I think the standard approach (barring additional complications) is to adjust the score to 5-whatever, making six. I can't cite an actual example offhand, but this seems a likely enough scenario. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 7 03:31:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:31:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00b201c86891$a348c120$20cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: >The only issue here is the extent to which >TPTB will allow individual RAs to "interpret" >(i.e. redefine) "incorporates". +=+ The above has been sitting in my file. If we are patient there is now hope that there will be a further pronouncement very soon from the DSC on Law 27C. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >there is enough clamor on BLML, it does somehow >reach the ears of the WBF, which cannot be said >for doing it the "right" way, at least not in >North America. +=+ The eyes have it +=+ Richard Hills: (1) Informal sources of ideas can be more useful than formal sources. One might argue that blml is a particularly useful source of ideas, since a bad idea by one blmler is quickly refuted by other blmlers. So, for example, the 1997 Law 25B would have been stillborn if it had been subject to blml forensic scrutiny in 1996 (if blml had existed back then). (2) Blml debate on Law 27C has reached the eyes of The Powers That Be. (3) After publication of the 1997 Lawbook it did not remain set in stone. TPTB moved an asterisk in Law 17 and reorganised the footnote to the claim Laws. (4) Given that Grattan has previously advised that the EBU is deferring printing the 2007 Lawbook, is it possible that the new Laws are not set in stone and a footnote will be added to Law 27C? 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 Thu Feb 7 04:19:51 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:19:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <01fc01c86938$4dab5be0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Richard Hills: > > (1) Informal sources of ideas can be more useful > than formal sources. One might argue that blml > is a particularly useful source of ideas, since > a bad idea by one blmler is quickly refuted by > other blmlers. So, for example, the 1997 Law > 25B would have been stillborn if it had been > subject to blml forensic scrutiny in 1996 (if > blml had existed back then). It certainly did; I remember it well! From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 7 05:35:01 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:35:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47AA6006.9090809@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >I think we all agree that in an ideal world, there would >never be either MI or UI. Richard Hills: In my ideal world there would be neither MI nor _use_ of UI. This avoids the false dichotomy between MI and _creation_ of UI in the Wael/Willner philosophy. Steve Willner: >the arguments for the MS are minimal. (I was about to >write "non-existent," but that's not quite true.) Richard Hills What Steve and Herman dub the "Majority School" (MS) is a begging-the-question misnomer. The correct title should be "official interpretation". And that corrected title is a _maximal_ argument. +=+ Oh, if you could read the howls of scorn of DSC colleagues rejecting my suggestion that it would be helpful if we actually issued as a DSC document our agreed position on Herman's perceptions of the law. Nothing sophisticated, I assure you - I am informed in the plainest language that his posturing does not merit a DSC response. ~ G ~ +=+ 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 Thu Feb 7 06:32:34 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:32:34 -0600 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47AA61B9.7070305@nhcc.net> References: <200801312327.m0VNREqL020529@cfa.harvard.edu> <47AA61B9.7070305@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802062132g4adefee1kdc948acdbb6d4a26@mail.gmail.com> Steve Willner: > > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > > When does a convention that is frequently misbid become a misexplanation? > > The key question is, "What is the true agreement?" Of course answering > isn't necessarily easy, but that's what both MI and illegal convention > rulings boil down to. I was planning to send some thoughts on this > subject but haven't gotten to that task yet. In order to work, though, > regulations have to be fair and enforceable. It's funny, for I was planning to send some thought on that subject too, but I also have not gotten around to it. I am sure your thoughts are better than mind, so I look forward to your thoughts on this. Given the way you worded this paragraph, I suspect I am likely to agree with your thoughts. I think that that "the true agreement" is sometimes not what the pair thinks it is, sometimes even if they have written system notes. > > > When does it become a psyche? > > One thing seems clear to me: if you want to rule psychs and misbids > differently, you better have your mind-reading cap handy. > Actually, there is no mind-reading cap out there, so, oh, that's your point. Others will say just ask the player and accept his answer 99% of the time, but I would rather have rules that don't reward knowledge of the rule book too much. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Feb 7 06:39:15 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:39:15 -0600 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C In-Reply-To: <47AA63F5.8060502@nhcc.net> References: <200802041826.m14IQP0l004251@cfa.harvard.edu> <47AA63F5.8060502@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802062139k7a262b23x5761bfdf1192a51c@mail.gmail.com> Steve Willner: > > From: > > "In drawing his Venn diagrmans, I assume Laurie Kelso began > > with a fairly small circle for the information 'I have 0-12 points', > > ... Then he drew a larger circle around > > it for the information 'I have 5-9 points', > > Interesting. I would have drawn the circles in the opposite sizes. As > (I think) Eric remarked, maybe Venn diagrams are not the best approach > to explaining the effect of this new Law. > > Perhaps it's easier to think of actual bridge hands. One could ask, "Is > there any hand the player could hold that would make the corrected bid > but not the insufficient bid?" If the answer is "yes," don't allow the > penalty-free correction. (I actually wrote that wrong-way-round the > first time, which tells you something either about the new Law or about > me. To be fair, it's now after dinner, and I did have some wine with.) > > Of course if you literally mean "any hand whatsoever, even one," the > penalty-free correction will almost never be allowed. If, on the > contrary, you mean something looser than that, defining it will be far > from easy. > > It will be interesting to see what the DSC comes up with. > Agreed. About the Venn diagrams, there is perfect split by whether you are in the DSC or not. Everyone outside the DSC who wrote on this issue thinks of the points in the Venn diagrams as hands. But both respondents who are DSC members think of a bigger circle as "more information" instead of more hands. So the DSC Venn diagrams are exactly backwards from everyone else's. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Feb 7 06:49:23 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:49:23 -0600 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <47AA6006.9090809@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802062149x4f5b011bi7611524c29586dd5@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 6, 2008 10:35 PM, wrote: > Steve Willner: > > >I think we all agree that in an ideal world, there would > >never be either MI or UI. > > Richard Hills: > > In my ideal world there would be neither MI nor _use_ of > UI. > > This avoids the false dichotomy between MI and _creation_ > of UI in the Wael/Willner philosophy. > Perfect nonsense. The seven cases I gave a few days ago are clearly a dichotomy between MI and UI, not the dichotomy that Richard counsels is the only one. If it was merely the _use_ of UI that concerned the lawmakers, then those seven cases would be quite different. It is beyond absurd to claim that there are no laws against creating UI. > Steve Willner: > > >the arguments for the MS are minimal. (I was about to > >write "non-existent," but that's not quite true.) > > Richard Hills > > What Steve and Herman dub the "Majority School" (MS) is a > begging-the-question misnomer. The correct title should > be "official interpretation". And that corrected title > is a _maximal_ argument. > > +=+ Oh, if you could read the howls of scorn of > DSC colleagues rejecting my suggestion > that it would be helpful if we actually issued > as a DSC document our agreed position on > Herman's perceptions of the law. Nothing > sophisticated, I assure you - I am informed > in the plainest language that his posturing > does not merit a DSC response. > ~ G ~ +=+ > Like Nigel said, this tells us more about the DSC than about anyone else. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 7 06:52:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:52:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200802061648.IAA27112@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [snip] >The committee here decided that it wasn't clear what the hesitation >suggested, so they refused to adjust. My feeling is that the >committee shouldn't have had to figure out what the hesitation >suggested; the call chosen by the hesitator's partner was abnormal >enough (assuming no extraneous information) that the committee >should have just presumed it was based on UI, [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion this philosophy is an aggravated sub-case of "If it hesitates, shoot it", the dreaded Rule of Coincidence. A TD or AC should not time-travel backwards from a lucky result to automatically presume it must have been caused by an infraction. Rather, the first step should be to determine whether or not an infraction has actually occurred. The dangers of time-travelling backwards are highlighted in the "Groundhog Day" thread. See the blml archives for May 2004: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2004-May/date.html 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 7 07:28:15 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:28:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> One more once... [HdW] ONE: consistency Under the MS, a player must not reveal that a mistake has been made, but when he is asked a question about some next bid, he is obliged to reveal that the mistake was made. Under the DWS, the same rule applies throughout: you must not reveal that a mistake has been made, never ever. [DALB] This is simply false; even though a dWSist "must not reveal that a mistake has been made" in replying to a question, he must (on occasion) reveal that a mistake has been made when he selects a call or play in accordance with his partnership's methods. Herman has never actually answered this point, even though it has been made repeatedly by Eric and by me. The reason for this is that the point is unanswerable; it is ludicrous for Herman to claim that a dWSist "never ever" reveals that a mistake has been made. Of course, Herman may object along these lines: "when I said never ever, I meant never ever in terms of alerts or answers to questions, not in terms of calls or plays". But his precious L20F5 says "in any manner". He relies on this only insofar as it suits his purpose, to the point of monomania. [HdW] TWO: bias The change in situation that occurs within the MS does not occur at all tables every time. It only occurs when a question is asked. [DALB] So what? It is assumed that when a question is asked, the correct reply will be given. [HdW] THREE: completeness The DWS gives the players a set of rules that they can always follow. The MS is incomplete in this regard. What should a player do who is somewhat certain that his partner gave a correct explanation? [DALB] He and his partner should learn the system. But they should not play dWS, because that allows them to cheat without being detected. A dWS appeals committee will say "Well, they told you what one of your opponents had, not what your opponents' methods were, and you still got it wrong." Even Kaplan knew that this was stupid. [HdW] FOUR: mind reading If the MS would try to issue guidelines as to how certain a player ought to be before he is allowed to give the consistent explanation [DALB] A partnership should always be certain of its methods, should it not? The MS has no other "guidelines" to offer. But: [HdW] the player will always explain that he is that certain. There is no way for a director to know that this is false. [DALB] Of course there is. Unless the player can exhibit compelling reasons for his certainty, the director will always assume that any assurances of certainty are false. The main reason that the MS is better than the dWS is that it's harder to cheat playing the MS. [HdW] FIVE: penalising As I believe that it is in a player's best interest not to reveal a misunderstanding [DALB] This in itself should at least give cause to enquire whether or not the dWS is the work of a certifiable lunatic. Do you suggest that a player may choose, at whim, to reveal a misunderstanding? [HdW} How do you deal with a case in which a player has broken his obligation of giving UI to his partner [DALB] I assume this means "of not giving UI to his partner". That said, here is something important that Grattan and I have maintained over and over again in the course of this discussion, and that Herman has ignored throughout. The noun "information" comes from the verb "inform". Although Herman's English is excellent, he may not know what this word means. That which "informs" is that which shapes our actions; if we have a piece of "information", it will affect the way in which we act. I may know that Brussels is the capital of Belgium, but to me that is a piece of data, not a piece of information. I cannot honestly say that any of the actions I have taken in my life has been influenced in the slightest by the fact that Brussels is the capital of Belgium. Now, if my partner gives an explanation of one of my bids, that to me is a piece of data, not a piece of information. I cannot act on it; indeed, the Laws of bridge say that I must not act on it. Similarly, if he explains my 4NT as "Blackwood" when our methods are "minors", that to me is a piece of (irrelevant) data. I cannot act on it, and the Laws of bridge say that I must not act on it, so I will explain his 5D as "preference" and not "one ace". [HdW] SIX: additional UI Under MS rules, that type of UI exists in both directions. [DALB] Well, that form of unauthorised data has the capacity to exist in both directions. But the dWS seems to me to be based on the premise that once some UD has been created, it will turn into UI for both members of the partnership. If they're not cheats, it won't. [HdW] SEVEN: similarity to screens (and on-line) But with MS rules, some tables will be entitled to the knowledge of a misunderstanding. [DALB] All tables are entitled to the knowledge of a misunderstanding - that is, if they can obtain this information by asking questions, they are allowed to do so. You may think it distasteful to seek an advantage by asking the opponents what their bids mean. I think it considerably more distasteful for the opponents to be able to adjust their explanations as they go along, in the light of one another's previous explanations. Herman, me old China, it would soothe me if you could at least give some serious thought to the points I have made under ONE and FIVE above. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 7 07:31:17 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:31:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802062149x4f5b011bi7611524c29586dd5@mail.gmail.com> References: <47AA6006.9090809@nhcc.net> <2b1e598b0802062149x4f5b011bi7611524c29586dd5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000701c86953$0c1e6620$245b3260$@com> [JF] It is beyond absurd to claim that there are no laws against creating UI. [DALB] Well, I would claim that there are no laws against creating UI. For my own peace of mind, could you cite one of them? David Burn London, England From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Feb 7 07:39:28 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 00:39:28 -0600 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c86953$0c1e6620$245b3260$@com> References: <47AA6006.9090809@nhcc.net> <2b1e598b0802062149x4f5b011bi7611524c29586dd5@mail.gmail.com> <000701c86953$0c1e6620$245b3260$@com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802062239l1cfdac48m1ab8bac1965e8e68@mail.gmail.com> [JF] It is beyond absurd to claim that there are no laws against creating UI. [DALB] Well, I would claim that there are no laws against creating UI. For my own peace of mind, could you cite one of them? [JMF] Sure, glad to oblige. (I should always respond to David Burn, though sometimes it requires a bit of time.) My seven examples from a few days ago should do fairly well. If you want only one, go with #1. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Feb 7 07:54:58 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 00:54:58 -0600 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802062254p3eae9cbdk27fbe58ab7ef3b0f@mail.gmail.com> [DALB] This is simply false; even though a dWSist "must not reveal that a mistake has been made" in replying to a question, he must (on occasion) reveal that a mistake has been made when he selects a call or play in accordance with his partnership's methods. Herman has never actually answered this point, even though it has been made repeatedly by Eric and by me. [Jerry] David, I guess you missed the thread about a week ago where Eric asked really nicely if Herman would repeat his answer to this point. Herman did so, and I thought quite well. I think it was only two paragraphs long. Herman had answered it before as well, though not often, and his recent answer was perhaps the best one. You said that you thought your number 1 was important, so I thought I might mention this to save Herman the trouble. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 7 08:55:15 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:55:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802062254p3eae9cbdk27fbe58ab7ef3b0f@mail.gmail.com> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <2b1e598b0802062254p3eae9cbdk27fbe58ab7ef3b0f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000801c8695e$c6861f20$53925d60$@com> [JMF] You said that you thought your number 1 was important, so I thought I might mention this to save Herman the trouble. [Lewis Carroll] I heard him then, for I had just Completed my design To keep the Menai Bridge from rust By boiling it in wine. I thanked him much for telling me The way he got his wealth, But chiefly for his wish that he Might drink my noble health. And now, if e'er by chance I put My fingers into glue, Or madly squeeze a right-hand foot Into a left-hand shoe, Or if I drop upon my toe A very heavy weight, I weep, for it reminds me so Of that old man I used to know, Whose look was mild, whose speech was slow, Whose hair was whiter than the snow, Whose face was very like a crow, With eyes like cinders all aglow, Who seemed distracted with his woe, Who rocked his body to and fro, And muttered mumblingly and low, As if his mouth were full of dough, Who snorted like a buffalo That summer evening long ago, A-sitting on a gate. From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 09:06:45 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:06:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmfulthanMI in the laws In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802061133j545b94afqfa43d0e52f0992af@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com> <001d01c86642$0abc81e0$81d5403e@Mildred> <47A5A923.3090007@skynet.be> <0b5101c86870$0939ade0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47A979DC.6080903@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0802060132m7961063bmb513a6c1f3412993@mail.gmail.com> <69D6EA0A-1FDE-4C74-9EAD-525E8ACE9CBF@starpower.net> <00b001c868f0$d404e730$e6d4403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0802061133j545b94afqfa43d0e52f0992af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47AABC15.4080000@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> +=+The difficulty in providing opponents with 'full' information is >> recognized . Law 40B6(b) helps to resolve the problem. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > [Law 40B6(b):] > > The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an > explanation is crucial for opponent's choice of action and > opponent is thereby damaged. > > [Jerry] > > Alright, suppose an auction with no alertable calls, no alerts, and no > questions. Thus, no MS/DWS issue. Suppose also that North had a > misunderstanding that was clear to South because he knows their > system. But South took all proper actions, and they went down, > undoubled. > > Had West known the system as well as South, West would have realized > the misunderstanding had happened and doubled the final contract. Has > West been damaged, and should the director compensate him? > I notice that throughout the (European) night, only Sven has managed to answer Jerry's question, with an answer that is quite like what Jerry and I suspected (and agree with). I would urge some more of you to look at this question and tell us what you believe the answer should be. > Jerry Fusselman > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 09:12:14 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:12:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven cases where potential UI is deemed more harmfulthanMI in the laws In-Reply-To: <00eb01c8690a$a799e7d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <2b1e598b0802020741j4aabcb2dt73a594dd46b1977d@mail.gmail.com><001d01c86642$0abc81e0$81d5403e@Mildred><47A5A923.3090007@skynet.be><0b5101c86870$0939ade0$0100a8c0@stefanie><47A979DC.6080903@skynet.be><2b1e598b0802060132m7961063bmb513a6c1f3412993@mail.gmail.com> <69D6EA0A-1FDE-4C74-9EAD-525E8ACE9CBF@starpower.net> <00eb01c8690a$a799e7d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47AABD5E.1030702@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > EL: > >> Jerry's problem is that Mr. Kaplan's "perfect notes" paradigm was >> never meant to be viewed in the context of how we play the game >> today, with our existing disclosure rules. Mr. Kaplan put it forward >> in the context of the discussion of developing those rules (what >> became the ACBL's alert procedure), arguing that the rules should be >> designed to emulate the paradigm as closely as possible. So in the >> "ideal world" of Mr. Kaplan's metaphor, the "possession of a perfect >> description" would be the *entirety* of the full disclosure >> protocol. Imagining the Kaplan paradigm operating *in combination* >> with our existing disclosure regulations in no way resembles what Mr. >> Kaplan had in mind, and it's not clear that it would make any sense >> at all. > > I don't think that Jerry literally meant having "perfect notes". If one had > those, of course one would not know about a misunderstanding. > > What he meant, I think, was that that was the level of disclosure the > opponents are owed in theory. So if you are asked a question, the ideal is > that you give the opponents the equivalent of a "perfect notes" > understanding. Obviously you are not doing anything of the sort if you give > the opponents some fictional description of your agreements. > The problem with that view, Stefanie, is that you give the perfect notes only after the second question. That is not how the laws should work. Either you give the perfect notes after the first question, and then the opponent has the correct information all the time (but not the knowledge that South misunderstood); or you don't give the perfect notes and simply rely on spoken answers. But then those spoken answers should come from the same source. As it is impossible to have South answer both questions, I expect North to answer the second question as if it were South who was answering it. You seem to say that the opponents are entitled both to the answer by South (which is wrong) and to the perfect notes. But that is not what the laws (L20F5) say. Moreover, you don't give the perfect notes immediately, you only give them after the second question, and _only_ to a player who asks a question. That is what bothers me most. I could live with a (very serious) law change that altered the entitlements to opponents, making the knowledge of the misunderstanding an entitlement, but not to this half-way version of that. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 09:14:40 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:14:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> Message-ID: <47AABDF0.6030903@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > One more once... > > [HdW] > > ONE: consistency > > Under the MS, a player must not reveal that a mistake has been made, but > when he is asked a question about some next bid, he is obliged to reveal > that the mistake was made. Under the DWS, the same rule applies throughout: > you must not reveal that a mistake has been made, never ever. > > [DALB] > > This is simply false; even though a dWSist "must not reveal that a mistake > has been made" in replying to a question, he must (on occasion) reveal that > a mistake has been made when he selects a call or play in accordance with > his partnership's methods. Herman has never actually answered this point, > even though it has been made repeatedly by Eric and by me. The reason for > this is that the point is unanswerable; it is ludicrous for Herman to claim > that a dWSist "never ever" reveals that a mistake has been made. > > Of course, Herman may object along these lines: "when I said never ever, I > meant never ever in terms of alerts or answers to questions, not in terms of > calls or plays". But his precious L20F5 says "in any manner". He relies on > this only insofar as it suits his purpose, to the point of monomania. > I have answered that one. Of course if you don't want to listen to my answers, you can say that I "never actually answered that point". But I did. And I don't want to repeat it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 09:17:50 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:17:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> Message-ID: <47AABEAE.4070306@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > [HdW] > > TWO: bias > > The change in situation that occurs within the MS does not occur at all > tables every time. It only occurs when a question is asked. > > [DALB] > > So what? It is assumed that when a question is asked, the correct reply will > be given. > What do you mean "so what?". Is that how you are going to treat all these? "oh yes, that's an advantage, so what?". The I really needn't have bothered asking you to read these with an open mind. As to the correct reply, the correct reply to "how many aces does 5Di show?" is "one", not "4NT was not Blackwood". "One" is the exact same reply all other opponents will get, those that for instance rely on the SC, or those that play behind screens. I don't accept your reply to this one, David. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 09:18:45 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:18:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> Message-ID: <47AABEE5.1060405@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > [HdW] > > THREE: completeness > > The DWS gives the players a set of rules that they can always follow. The MS > is incomplete in this regard. What should a player do who is somewhat > certain that his partner gave a correct explanation? > > [DALB] > > He and his partner should learn the system. But they should not play dWS, > because that allows them to cheat without being detected. A dWS appeals > committee will say "Well, they told you what one of your opponents had, not > what your opponents' methods were, and you still got it wrong." Even Kaplan > knew that this was stupid. > Not an answer at all, just merely repeating what everyone already knows about David's position. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 09:22:04 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:22:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> Message-ID: <47AABFAC.2030602@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > [HdW] > > FOUR: mind reading > > If the MS would try to issue guidelines as to how certain a player ought to > be before he is allowed to give the consistent explanation > > [DALB] > > A partnership should always be certain of its methods, should it not? The MS > has no other "guidelines" to offer. But: > David implicitely agrees with my argument three. > [HdW] > > the player will always explain that he is that certain. There is no way for > a director to know that this is false. > > [DALB] > > Of course there is. Unless the player can exhibit compelling reasons for his > certainty, the director will always assume that any assurances of certainty > are false. The main reason that the MS is better than the dWS is that it's > harder to cheat playing the MS. > "compelling reasons for certainty" ?? how ? The MS will assume that a player is lying, and that the player is a cheat for saying that he is certain. When playing the DWS, a player does not need to say he is certain, so he need not lie about it, and the TD need not decide about such lying. So how is this cheating? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 09:27:30 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:27:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> Message-ID: <47AAC0F2.2010509@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > FIVE: penalising > > As I believe that it is in a player's best interest not to reveal a > misunderstanding > > [DALB] > > This in itself should at least give cause to enquire whether or not the dWS > is the work of a certifiable lunatic. Do you suggest that a player may > choose, at whim, to reveal a misunderstanding? > But David, that is _exactly_ what you are doing! By replying "diamond preference", you are revealing the misunderstanding. I don't know if it's at a whim, but then I don't really know what your sentence above is supposed to be about. Do you agree or not that it is in a player's interest not to reveal that there has been a misunderstanding? > [HdW} > > How do you deal with a case in which a player has broken his obligation of > giving UI to his partner > > [DALB] > > I assume this means "of not giving UI to his partner". That said, here is > something important that Grattan and I have maintained over and over again > in the course of this discussion, and that Herman has ignored throughout. > No David, I really meant what I said. If you make the MS the law, that means that you have to answer "diamond preference", thereby giving UI to partner. If you want people to follow that law, you should say what you would do if Herman decides to answer "one ace" nevertheless. I would have broken the law of "giving UI to partner". What is the penalty? > The noun "information" comes from the verb "inform". Although Herman's > English is excellent, he may not know what this word means. > > That which "informs" is that which shapes our actions; if we have a piece of > "information", it will affect the way in which we act. I may know that > Brussels is the capital of Belgium, but to me that is a piece of data, not a > piece of information. I cannot honestly say that any of the actions I have > taken in my life has been influenced in the slightest by the fact that > Brussels is the capital of Belgium. > > Now, if my partner gives an explanation of one of my bids, that to me is a > piece of data, not a piece of information. I cannot act on it; indeed, the > Laws of bridge say that I must not act on it. Similarly, if he explains my > 4NT as "Blackwood" when our methods are "minors", that to me is a piece of > (irrelevant) data. I cannot act on it, and the Laws of bridge say that I > must not act on it, so I will explain his 5D as "preference" and not "one > ace". > All often stated, but not a reply to my question. What is the penalty for not obeying the dictates of the MS? If there isn't one, what's me stopping from doing as the DWS says? In fact, why are we having this discussion in the first place? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 09:31:48 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:31:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> Message-ID: <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > [HdW] > > SIX: additional UI > > Under MS rules, that type of UI exists in both directions. > > [DALB] > > Well, that form of unauthorised data has the capacity to exist in both > directions. But the dWS seems to me to be based on the premise that once > some UD has been created, it will turn into UI for both members of the > partnership. If they're not cheats, it won't. > David has totally misunderstood this argument. Under MS, there is this kind of UI in both directions. Under DWS, this kind of UI exists in only one direction. But this "feel good" UI is being used all the time, and no one bothers about it, because to not follow it would be lunacy. By giving this UI in both directions, partners are constantly encouraged. If the UI exists in only one direction, one player at least will be constantly hoping he's on the right track. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 7 09:34:18 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 08:34:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psyches and misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <200801312327.m0VNREqL020529@cfa.harvard.edu><47AA61B9.7070305@nhcc.net> <2b1e598b0802062132g4adefee1kdc948acdbb6d4a26@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <02a001c86964$3b1c36d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> > When does [a repeated misbid] become a psyche? >> >> One thing seems clear to me: if you want to rule psychs and misbids >> differently, you better have your mind-reading cap handy. >> > > Actually, there is no mind-reading cap out there, so, oh, that's your > point. Others will say just ask the player and accept his answer 99% > of the time, but I would rather have rules that don't reward knowledge > of the rule book too much. Yes. It seems to me that ruling psyches and misbids the same saves an awful lot of trouble, and seems intuitively the right thing to do. Stefanie Rohan London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 09:40:10 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:40:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> Message-ID: <47AAC3EA.3020707@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > [HdW] > > SEVEN: similarity to screens (and on-line) > > But with MS rules, some tables will be entitled to the knowledge of a > misunderstanding. > > [DALB] > > All tables are entitled to the knowledge of a misunderstanding - No, they are not. Not in the way ACs currently apply the laws. But: > that is, if > they can obtain this information by asking questions, they are allowed to do > so. That is something else. The opponents are allowed to use the information if they have it. But are they allowed to go fishing after it? Behind screens, they are not able to find out. They cannot ask a follow-up question of partner, only of the same bidder, who of course will give a consistent answer. > You may think it distasteful to seek an advantage by asking the > opponents what their bids mean. I think it considerably more distasteful for > the opponents to be able to adjust their explanations as they go along, in > the light of one another's previous explanations. > But David, you are not asking about the meaning of 5Di, you are asking to find out if 4NT was really Blackwood! If you believe that your opponent is entitled to know that 4NT was not Blackwood, then you should announce this even without his question. Then you should re-write L20F5. I suspect that you are indeed of this opinion. And I respect that, and I would like to see a real vote on that one. But I believe you would be in a minority. That school (may I call it the DBS?) is also a consistent set of rules. Which satisfies my call for consistency, which does not have bias, and which might actually work. But it won't be possible behind screens. Which leaves my seventh advantage. > Herman, me old China, it would soothe me if you could at least give some > serious thought to the points I have made under ONE and FIVE above. > I agree that those are the most serious arguments. The others are really only there because you don't want to be seen agreeing with me, aren't they? > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 7 09:52:47 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:52:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c86966$d0755430$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran: > >But the fact is that they are at any time entitled to "correct" > >information from both you and your partner (reflecting the > >understanding each of you has of your agreements) > > Richard Hills: > > Not "each of you" but "both of you", since a partnership > agreement is by definition _mutual_ between two partners, not a > single partner having a _unilateral_ understanding. You are of course correct when both players have the same comprehension of their agreements; this is the ideal (and normal) situation which causes no problem. But we are discussing the situation when each player in a partnership thinks that they have an agreement which is different from what the other player thinks (while being unaware that their comprehensions are different). When this is the situation each player must still give "correct" (in his own opinion) information to opponents, and then opponents will receive differing information from the two players indicating that there is some misunderstanding. None of the players is allowed to change his own comprehension of their agreements or change his explanations solely from hearing his partner's differing explanation to opponents. Sven From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 7 10:31:34 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:31:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47AABDF0.6030903@skynet.be> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AABDF0.6030903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000e01c8696c$3b6b6ea0$b2424be0$@com> [HdW] I have answered that one. Of course if you don't want to listen to my answers, you can say that I "never actually answered that point". But I did. And I don't want to repeat it. [DALB] Come on, guys. We're not trying to elect a President here. If your answer was one in which you still believe, you could cut and paste it here. If it wasn't - well, why should I take the dWS seriously any more? David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 7 10:44:19 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:44:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> [HdW] David has totally misunderstood this argument. Under MS, there is this kind of UI in both directions [DALB] Herman, will you please try to understand this argument: there is a difference - and it is a significant difference - between information and data? If you don't understand the terminology, we can go over it again. But you seem to think that anything a person hears, whether it was intended for his ears or not, is necessarily "information" to that person or an "indication" to that person. It is not. Unless you can give some sign that you have at least made some effort to comprehend the difference, I don't see how I can progress this. I don't want to lose patience with you altogether, as others here have done. But you really must try to be in some way responsive. Once again, the transmission of data does not constitute the passing of information. Information is passed only when data influences the actions of the recipient. Do you understand what I have just said? Do you deny it? It's a simple question, Herman. It's got nothing to do with the Laws of bridge. Just answer it, please. David Burn London, England From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Feb 7 10:42:44 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:42:44 -0600 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <000e01c8696c$3b6b6ea0$b2424be0$@com> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AABDF0.6030903@skynet.be> <000e01c8696c$3b6b6ea0$b2424be0$@com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802070142t2befd757t227c1c2a0c2948c9@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 7, 2008 3:31 AM, David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > I have answered that one. Of course if you don't want to listen to my > answers, you can say that I "never actually answered that point". But I did. > And I don't want to repeat it. > > [DALB] > > Come on, guys. We're not trying to elect a President here. If your answer > was one in which you still believe, you could cut and paste it here. If it > wasn't - well, why should I take the dWS seriously any more? > [Jerry] Here you go, copied from 9 days ago: [Herman] 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? From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Feb 7 11:05:29 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 04:05:29 -0600 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> David Burn: > [HdW] > > David has totally misunderstood this argument. Under MS, there is this kind > of UI in both directions > > [DALB] > > Herman, will you please try to understand this argument: there is a > difference - and it is a significant difference - between information and > data? If you don't understand the terminology, we can go over it again. But > you seem to think that anything a person hears, whether it was intended for > his ears or not, is necessarily "information" to that person or an > "indication" to that person. It is not. If I say X and my partner hears it, I would say that it is both data and information to my partner. I am not sure what you mean by "information" when you quote it, but I do know what information is. Grattan was very clear that I am not to say "my partner has a misunderstanding" when answering a question about my partner's call, even though talking to the opponents. > > Unless you can give some sign that you have at least made some effort to > comprehend the difference, I don't see how I can progress this. I don't want > to lose patience with you altogether, as others here have done. But you > really must try to be in some way responsive. > Herman has responded several times on this. He does not see a difference either. What law or definition are you thinking of that makes the difference you imagine clear? > Once again, the transmission of data does not constitute the passing of > information. Information is passed only when data influences the actions of > the recipient. Do you understand what I have just said? Do you deny it? > I would certainly deny it. The seven cases I gave require me to either create MI or allow MI to remain so that UI is not created. In those cases, I am specifically instructed to not create UI. Those laws do not tell me that it is OK to create UI provided the data (or actions or information or whatever you want to call it) does not influence my partner's actions. > It's a simple question, Herman. It's got nothing to do with the Laws of > bridge. Just answer it, please. Ah, nothing to do with the laws of bridge, you say? Alright, that proviso makes it even easier: If I tell Fred that the car has a flat and Wilma overhears it, then both Fred and Wilma have both the data and the information that the car has a flat. Perhaps the basic point I am making is that data and information are received even if merely overheard from someone else's conversation. > > David Burn > London, England > > From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Feb 7 11:24:13 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:24:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> Message-ID: <47AADC4D.8050904@NTLworld.com> [David Burn] Herman, will you please try to understand this argument: there is a difference - and it is a significant difference - between information and data? If you don't understand the terminology, we can go over it again. But you seem to think that anything a person hears, whether it was intended for his ears or not, is necessarily "information" to that person or an "indication" to that person. It is not. Unless you can give some sign that you have at least made some effort to comprehend the difference, I don't see how I can progress this. I don't want to lose patience with you altogether, as others here have done. But you really must try to be in some way responsive. Once again, the transmission of data does not constitute the passing of information. Information is passed only when data influences the actions of the recipient. Do you understand what I have just said? Do you deny it? It's a simple question, Herman. It's got nothing to do with the Laws of bridge. Just answer it, please. [Nige1] Most of the DWS argument is miles above above my head; so I am grateful for the opportunity to inject tuppence worth ... I think you can receive information but *not* act on it; it is enough that you *could* usually act on it. Unauthorised information usually *does affect a player's behaviour*: - an unethical player performs the suggested action; - an ethical player chooses a logical alternative if there is one. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 7 11:59:06 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:59:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AAC0F2.2010509@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00a701c86978$8d3bd600$c7cb403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 8:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > > All often stated, but not a reply to my question. What is the > penalty for not obeying the dictates of the MS? < +=+ Score adjustment. Procedural penalty for breach of Law 72B1 (and see L81C2), exclusion under Law 91.+=+ < > In fact, why are we having this discussion in the first place? > +=+ This is more difficult to answer. Could it be that there is someone who would argue that he may set himself above the interpretation of the law as provided by the Director, who in turn has been guided by the Regulatory Authority? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 7 13:03:12 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:03:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > > Perhaps the basic point I am making is that data > and information are received even if merely overheard > from someone else's conversation. > > +=+ Or from a sight of a printed page intended for someone else. Of course, there are laws on intellectual property which penalize the use without licence of information belonging to another person. Distancing myself from Hermanesque diversions about MI and UI and his idiosyncratic view of the priorities, and coming to earth as the law is applied today, what I would expect an NBO to teach to its TDs is that when asked for the meaning of his partner's call it is a player's duty to explain the partnership understanding fully and correctly. The lesson would add that there is no violation of law if in doing so he reveals, as a by-product of the explanation (in complying with the requirement of the law and not because he is seeking to reveal it), that he thinks his partner has misexplained a prior call. The NBO could expand the statement with examples such as the following: Example: South opens 2NT with a balanced 20 count. North explains it as a weak bid, 5-5 in the minors and bids 3D, a response which in South's mind is a transfer to hearts. He is required to treat the response as such a transfer. Two possibilities arise: Case (i): 2NT does show a strong balanced hand in the system (and therefore 3D is indeed a transfer). South alerts 3D, and explains that it is a transfer and he must treat North's response as though it is a transfer. South has now conveyed unauthorized information to North and North must not make use of it - he must continue to treat South's actions as ensuing from the 2NT bid as he (North) explained it. Case (ii): the 2NT opening is a misbid. The system really is as explained by North; weak, 5-5 in the minors. South realises this on hearing North's explanation. South is still obliged to treat 3D as though it is a transfer, But he must explain the bid according to the system - 3D is to play. In giving this explanation he has been prompted by unauthorized information (he has only been reminded that 3D is to play because he heard the correct explanation of 2NT); he may not base a call or play on the unauthorized information (Laws 16A3 and 16B1). If anyone has a doubt about this, he should ask his NBO about it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Feb 7 13:04:38 2008 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:04:38 -0600 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be><000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be><000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <47AADC4D.8050904@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 04:24 Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > [David Burn] > Herman, will you please try to understand this argument: there is a > difference - and it is a significant difference - between information > and data? If you don't understand the terminology, we can go over it > again. But you seem to think that anything a person hears, whether it > was intended for his ears or not, is necessarily "information" to that > person or an "indication" to that person. It is not. > > Unless you can give some sign that you have at least made some effort to > comprehend the difference, I don't see how I can progress this. I don't > want to lose patience with you altogether, as others here have done. But > you really must try to be in some way responsive. > > Once again, the transmission of data does not constitute the passing of > information. Information is passed only when data influences the actions > of the recipient. Do you understand what I have just said? >Do you deny it? I am wondering if Herman ought to affirm it while the EBU denies it, and strongly. regards roger pewick > It's a simple question, Herman. It's got nothing to do with the Laws of > bridge. Just answer it, please. > > [Nige1] > Most of the DWS argument is miles above above my head; so I am grateful > for the opportunity to inject tuppence worth ... > > I think you can receive information but *not* act on it; it is enough > that you *could* usually act on it. > > Unauthorised information usually *does affect a player's behaviour*: > - an unethical player performs the suggested action; > - an ethical player chooses a logical alternative if there is one. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 7 13:20:54 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:20:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Correction of previous message. Message-ID: <001e01c86984$01e280c0$22c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************** > Did you notice that Zsa Zsa Gabor was 91 on February 6th? > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:05 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws >> >> Perhaps the basic point I am making is that data and information are >> received even if merely overheard from someone else's conversation. >> > +=+ Or from a sight of a printed page intended for someone else. Of > course, there are laws on intellectual property which penalize the use > without licence of information belonging to another person. Distancing > myself from Hermanesque diversions about MI and UI and his idiosyncratic > view of the priorities, and coming to earth as the law is applied today, > what I would expect an NBO to teach to its TDs is that when asked for the > meaning of his partner's call it is a player's duty to explain the > partnership understanding fully and correctly. The lesson would add that > there is no violation of law if in doing so he reveals, as a by-product of > the explanation (in complying with the requirement of the law and not > because he is seeking to reveal it), that he thinks his partner has > misexplained a prior call. > The NBO could expand the statement with examples such as the following: > Example: South opens 2NT with a balanced 20 count. North explains > it as a weak bid, 5-5 in the minors and bids 3D, a response which in > South's mind is a transfer to hearts. He is required to treat the response > as such a transfer. Two possibilities arise: > > Case (i): 2NT does show a strong balanced hand in the system (and > therefore 3D is indeed a transfer). South alerts 3D, and he explains that > it is a transfer. Having given that explanation he must then treat North's > response as though it is a transfer. . South has now conveyed unauthorized > information to North and North must not make use of it - he must continue > to treat South's actions as ensuing from the 2NT bid as he (North) > explained it. > > Case (ii): the 2NT opening is a misbid. The system really is as explained > by North; weak, 5-5 in the minors. South realises this on hearing North's > explanation. South is still obliged to treat 3D as though it is a > transfer, > But he must explain the bid according to the system - 3D is to play. > In giving this explanation he has been prompted by unauthorized > information (he has only been reminded that 3D is to play because he > heard the correct explanation of 2NT); he may not base a call or play > on the unauthorized information (Laws 16A3 and 16B1). > > If anyone has a doubt about this, he should ask his NBO about it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 7 13:25:32 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:25:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: seven arguments for dws (corrected version) Message-ID: <002901c86984$af852fc0$22c9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************** > Did you notice that Zsa Zsa Gabor was 91 on February 6th? > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:05 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws >> >> Perhaps the basic point I am making is that data and information are >> received even if merely overheard from someone else's conversation. >> > +=+ Or from a sight of a printed page intended for someone else. Of > course, there are laws on intellectual property which penalize the use > without licence of information belonging to another person. Distancing > myself from Hermanesque diversions about MI and UI and his idiosyncratic > view of the priorities, and coming to earth as the law is applied today, > what I would expect an NBO to teach to its TDs is that when asked for the > meaning of his partner's call it is a player's duty to explain the > partnership understanding fully and correctly. The lesson would add that > there is no violation of law if in doing so he reveals, as a by-product of > the explanation (in complying with the requirement of the law and not > because he is seeking to reveal it), that he thinks his partner has > misexplained a prior call. > The NBO could expand the statement with examples such as the following: > Example: South opens 2NT with a balanced 20 count. North explains > it as a weak bid, 5-5 in the minors and bids 3D, a response which in > South's mind is a transfer to hearts. He is required to treat the response > as such a transfer. Two possibilities arise: > > Case (i): 2NT does show a strong balanced hand in the system (and > therefore 3D is indeed a transfer). South alerts 3D, and he explains that > it is a transfer. Having given that explanation he must then treat North's > response as though it is a transfer. . South has now conveyed unauthorized > information to North and North must not make use of it - he must continue > to treat South's actions as ensuing from the 2NT bid as he (North) > explained it. > > Case (ii): the 2NT opening is a misbid. The system really is as explained > by North; weak, 5-5 in the minors. South realises this on hearing North's > explanation. South is still obliged to treat 3D as though it is a > transfer, > But he must explain the bid according to the system - 3D is to play. > In giving this explanation he has been prompted by unauthorized > information (he has only been reminded that 3D is to play because he > heard the correct explanation of 2NT); he may not base a call or play > on the unauthorized information (Laws 16A3 and 16B1). > > If anyone has a doubt about this, he should ask his NBO about it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 14:05:41 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:05:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <00a701c86978$8d3bd600$c7cb403e@Mildred> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AAC0F2.2010509@skynet.be> <00a701c86978$8d3bd600$c7cb403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47AB0225.2080901@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************** > "...... adored by little statesmen > and philosophers and divines." > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 8:27 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > > > >> All often stated, but not a reply to my question. What is the >> penalty for not obeying the dictates of the MS? > < > +=+ Score adjustment. With what as alternative situation? The MI? That is exactly what we are already agreed upon! > Procedural penalty for breach of Law 72B1 (and see L81C2), How much? And what about the player who explains he thought partner's explanation was right and he misbid? > exclusion under Law 91.+=+ How are you going to determine whether someone acts this way because he knew no better, or because he thought DWS was still allowed? Exclusion for HDW, no problem for all others? Strasbourg, here I come. > < >> In fact, why are we having this discussion in the first place? >> > +=+ This is more difficult to answer. Could it be that there is > someone who would argue that he may set himself above the > interpretation of the law as provided by the Director, who > in turn has been guided by the Regulatory Authority? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > The question was put in a general sence, Grattan, unfair to drag it out of context. I see that you have not commented on any of the seven arguments directly. Are you maintaining a dignified silence, not wishing to meddle at the time or do you not believ this is worth discussing. If the latter, then the WBFLC are not doing the job they need to be doing. They are contemplating a law change (yes, that's what it is) but are not listening to an interested party who is against that particular law change. And don't tell me I'm not an interested party. You think about making this change explicitely because of my postings on blml. The WBFLC said as much. > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 14:14:54 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:14:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> Message-ID: <47AB044E.1020102@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > David has totally misunderstood this argument. Under MS, there is this kind > of UI in both directions > > [DALB] > > Herman, will you please try to understand this argument: there is a > difference - and it is a significant difference - between information and > data? If you don't understand the terminology, we can go over it again. But > you seem to think that anything a person hears, whether it was intended for > his ears or not, is necessarily "information" to that person or an > "indication" to that person. It is not. > Sorry David, whatever you might call it, the bridge term is unauthorized _information_. The fact that partner explains your bid in the same manner as you intended it is information: "my partner has understood me". This is UI, but we never act upon it because it is inevitable. Under MS principles, there is the same information coming the other way "aha, my partner has understood me as well", coupled with "ah, my previous explanation was correct, we are on the same track". That too is information. UI. Under DWS principles, when the second bidder hears his partner correctly explain his second bid, all he knows is that the second bid was correctly understood, but he doesn't know if that is just as a consequence of UI (and the third bid might not be based on the information contained in the second one). The second bidder does not know if his first explanation was correct, and he is still in the dark about the first explanation. All this is Information, and valuable information at that. Moreover, it is UI which is never acted upon, since it is "normal" for partner to correctly understand ones bidding. > Unless you can give some sign that you have at least made some effort to > comprehend the difference, I don't see how I can progress this. I don't want > to lose patience with you altogether, as others here have done. But you > really must try to be in some way responsive. > I do comprehend the difference, but what are you trying to prove with this difference? > Once again, the transmission of data does not constitute the passing of > information. Even if I were to admit to that - which I am not going to since I don't understand what you mean - I don't really see how this has anything to do with my contention that under MS principles, there is an exchange of information. > Information is passed only when data influences the actions of > the recipient. Do you understand what I have just said? Do you deny it? > OK, so you again wish to make the distinction between unauthorized information and UI that is acted upon. You refuse to see that it is the giving of UI which is bad for the game, not merely the acting upon it. Well then let me ask you this: do you think it is a good idea for your partner to give you UI? Which means you will lean over backwards to not do the suggested action. An action you might have taken if the UI had not been present? No David, the giving of UI is bad for the game in itself. > It's a simple question, Herman. It's got nothing to do with the Laws of > bridge. Just answer it, please. > I think I did. OK? > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 14:27:57 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:27:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************** > Did you notice that Zsa Zsa Gabor > was 91 on February 6th? > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:05 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws >> Perhaps the basic point I am making is that data >> and information are received even if merely overheard >> from someone else's conversation. >> >> > +=+ Or from a sight of a printed page intended for someone > else. Of course, there are laws on intellectual property which > penalize the use without licence of information belonging to > another person. > Distancing myself from Hermanesque diversions about MI > and UI and his idiosyncratic view of the priorities, and coming to > earth as the law is applied today, what I would expect an NBO to > teach to its TDs is that when asked for the meaning of his partner's > call it is a player's duty to explain the partnership understanding fully > and correctly. The lesson would add that there is no violation of > law if in doing so he reveals, as a by-product of the explanation > (in complying with the requirement of the law and not because he > is seeking to reveal it), that he thinks his partner has misexplained > a prior call. > > The NBO could expand the statement with examples such as the > following: > > Example: South opens 2NT with a balanced 20 count. North explains > it as a weak bid, 5-5 in the minors and bids 3D, a response which in > South's mind is a transfer to hearts. He is required to treat the response > as such a transfer. Two possibilities arise: > > Case (i): 2NT does show a strong balanced hand in the system (and > therefore 3D is indeed a transfer). South alerts 3D, and explains that > it is a transfer and he must treat North's response as though it is a > transfer. South has now conveyed unauthorized information to North > and North must not make use of it - he must continue to treat South's > actions as ensuing from the 2NT bid as he (North) explained it. > > Case (ii): the 2NT opening is a misbid. The system really is as explained > by North; weak, 5-5 in the minors. South realises this on hearing North's > explanation. South is still obliged to treat 3D as though it is a transfer, > But he must explain the bid according to the system - 3D is to play. > In giving this explanation he has been prompted by unauthorized > information (he has only been reminded that 3D is to play because he > heard the correct explanation of 2NT); he may not base a call or play > on the unauthorized information (Laws 16A3 and 16B1). > > If anyone has a doubt about this, he should ask his NBO about it. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Grattan, In case (i) you add an alert. In Belgium, a transfer of 3Di over a natural 2NT is not alerted. So while in England the misunderstanding is already shown by the alert, in Belgium it is not. I think that this already creates a bias, since under your principles, MS followers in England have a weaker position than MS followers in Belgium (who can get away with the misunderstanding remaining hidden). But the MS followers in Belgium have a second bias: no-one would dream of asking what 3Di means over a bid that is explained as for the minors. But if one clever guy asks it even so, then he will gain an advantage (provided his opponent is a MS follower). This is the bias that you are not addressing. (my argument two) My argument three is also valid on this example. In your (i), South must alert 3Di, but in your (ii) South must not alert 3Di. How does South know which of the two it is? What should South do (alert or not) - when he is 50/50 certain, - when he is almost certain of (ii), - when he is absolutely certain of (ii), but the TD refuses to accept the misbid (how should South know what the TD will accept or not) And then we come to my argument four: How should the TD decide whether South is certain or not? And then five: South thinks he's misbid and does (ii). The TD rules that it's not a misbid. What is the penalty? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 7 14:47:50 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:47:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be><000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AAC0F2.2010509@skynet.be><00a701c86978$8d3bd600$c7cb403e@Mildred> <47AB0225.2080901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003701c86995$8bcf2070$f8d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws >> > And don't tell me I'm not an interested party. You think > about making this change explicitly because of my postings > on blml. The WBFLC said as much. > 1. Interested you may be. The WBFLC does not consider you an interesting party. That situation is of your making, not mine. It thinks your NBO should set you to rights. 2. The WBF is not making a law change. It is affirming the law as it already is, so much so that it says there is no need to communicate anything about it to NBOs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Feb 7 15:26:22 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:26:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] ABF seminar - Law 27C References: <200802041826.m14IQP0l004251@cfa.harvard.edu> <47AA63F5.8060502@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D08EB27@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Steve wrote: > Perhaps it's easier to think of actual bridge hands. One could ask, "Is > there any hand the player could hold that would make the corrected bid > but not the insufficient bid?" If the answer is "yes," don't allow the > penalty-free correction. That's more or less the form of words I arrived at. Is every hand that makes the correction also a hand that would make the insufficient bid? If "yes" then allow the penalty-free correction. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080207/ce12e9aa/attachment.htm From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Feb 7 15:55:46 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:55:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <003701c86995$8bcf2070$f8d2403e@Mildred> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AAC0F2.2010509@skynet.be> <00a701c86978$8d3bd600$c7cb403e@Mildred> <47AB0225.2080901@skynet.be> <003701c86995$8bcf2070$f8d2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0802070655x5c2aa85dp1c5241393e0c2d17@mail.gmail.com> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:05 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > > > >> > > And don't tell me I'm not an interested party. You think > > about making this change explicitly because of my postings > > on blml. The WBFLC said as much. > > > 1. Interested you may be. The WBFLC does not consider > you an interesting party. That situation is of your making, > not mine. It thinks your NBO should set you to rights. My impression is that Herman's NBO had already set him to rights. A couple years back during one of many discussions about the Herman 1H opening I sniffed arround some with one of my partner's who happens to be from Belgium. (I wanted to find some specific information about the Belgian Conditions of Contest) I was informed that Herman's NBO doesn't let him direct that often, deeming it far more trouble than it was worth. (Sort of like letting Wolff serve on Appeals Committees) -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 7 15:58:47 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:58:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ***************************** >> Did you notice that Zsa Zsa Gabor >> was 91 on February 6th? >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jerry Fusselman" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:05 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws >> The NBO could expand the statement with examples such as the >> following: >> >> Example: South opens 2NT with a balanced 20 count. North explains >> it as a weak bid, 5-5 in the minors and bids 3D, a response which in >> South's mind is a transfer to hearts. He is required to treat the >> response >> as such a transfer. Two possibilities arise: >> >> Case (i): 2NT does show a strong balanced hand in the system (and >> therefore 3D is indeed a transfer). South alerts 3D, and explains that >> it is a transfer and he must treat North's response as though it is a >> transfer. South has now conveyed unauthorized information to North >> and North must not make use of it - he must continue to treat South's >> actions as ensuing from the 2NT bid as he (North) explained it. >> >> Case (ii): the 2NT opening is a misbid. The system really is as explained >> by North; weak, 5-5 in the minors. South realises this on hearing North's >> explanation. South is still obliged to treat 3D as though it is a >> transfer, >> But he must explain the bid according to the system - 3D is to play. >> In giving this explanation he has been prompted by unauthorized >> information (he has only been reminded that 3D is to play because he >> heard the correct explanation of 2NT); he may not base a call or play >> on the unauthorized information (Laws 16A3 and 16B1). >> >> If anyone has a doubt about this, he should ask his NBO about it. >> >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> > > Grattan, > > In case (i) you add an alert. In Belgium, a transfer of 3Di over a > natural 2NT is not alerted. So while in England the misunderstanding > is already shown by the alert, in Belgium it is not. I think that this > already creates a bias, since under your principles, MS followers in > England have a weaker position than MS followers in Belgium (who can > get away with the misunderstanding remaining hidden). But the MS > followers in Belgium have a second bias: no-one would dream of asking > what 3Di means over a bid that is explained as for the minors. But if > one clever guy asks it even so, then he will gain an advantage > (provided his opponent is a MS follower). > +=+ Then for Belgium read it simply as "South explains that 3D is a >> transfer and he must treat North's response as though it is a transfer. >> South has now conveyed unauthorized information to North and >> North must not make use of it - he must continue to treat South's >> actions as ensuing from the 2NT bid as he (North) explained it." I am surprised that you can even contemplate "getting away with" an attempt to conceal an infraction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 16:08:12 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:08:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <003701c86995$8bcf2070$f8d2403e@Mildred> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be><000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AAC0F2.2010509@skynet.be><00a701c86978$8d3bd600$c7cb403e@Mildred> <47AB0225.2080901@skynet.be> <003701c86995$8bcf2070$f8d2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47AB1EDC.3010106@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > >> And don't tell me I'm not an interested party. You think >> about making this change explicitly because of my postings >> on blml. The WBFLC said as much. >> > 1. Interested you may be. The WBFLC does not consider > you an interesting party. That situation is of your making, > not mine. It thinks your NBO should set you to rights. > 2. The WBF is not making a law change. It is affirming the > law as it already is, so much so that it says there is no need > to communicate anything about it to NBOs. If you believe that to be the case, then the clarification is not needed. Please allow me to continue to act under L20F5 as I have been doing. I do no wrong, and I've been considering DWS and MS both "acceptable" for ten years already. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 7 16:21:03 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:21:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Because that's what's printed on the inside of the box In-Reply-To: <007801c868e3$b1f69010$e6d4403e@Mildred> References: <968809.22602.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com><9E22E930-7E8A-40E3-92CC-AE9ED2657C3F@starpower.net> <874415BB-2657-40A3-8B95-5EA66190DFDF@starpower.net> <007801c868e3$b1f69010$e6d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <20010C7B-117C-4876-8E27-D1B9F0AED7FD@starpower.net> On Feb 6, 2008, at 12:14 PM, wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> With all due respect, Kojak has been a respected and influential >> insider for so long that he may fail to appreciate what the process >> looks like from the outside. To reply with personal invective to the >> mere suggestion that the WBF might improve its image if it were >> willing to publicly avow the reasoning behind some of its less >> transparent decisions seems a bit over-sensitive, perhaps even >> illustrative of a general attitude that outsiders just don't count. > +=+Like myself, Kojak is under the procedural constraints > that the Constitution and By-Laws of the WBF place upon us. > We do see things differently in one way at least. He disagrees > with me in the most extreme terms if in expressing a personal > view of a subject I let it be seen that it is based upon what the > TPTB agree but will not pronounce publicly. That is the view being questioned here. What is his objection? If TPTB have reached agreement on the effectuation of an interpretation, precedent, guideline, or whatever, that will affect us all, why should they be in any way reluctant to reveal it? > But yes, we are both aware of 'what the process looks > like' from blml. We might not equate blml with the whole of > 'the outside'. Of course not. 99% of "the whole of 'the outside'" has no interest whatsoever in the details of the laws or the mechanisms by which they are developed and interpreted. But for those who do, surely BLML is an adequately representative surrogate, at minimum better than anything else out there. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Thu Feb 7 16:23:58 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:23:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00dc01c8699d$75860b00$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 11:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>>I think Victorians might pass :) >>> >>>Tony (Sydney) > >>+=+ And Edwardians? +=+ > > Swiss Teams with imps converted to WBF VPs > (including difference of 0-10 = 0 imps) > > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1S 3H(1) Pass > 4H Pass Pass ? > > (1) Weak jump overcall > > You, South, hold: > > 6432 > Q > Q97 > 98543 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > Note that blmlers who chose to bid 3S on > the previous round belong to a different > class of player than the actual South, so > only blmlers who passed initially should > answer this second round of questions. If the waitress had passed on the previous round, no doubt she'll do so again. Even I would if I picked up the hand at this point. John > > > 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 hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 17:04:45 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:04:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0802070655x5c2aa85dp1c5241393e0c2d17@mail.gmail.com> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AAC0F2.2010509@skynet.be> <00a701c86978$8d3bd600$c7cb403e@Mildred> <47AB0225.2080901@skynet.be> <003701c86995$8bcf2070$f8d2403e@Mildred> <2da24b8e0802070655x5c2aa85dp1c5241393e0c2d17@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47AB2C1D.4060806@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:05 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws >> >> >>> And don't tell me I'm not an interested party. You think >>> about making this change explicitly because of my postings >>> on blml. The WBFLC said as much. >>> >> 1. Interested you may be. The WBFLC does not consider >> you an interesting party. That situation is of your making, >> not mine. It thinks your NBO should set you to rights. > > My impression is that Herman's NBO had already set him to rights. > > A couple years back during one of many discussions about the Herman 1H > opening I sniffed arround some with one of my partner's who happens to > be from Belgium. (I wanted to find some specific information about > the Belgian Conditions of Contest) > > I was informed that Herman's NBO doesn't let him direct that often, > deeming it far more trouble than it was worth. (Sort of like letting > Wolff serve on Appeals Committees) > > Rest assured that I my standing in Belgium is the one a qualified International TD deserves. I sit on the Tournament Committee of the Flemish and the Belgian Federation, am Chairman of the Flemish Appeal Committee, and a frequent member of the Belgian one, and direct several Flemish and National Championships including half of the days of the Belgian Top Division. The WBF documents regarding the laws are transmitted to me by the secretaries of the Belgian AND Flemish Federations (both of whom are on Anna Gudge's list - thanks for the informal recognition Anna). If I did not stamp my mails to Grattan with "officially approved by the BBF" it's because I did not want to show off. I consider Grattan a friend and I thought he would read what I sent him regardless of how official it seemed. As to the official standing of the DWS, that is this: I wrote about this first in 1998. I know Grattan and Ton have read about it, and they have never commented. My point-of-view has always been that both MS and DWS actions are acceptable. Until recently, neither Ton nor Grattan have ever disputed this. It was my impression that they thought it an amusing sideline, not worthy of official consideration. That was also my impression when talking to Grattan in Antalya. Other than there, we have never discussed this whenever we have met (about once a year in the past decade). When I saw the drafts to the 2007 laws, I noticed that nothing much was changed in the laws that govern this problem, and so I did not think it necessary to send in anything about DWS. Now however, that situation has apparently changed. Although the laws did not change, the WBFLC is now prepared to issue a statement saying that the DWS actions are not acceptable. Then, I want to have my say. If Grattan wants that with the approval of the BBF, he'll get it. But otherwise also, I would like to be heard. They may not think it is like that, but the WBF would issue a law change if they make the DWS inacceptable. I do not think that would be fair to me, and to the several other people on this list and off it, who have been listening to me and who would act in DWS manner if the situation ever arose. At present, they can point to these discussion, which do not seem to conclusively make the DWS actions inacceptable. They can point to the WBFLC intention of issueing clarification. In future, they would not be able to do the same. That is a law change. Furthermore, I urge the WBFLC to have a serious think about my arguments three, four and five. What is a player to do when he is uncertain about the true meaning of his previous call? If the level of certainty matters in that decision, how is the TD going to determine if that level of certainty was actually reached when the player says it was? And what shall the penalty be (over and above the penalties for MI) when a player (accidentally/maliciously) breaks this new regulation? Those three considerations alone should be enough for the WBFLC to stop this discussion and simply let the current situation be: that the DWS actions are acceptable, and that the MI penalties are sufficient for the DWS-adept. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 17:05:21 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:05:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47AB2C41.5040305@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************** > Did you notice that Zsa Zsa Gabor > was 91 on February 6th? I did, now. But what does she look like? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 7 17:05:06 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:05:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AABDF0.6030903@skynet.be> <000e01c8696c$3b6b6ea0$b2424be0$@com> <2b1e598b0802070142t2befd757t227c1c2a0c2948c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007701c869a3$352aeb10$fd219c56@stefanie> JF: > 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 is now basing a call on UI. > 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? Why indeed? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 7 17:18:17 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:18:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be><000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AAC0F2.2010509@skynet.be><00a701c86978$8d3bd600$c7cb403e@Mildred> <47AB0225.2080901@skynet.be><003701c86995$8bcf2070$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB1EDC.3010106@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00a401c869a5$0c1740f0$fd219c56@stefanie> Herman DeWael wrote: >> >>> And don't tell me I'm not an interested party. You think >>> about making this change explicitly because of my postings >>> on blml. The WBFLC said as much. >>> >> 1. Interested you may be. The WBFLC does not consider >> you an interesting party. That situation is of your making, >> not mine. It thinks your NBO should set you to rights. >> 2. The WBF is not making a law change. It is affirming the >> law as it already is, so much so that it says there is no need >> to communicate anything about it to NBOs. > > If you believe that to be the case, then the clarification is not > needed. Please allow me to continue to act under L20F5 as I have been > doing. I do no wrong, and I've been considering DWS and MS both > "acceptable" for ten years already. > How on earth can you respond to a message confirming that the dWS is already illegal by asking, "please allow me to continue to act... as I have been doing?" Why would you expect to be allowed to do anything besides follow the Laws that are in force? As to your Human Rights thing in response to another post of Grattan's, the Laws are not really designed to catch out cheaters. So when someone commits an infraction, be it dWS or whatever, they are given the benefit of a doubt; they are assumed to have done it inadvertently. But when someone is shown, or admits, to having acted intentionally, there is nothing stopping the RA from excluding that person. The argument that other cheaters are getting away with it does not carry any weight. But it seems that your plan is to lie, and so get away with it. And get away with it you shall, once, twice, maybe three times. But after that, I think that the best thing you can hope for is still to be believed, but to be forced to play whatever passes for "simple systems" in your NBO. And this hope would be very optimistic. Stefanie Rohan London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 17:20:20 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:20:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> Grattan, once again you fail to answer all the questions in the post. gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >>> >> Grattan, >> >> In case (i) you add an alert. In Belgium, a transfer of 3Di over a >> natural 2NT is not alerted. So while in England the misunderstanding >> is already shown by the alert, in Belgium it is not. I think that this >> already creates a bias, since under your principles, MS followers in >> England have a weaker position than MS followers in Belgium (who can >> get away with the misunderstanding remaining hidden). But the MS >> followers in Belgium have a second bias: no-one would dream of asking >> what 3Di means over a bid that is explained as for the minors. But if >> one clever guy asks it even so, then he will gain an advantage >> (provided his opponent is a MS follower). >> > +=+ Then for Belgium read it simply as "South explains that 3D is a >>> transfer and he must treat North's response as though it is a transfer. Well, one of the reasons why I wrote this is to point out to you that you should not let this text stand as is. If you intend using this as a WBF clarification, then all references to alerts should be taken away. But that is a side issue. There was more important in my post, and you have not addressed all of it. >>> South has now conveyed unauthorized information to North and >>> North must not make use of it - he must continue to treat South's >>> actions as ensuing from the 2NT bid as he (North) explained it." > I am surprised that you can even contemplate "getting away > with" an attempt to conceal an infraction. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Well Grattan, that is precisely what the laws _oblige_ us to do. You say it's an infraction, but it isn't! Let's correctly see what I wrote: (who can get away with the misunderstanding remaining hidden) Since when is a misunderstanding an infraction? In England, 3Di will be alerted, and the opponents will realize (or ask) that it is a transfer, and therefor that 2NT was strong. They will know there was a misunderstanding. In Belgium though, 3Di needs no alert (neither as natural response to a minor ask nor as a transfer over a strong 2NT). Here, the opponents will not realize anything. Behind screens, all over the world, neither opponent will realize there is a misunderstanding (and only one opponent will have MI). So there is no reason to talk about getting away with an attempt to conceal an infraction. There is no "getting away" in many parts of the world, and there was no infraction to begin with. As to "getting away with the misinformation", that is obligatory according to L20F5, and there is no "getting away" there either, because the TD will give redress. But the poor English pair get, on top of MI penalties, will see their opponents double a contract that they can no longer escape from, because of the UI that now goes both ways. That is what I find so terrible about MS principles. The treatment at two different tables can be totally different, based on factors that have no real baring on the case, such as the alert procedure that happens to apply or whether the opponent asks a question or not. "Asks" a question, not "is interested in knowing". Quite often, an opponent is interested in knowing something, but he does not ask, either because he will ask later or because he looks it up on the SC. It's this bias that I believe to be the worst part of the MS. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 7 17:45:27 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 17:45:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47AB2C1D.4060806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c869a8$d8d35590$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Herman: I miss one piece of information in your statement below; how does the Belgian bridge world consider DWS? Would you care to state whether or not the Belgian bridge federations (I understand there are two or three bridge federations in Belgium?) support your ideas on DWS? Is DWS officially recognized as legal in Belgium? Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 7. februar 2008 17:05 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > > richard willey wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Herman De Wael" > >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:05 PM > >> Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > >> > >> > >>> And don't tell me I'm not an interested party. You think > >>> about making this change explicitly because of my postings > >>> on blml. The WBFLC said as much. > >>> > >> 1. Interested you may be. The WBFLC does not consider > >> you an interesting party. That situation is of your making, > >> not mine. It thinks your NBO should set you to rights. > > > > My impression is that Herman's NBO had already set him to rights. > > > > A couple years back during one of many discussions about the Herman 1H > > opening I sniffed arround some with one of my partner's who happens to > > be from Belgium. (I wanted to find some specific information about > > the Belgian Conditions of Contest) > > > > I was informed that Herman's NBO doesn't let him direct that often, > > deeming it far more trouble than it was worth. (Sort of like letting > > Wolff serve on Appeals Committees) > > > > > > Rest assured that I my standing in Belgium is the one a qualified > International TD deserves. I sit on the Tournament Committee of the > Flemish and the Belgian Federation, am Chairman of the Flemish Appeal > Committee, and a frequent member of the Belgian one, and direct > several Flemish and National Championships including half of the days > of the Belgian Top Division. The WBF documents regarding the laws are > transmitted to me by the secretaries of the Belgian AND Flemish > Federations (both of whom are on Anna Gudge's list - thanks for the > informal recognition Anna). > If I did not stamp my mails to Grattan with "officially approved by > the BBF" it's because I did not want to show off. I consider Grattan a > friend and I thought he would read what I sent him regardless of how > official it seemed. > > As to the official standing of the DWS, that is this: > > I wrote about this first in 1998. I know Grattan and Ton have read > about it, and they have never commented. My point-of-view has always > been that both MS and DWS actions are acceptable. Until recently, > neither Ton nor Grattan have ever disputed this. It was my impression > that they thought it an amusing sideline, not worthy of official > consideration. That was also my impression when talking to Grattan in > Antalya. Other than there, we have never discussed this whenever we > have met (about once a year in the past decade). > When I saw the drafts to the 2007 laws, I noticed that nothing much > was changed in the laws that govern this problem, and so I did not > think it necessary to send in anything about DWS. > > Now however, that situation has apparently changed. Although the laws > did not change, the WBFLC is now prepared to issue a statement saying > that the DWS actions are not acceptable. Then, I want to have my say. > If Grattan wants that with the approval of the BBF, he'll get it. But > otherwise also, I would like to be heard. They may not think it is > like that, but the WBF would issue a law change if they make the DWS > inacceptable. I do not think that would be fair to me, and to the > several other people on this list and off it, who have been listening > to me and who would act in DWS manner if the situation ever arose. At > present, they can point to these discussion, which do not seem to > conclusively make the DWS actions inacceptable. They can point to the > WBFLC intention of issueing clarification. In future, they would not > be able to do the same. That is a law change. > > Furthermore, I urge the WBFLC to have a serious think about my > arguments three, four and five. What is a player to do when he is > uncertain about the true meaning of his previous call? If the level of > certainty matters in that decision, how is the TD going to determine > if that level of certainty was actually reached when the player says > it was? And what shall the penalty be (over and above the penalties > for MI) when a player (accidentally/maliciously) breaks this new > regulation? > Those three considerations alone should be enough for the WBFLC to > stop this discussion and simply let the current situation be: that the > DWS actions are acceptable, and that the MI penalties are sufficient > for the DWS-adept. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 7 17:45:50 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:45:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Does L12B1 void some rub-of-the-green outcomes? In-Reply-To: <47AA6558.5020907@nhcc.net> References: <200802042147.m14LlJZq005154@cfa.harvard.edu> <47AA6558.5020907@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <6B9B0497-8A54-4527-9277-3E0661416999@starpower.net> On Feb 6, 2008, at 8:56 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> You are talking about a case where unauthorized -- but >> presumably accurate -- information demonstrably suggests a call that >> ultimately leads to a odd and inferior contract over a call that >> would have led to the normal, superior one. Only then can the >> question of what to do when the inferior contract produces a better >> score than the normal one arise. Has anyone in this forum ever >> actually encountered such a case? I am at a loss to construct a non- >> silly example. > > It's easy to construct examples, though silly or not is a matter of > judgment. Suppose NS use Hesitation Blackwood to bid a slam, which > turns out to be an inferior contract based on the NS hands. > (Perhaps N > or S overbid earlier or they just misjudged.) Today, however, it > happens to make because of a lucky lie of the cards. > > I think the standard approach (barring additional complications) is to > adjust the score to 5-whatever, making six. > > I can't cite an actual example offhand, but this seems a likely enough > scenario. Steve is right. On rereading, I see that I have mischaracterized the problem to appear to include far more cases than I intended. Let me try to explain by example. Offender (-to-be) bids Blackwood. Partner thinks at length then, with obvious reluctance replies to show one ace. The obvious message, consistent with auction so far, is that responder holds a side void but has realized that he has no agreement as to how to show it. O bids the slam, which turns out to be single-dummy inferior to having stopped at 5S, but makes on a lucky lie. As Steve says, most of the time we will routinely adjust to 5S making six. We need not find that 6S opposite partner's void is better than 5S, only that it is better than 6S would have been opposite a hand lacking a void. Which leave two classes of problem cases: (1) The "obvious" void isn't there. Partner's hesitation was random, unrelated to his hand. These cases belong to some other discussion; in the thread case, we could presume that the U I was accurate I. (2) The void is there. But 6S would have more likely to make were it not. That is the kind of case Stephanie and Jerry were discussing, and for which I claimed difficulty finding a realistic example. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Feb 7 18:09:09 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 06:09:09 +1300 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <010601c86897$8e7d8400$20cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802070909o14068084x13d7a9e5e8704867@mail.gmail.com> On 07/02/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >>I think Victorians might pass :) > >> > >>Tony (Sydney) > > >+=+ And Edwardians? +=+ > > Swiss Teams with imps converted to WBF VPs > (including difference of 0-10 = 0 imps) > > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1S 3H(1) Pass > 4H Pass Pass ? > > (1) Weak jump overcall > > You, South, hold: > > 6432 > Q > Q97 > 98543 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > Note that blmlers who chose to bid 3S on > the previous round belong to a different > class of player than the actual South, so > only blmlers who passed initially should > answer this second round of questions. > I bid 4S now. Why not the opponent's bid game vulnerable we are not vulnerable so 4S will very often be a good sacrifice. Wayne From adam at irvine.com Thu Feb 7 18:12:23 2008 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:12:23 -0800 Subject: [blml] SF NABC #13 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:52:00 +1100." Message-ID: <200802071703.JAA13059@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > Adam Beneschan: > > [snip] > > >The committee here decided that it wasn't clear what the hesitation > >suggested, so they refused to adjust. My feeling is that the > >committee shouldn't have had to figure out what the hesitation > >suggested; the call chosen by the hesitator's partner was abnormal > >enough (assuming no extraneous information) that the committee > >should have just presumed it was based on UI, > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion this philosophy is an aggravated sub-case of "If it > hesitates, shoot it", the dreaded Rule of Coincidence. Yeah, I was aware of the similarities of my idea to both the "If it hesitates, shoot it" philosophy and the RoC. I'm not a fan of either or those. Normally, though, when we deal with hesitation cases where the hestiation may not suggest a particular action, we're not dealing with an action taken by the hesitator's partner that seems bizarre. And normally, when we talk about Rule of Coincidence cases, we're talking about a case where one partner takes some strange action, and the other partner takes some other strange action in the opposite direction, and it happens to work out, *BUT* there is no overt hesitation or UI. This case seems, to me, to be the intersection of those two: a case of "Rule of if it hesitates and there's a Coincidence, then shoot it". If there had been no hesitation, this auction would certainly look a lot like a typical RoC case. My thinking here was that in a case like this, since there *was* overt UI, there's just too much coincidence for there to be a real coincidence. I think one could make a case that while we shouldn't "shoot" all hesitations just because they occur, and that we shouldn't "shoot" all coincidences just because they happen, the combination of these two is different---the two put together provide sufficient evidence that there was an infraction. -- Adam From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Feb 7 18:55:55 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:55:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > > In England, 3Di will be alerted, and the opponents will realize (or > ask) that it is a transfer, and therefor that 2NT was strong. They > will know there was a misunderstanding. > Sure, if any oxygen is transported to their brains they will realize this. They are allowed to draw conclusions. This is in fact, one of the main attractions of Bridge: drw conclusions, and do something intelligent. > In Belgium though, 3Di needs no alert (neither as natural response to > a minor ask nor as a transfer over a strong 2NT). Here, the opponents > will not realize anything. > They will, after the strong hand bids 3H. Except when they get cheated, then it may happen happen that they don't realize it. > Behind screens, all over the world, neither opponent will realize > there is a misunderstanding (and only one opponent will have MI). > Come again? Screens keep them from smelling a rat after 3H? Must be an efect of Belgian screens, I didn't notice any such effect behind German or EBL screens. OK, there may be cases where the situation is obscure enough, but how often can that happen? Once a year? If one plays a lot.... > So there is no reason to talk about getting away with an attempt to > conceal an infraction. There is no "getting away" in many parts of the > world, and there was no infraction to begin with. > There will be one as soon as the dWs player answers "to play" when asked what 3D was. And there will be a question after his 3H bid, as sure as the sun rises in the morning. > As to "getting away with the misinformation", that is obligatory > according to L20F5, and there is no "getting away" there either, > because the TD will give redress. > > But the poor English pair get, on top of MI penalties, will see their > opponents double a contract that they can no longer escape from, > because of the UI that now goes both ways. > And your point is? > That is what I find so terrible about MS principles. The treatment at > two different tables can be totally different, based on factors that > have no real baring on the case, such as the alert procedure that > happens to apply or whether the opponent asks a question or not. Herman, this is not a MS principle. It is proper alerting and proper explanations, but not a "principle", since the player sitting at the table has no way of controlling whether a question is asked or not. If there were no alerts and no questions, ever, we would not be having this discussion, so the difference is not in dWs or MS here, it is in alert regulations (whch will rarely be different enough to matter, even if they are different in this special case) and the more or less random effect of questions being asked or not. What has MS to do with that? If everybody followed correct procedure and took their 1100s in stride ( not to mention the revolutionary approach of playing a system they can handle), where would the problem be? Oh, there are people who can't stomach those 1100s? Well, that's too bad for them, isn't it? If they (or their partners) cannot be bothered to learn the system or to keep it simple enough to remember without difficulty they should switch to a different game or a different partner. It's as easy as that. To ascribe random effects to "MS principles" is completely absurd. What _is_ absurd is trying to get around some recurring problems by "creative" interpretations of the laws to minimize adverse effects to one's score. > > "Asks" a question, not "is interested in knowing". Quite often, an > opponent is interested in knowing something, but he does not ask, > either because he will ask later or because he looks it up on the SC. > > It's this bias that I believe to be the worst part of the MS. > What bias? That has nothing to do with MS or dWs, it has something to do with being found out when at least one member of the partnership makes a stupid mistake. You make mistakes, you pay for them. Sometimes you have a misunderstanding and discover that you have missed a 98% slam, which happens not to make, for 13 IMP or a complete top. So? Do you want to outlaw that? Random things happen, all the time. Alert regulations, questions being asked or not asked, and so on. At one table a player looks up a bid on his opps's system card, at another table he forgot his reading spectacles at home, so he has to ask. One of them gets correct information, the other doesn't. The card is wrong, or someone forgot. So? How do you propose to handle that? Divine justice is always a possibility, but I suspect that it is not the solution to this "problem" The solution I propose is to get it right, and if one has a bad moment to accept whatever happens stoically. That is not _that_ difficult to do. On the upside there wil be no accidents when shaving next morning, as there is no problem with using the mirror. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 7 19:01:39 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:01:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47AB044E.1020102@skynet.be> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <47AB044E.1020102@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sorry David, whatever you might call it, the bridge term is > unauthorized _information_. The fact that partner explains your bid in > the same manner as you intended it is information: "my partner has > understood me". This is UI, but we never act upon it because it is > inevitable. > Under MS principles, there is the same information coming the other > way "aha, my partner has understood me as well", coupled with "ah, my > previous explanation was correct, we are on the same track". That too > is information. UI. > Under DWS principles, when the second bidder hears his partner > correctly explain his second bid, all he knows is that the second bid > was correctly understood, but he doesn't know if that is just as a > consequence of UI (and the third bid might not be based on the > information contained in the second one). The second bidder does not > know if his first explanation was correct, and he is still in the dark > about the first explanation. > > All this is Information, and valuable information at that. > Moreover, it is UI which is never acted upon, since it is "normal" for > partner to correctly understand ones bidding. That is nonsense. Read a dictionary. Information "which is never acted upon" cannot, by defintion, be "valuable". Semantics of the word "information" aside, that is precisely what David has said. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Feb 7 19:26:24 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:26:24 -0600 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <47AB044E.1020102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802071026y387c8ff8rc1619fafe47910cc@mail.gmail.com> [Eric Landau:] > On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > All this is Information, and valuable information at that. > > Moreover, it is UI which is never acted upon, since it is "normal" for > > partner to correctly understand ones bidding. > > That is nonsense. Read a dictionary. Information "which is never > acted upon" cannot, by defintion, be "valuable". > I think what Herman is saying is that when you hear partner confidently alert and then correctly explain you call, you have the valuable information of being on the same wavelength. It is of course UI, but it is a unique kind of UI. There is no penalty for using it, and no need to consider LAs, because it is normal to presume that partner is correctly understanding the system. So when Herman said that this kind of UI is "never acted upon," he means (though the laws never say so we understand it) it is presumed to never be *illegally* acted upon. The need to consider LAs comes up when partner fails to alert or correctly explain. It's funny, because you have UI when he alerts correctly and you have UI when he does not alert correctly. But only one of these two kinds of UI involve LAs, adjusted scores, and all that. I find nothing in the laws that covers this, though there should be. Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 7 19:58:01 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:58:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> Message-ID: <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> On Feb 7, 2008, at 12:55 PM, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: > >> In England, 3Di will be alerted, and the opponents will realize (or >> ask) that it is a transfer, and therefor that 2NT was strong. They >> will know there was a misunderstanding. > > Sure, if any oxygen is transported to their brains they will realize > this. They are allowed to draw conclusions. This is in fact, one of > the > main attractions of Bridge: drw conclusions, and do something > intelligent. > >> In Belgium though, 3Di needs no alert (neither as natural response to >> a minor ask nor as a transfer over a strong 2NT). Here, the opponents >> will not realize anything. > > They will, after the strong hand bids 3H. Except when they get > cheated, > then it may happen happen that they don't realize it. > >> Behind screens, all over the world, neither opponent will realize >> there is a misunderstanding (and only one opponent will have MI). > > Come again? Screens keep them from smelling a rat after 3H? Must be an > efect of Belgian screens, I didn't notice any such effect behind > German > or EBL screens. > OK, there may be cases where the situation is obscure enough, but how > often can that happen? Once a year? If one plays a lot.... > >> So there is no reason to talk about getting away with an attempt to >> conceal an infraction. There is no "getting away" in many parts of >> the >> world, and there was no infraction to begin with. > > There will be one as soon as the dWs player answers "to play" when > asked > what 3D was. And there will be a question after his 3H bid, as sure as > the sun rises in the morning. But an ethical DWS follower will not abandon the DWS in mid-auction merely because it no longer works to his advantage to follow it. After all, the entire logic of the DWS rests on the obligation of the DWSer to avoid indicating *in any manner whatsoever* that his partner's explanation was incorrect. To achieve that objective, he must not only describe 3D as "to play", but must also then pass it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Feb 7 20:11:18 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:11:18 -0600 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 7, 2008 12:58 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > > But an ethical DWS follower will not abandon the DWS in mid-auction > merely because it no longer works to his advantage to follow it. > After all, the entire logic of the DWS rests on the obligation of the > DWSer to avoid indicating *in any manner whatsoever* that his > partner's explanation was incorrect. To achieve that objective, he > must not only describe 3D as "to play", but must also then pass it. > How quickly Eric forgot. 9 hours ago, in this thread, I posted Herman's answer about this. Herman has never said that the DWS requires passing 3D in this kind of scenario. The indicating in any manner part refers to alerts and explanations. The calls made in ethical DWS match the calls made in ethical MS. Herman has been crystal clear on what DWS is, and we should probably go by his definition. Jerry Fusselman From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 20:44:06 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:44:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <007701c869a3$352aeb10$fd219c56@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AABDF0.6030903@skynet.be> <000e01c8696c$3b6b6ea0$b2424be0$@com> <2b1e598b0802070142t2befd757t227c1c2a0c2948c9@mail.gmail.com> <007701c869a3$352aeb10$fd219c56@stefanie> Message-ID: <47AB5F86.5020004@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > JF: > >> 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 is now basing a call on UI. > No it's not. It's selecting from among those LA's not suggested by the UI, the one that is least revealing to partner. >> 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? > > Why indeed? > Are you agreeing with me, Stefanie? > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 20:46:36 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:46:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <000701c869a8$d8d35590$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000701c869a8$d8d35590$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47AB601C.3070803@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > Herman: I miss one piece of information in your statement below; how does > the Belgian bridge world consider DWS? > > Would you care to state whether or not the Belgian bridge federations (I > understand there are two or three bridge federations in Belgium?) support > your ideas on DWS? > > Is DWS officially recognized as legal in Belgium? > > Sven > In the sense that every Director I talk to, and explain my reasons, they agree with me, there is no problem here. But then these people aren't tainted by David Burn's writings on blml. But you might ask Alain about this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 21:01:34 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:01:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> Message-ID: <47AB639E.6000302@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> In England, 3Di will be alerted, and the opponents will realize (or >> ask) that it is a transfer, and therefor that 2NT was strong. They >> will know there was a misunderstanding. >> > > Sure, if any oxygen is transported to their brains they will realize > this. They are allowed to draw conclusions. This is in fact, one of the > main attractions of Bridge: drw conclusions, and do something intelligent. > >> In Belgium though, 3Di needs no alert (neither as natural response to >> a minor ask nor as a transfer over a strong 2NT). Here, the opponents >> will not realize anything. >> > > They will, after the strong hand bids 3H. Except when they get cheated, > then it may happen happen that they don't realize it. > OK, this is a bad example. The 3H bid clears everything up. But don't you realize that it also clears up things for partner - without the need for any UI? The difference remains: In England, partner has an alert and a 3H bid. One is UI, the other is AI. Do we allow him to bid 3NT? Tricky one. In Belgium, partner has no alert (which is what he expected) and a 3He bid, which is AI. Do we allow the Belgian North to bid 3NT? I don't see why not. So the story remains: the English North-South are at a disadvantage against the Belgian North-South, if MS is law. With DWS however, none of the Norths have UI, so none is disadvantaged. Surely you see that this is true? Whether or not you find it a bad thing is another question - but you certainly cannot say it is true that there is a difference between England and Belgium, and this difference is due to the alert procedure. That cannot be a good thing. >> Behind screens, all over the world, neither opponent will realize >> there is a misunderstanding (and only one opponent will have MI). >> > > Come again? Screens keep them from smelling a rat after 3H? Must be an > efect of Belgian screens, I didn't notice any such effect behind German > or EBL screens. Well, but that smelling a rat is from AI, not UI. There is no UI with screens. In fact, North does not even know what partner explained. > OK, there may be cases where the situation is obscure enough, but how > often can that happen? Once a year? If one plays a lot.... > In fact, in ten years I ahve never seen a fully-blown DWS case. We are really talking highly hypothetical here! >> So there is no reason to talk about getting away with an attempt to >> conceal an infraction. There is no "getting away" in many parts of the >> world, and there was no infraction to begin with. >> > > There will be one as soon as the dWs player answers "to play" when asked > what 3D was. And there will be a question after his 3H bid, as sure as > the sun rises in the morning. > But then again, what was 3Di? "to play", wasn't it? >> As to "getting away with the misinformation", that is obligatory >> according to L20F5, and there is no "getting away" there either, >> because the TD will give redress. >> >> But the poor English pair get, on top of MI penalties, will see their >> opponents double a contract that they can no longer escape from, >> because of the UI that now goes both ways. >> > > And your point is? > That there is a difference where there should not be one. >> That is what I find so terrible about MS principles. The treatment at >> two different tables can be totally different, based on factors that >> have no real baring on the case, such as the alert procedure that >> happens to apply or whether the opponent asks a question or not. > > Herman, this is not a MS principle. It is proper alerting and proper > explanations, but not a "principle", since the player sitting at the > table has no way of controlling whether a question is asked or not. Indeed not. And when no question is asked, they "get away" with their misunderstanding. But when a question is asked, you want them to reveal the misunderstanding. Don't you see that the answer "transfer to hearts" is not understood as "partner has hearts" but as "I have 20 points". You are not telling them what your system is, you are only telling them that you had a bidding misunderstanding. A piece of information they are not entitled to, and which you don't have to reveal under most circumstances. I believe you should not be required to reveal that under the special circumstances. > If > there were no alerts and no questions, ever, we would not be having this > discussion, so the difference is not in dWs or MS here, it is in alert > regulations (whch will rarely be different enough to matter, even if > they are different in this special case) and the more or less random > effect of questions being asked or not. Indeed, you said it, more or less random. > What has MS to do with that? That this random fact changes the circumstances substantially. > If > everybody followed correct procedure and took their 1100s in stride ( > not to mention the revolutionary approach of playing a system they can > handle), where would the problem be? The problem that depending on those random facts, you are headed not for 100 but for 1100. or not for 1100 but for 4000. > Oh, there are people who can't > stomach those 1100s? Well, that's too bad for them, isn't it? If they > (or their partners) cannot be bothered to learn the system or to keep it > simple enough to remember without difficulty they should switch to a > different game or a different partner. It's as easy as that. To ascribe > random effects to "MS principles" is completely absurd. What _is_ absurd > is trying to get around some recurring problems by "creative" > interpretations of the laws to minimize adverse effects to one's score. >> If that were all there was to it, you'd be right. If everyone were to suffer a -2000 when they get something wrong, I accept my -2000 also. But if my neighbour is going for -500, and I'm headed for -2000 because of some random effect that has little to do with the case itself, then I surely want to go for -500 as well. >> "Asks" a question, not "is interested in knowing". Quite often, an >> opponent is interested in knowing something, but he does not ask, >> either because he will ask later or because he looks it up on the SC. >> >> It's this bias that I believe to be the worst part of the MS. >> > > What bias? That has nothing to do with MS or dWs, it has something to do > with being found out when at least one member of the partnership makes a > stupid mistake. You make mistakes, you pay for them. Sometimes you have > a misunderstanding and discover that you have missed a 98% slam, which > happens not to make, for 13 IMP or a complete top. So? Do you want to > outlaw that? Random things happen, all the time. Alert regulations, > questions being asked or not asked, and so on. At one table a player > looks up a bid on his opps's system card, at another table he forgot his > reading spectacles at home, so he has to ask. One of them gets correct > information, the other doesn't. The card is wrong, or someone forgot. > So? How do you propose to handle that? Divine justice is always a > possibility, but I suspect that it is not the solution to this "problem" > The solution I propose is to get it right, and if one has a bad moment > to accept whatever happens stoically. That is not _that_ difficult to > do. On the upside there wil be no accidents when shaving next morning, > as there is no problem with using the mirror. > Answered above. I will pay for my mistakes, but not more than at any other table. Don't you see where this leads? If opponents know they can turn -500 into -2000 by asking a question, how many questions do you think will get asked? For no better reason than to catch out some -2000s. That cannot be what we want! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 21:03:00 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:03:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <47AB044E.1020102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47AB63F4.8060409@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> >> All this is Information, and valuable information at that. >> Moreover, it is UI which is never acted upon, since it is "normal" for >> partner to correctly understand ones bidding. > > That is nonsense. Read a dictionary. Information "which is never > acted upon" cannot, by defintion, be "valuable". > Acted upon by the Tournament Director, you moron! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 7 21:07:25 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:07:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802071026y387c8ff8rc1619fafe47910cc@mail.gmail.com> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <47AB044E.1020102@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0802071026y387c8ff8rc1619fafe47910cc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <80D269B1-E6DD-4F07-8E7C-F717A887B285@starpower.net> On Feb 7, 2008, at 1:26 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Eric Landau:] >> On Feb 7, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>> All this is Information, and valuable information at that. >>> Moreover, it is UI which is never acted upon, since it is >>> "normal" for >>> partner to correctly understand ones bidding. >> >> That is nonsense. Read a dictionary. Information "which is never >> acted upon" cannot, by defintion, be "valuable". > > I think what Herman is saying is that when you hear partner > confidently alert and then correctly explain you call, you have the > valuable information of being on the same wavelength. It is of course > UI, but it is a unique kind of UI. There is no penalty for using it, > and no need to consider LAs, because it is normal to presume that > partner is correctly understanding the system. It is not merely "normal"; it is mandatory. You are always obligated to bid in a manner consistent with your own understanding of your methods regardless of what partner explains. When partner's explanation tells you that you are on the same wavelength, that obligation reduces to a trivial one, but remains unchanged. > So when Herman said that this kind of UI is "never acted upon," he > means (though the laws never say so we understand it) it is presumed > to never be *illegally* acted upon. Given the above, that is not merely a presumption, but a logical necessity; to not act on it would always be illegal. > The need to consider LAs comes up when partner fails to alert or > correctly explain. It's funny, because you have UI when he alerts > correctly and you have UI when he does not alert correctly. But only > one of these two kinds of UI involve LAs, adjusted scores, and all > that. I find nothing in the laws that covers this, though there > should be. That is only a problem for DWS believers. Only they argue that it is illegal to transmit UI even when that transmission is mandated by other laws. But if the DWSists choose to avoid giving UI in any manner whatsoever rather than break the disclosure rules when partner isn't on the same wavelength, why not be true to their own position and do the same thing for the same reason (create deliberate MI to avoid transmitting the UI) when he is? Surely it is not because the former will generally work to their advantage while the latter will not. As non-DWSists we can easily follow the laws, as we understand them, in both cases, when we know partner is "on the same wavelength" and when we know he is not. The DWSists, who assert the existence of a law of which the majority actions are perforce in violation, must further assert the existence of an arbitrary and self-chosen "hierarchy of laws" by which it "ranks above" the latter but "below" the former -- and then defend it as inherently logical, lest someone suspect that perhaps it was not chosen other than because it will generally work to the DWSists' advantage whereas some other arbitrary ordering will not. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 7 21:44:59 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 21:44:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47AB601C.3070803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > Herman: I miss one piece of information in your statement below; > > how does the Belgian bridge world consider DWS? > > > > Would you care to state whether or not the Belgian bridge federations > > (I understand there are two or three bridge federations in Belgium?) > > support your ideas on DWS? > > > > Is DWS officially recognized as legal in Belgium? > > > > Sven > > > > In the sense that every Director I talk to, and explain my reasons, > they agree with me, there is no problem here. > > But then these people aren't tainted by David Burn's writings on blml. > > But you might ask Alain about this. Not exactly unexpected this sounds like the answers conveniently given by politicians: They never seem able to give clear "yes" or "no" answers. BTW I was for a moment thinking of posting a formal inquiry with the Belgian NBOs but I decided against bothering them for the suspicion that they would feel embarrassed. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 7 21:53:11 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:53:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> On Feb 7, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Feb 7, 2008 12:58 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> But an ethical DWS follower will not abandon the DWS in mid-auction >> merely because it no longer works to his advantage to follow it. >> After all, the entire logic of the DWS rests on the obligation of the >> DWSer to avoid indicating *in any manner whatsoever* that his >> partner's explanation was incorrect. To achieve that objective, he >> must not only describe 3D as "to play", but must also then pass it. > > How quickly Eric forgot. 9 hours ago, in this thread, I posted > Herman's answer about this. Herman has never said that the DWS > requires passing 3D in this kind of scenario. The indicating in any > manner part refers to alerts and explanations. The calls made in > ethical DWS match the calls made in ethical MS. Herman has been > crystal clear on what DWS is, and we should probably go by his > definition. What have I forgotten? Indeed, I am well aware that Herman has never said that the DWS requires passing 3D in this kind of scenario. Indeed, I am well aware that Herman has never said that the DWS applies to other than alerts or explanations. And that is precisely Herman's problem. Because Herman has said, and it is the crucial foundation on which the entire DWS rests, that the words "indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made" [L20F5(a)] are to be read as "indicate in any manner whatsoever...", thus creating a sufficiently strong mandate to override, or at least neutralize, the prohibition against deliberately misexplaining one's agreements. We (or at least most of us) would like to give Herman the benefit of the doubt, by assuming that by "in any manner whatsoever" he really means "in any manner whatsoever" and not "in any manner whatsoever provided it improves my results". So we have repeatedly challenged him to defend DWS practice as he defines it, by explaining to us by what logic "in any manner whatsoever" should apply only to alerts and explanations but not to bids, thus by what logic "in any manner whatsoever" should prevent explaining 3D as anything but "must be passed" but not prevent doing anything other than passing it. And he has never responded to those challenges. Or perhaps he has, and Jerry reposted it 9 hours ago, and I forgot. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at dybdal.dk Thu Feb 7 22:37:25 2008 From: blml at dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:37:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <00b201c86891$a348c120$20cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <0ssmq31id0b4na4uqmcd0elkaudur7dc27@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:31:14 +1100, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >(1) Informal sources of ideas can be more useful >than formal sources. One might argue that blml >is a particularly useful source of ideas, since >a bad idea by one blmler is quickly refuted by >other blmlers. So, for example, the 1997 Law >25B would have been stillborn if it had been >subject to blml forensic scrutiny in 1996 Yes, indeed. >(if >blml had existed back then). BLML did actually exist - its was born 1996-04-24. >(4) Given that Grattan has previously advised >that the EBU is deferring printing the 2007 >Lawbook, is it possible that the new Laws are >not set in stone and a footnote will be added >to Law 27C? The deferred printing of the EBU edition does not help much in countries where the book was printed in early December and has been in use since January 1 - e.g., Denmark. However, if the WBFLC comes up with improvements for L27, I'm sure we will find a way to handle them. I appreciate the DSC showing a draft to the NBOs, but I think it would have been a good idea to also let the public in general, and BLML in particular, see and discuss a very-close-to-final draft. Among all the noise it would generate, there would undoubtedly have been a few points that would be interesting to the DSC. We had a L27 ruling in our club Tuesday, which caused us to discover an aspect of L27 that we had not noticed before: North opens 1D. East passes. South "opens" 1C. West calls the TD, but before the TD arrives, South replaces 1C by 2C. The TD rules that 2C does not incorporate all the information from 1C (that decision is not the point here). L27E then tells us that the correction stands, and the TD applies L27D, silencing North for the rest of the auction. South, who believed he was making a forcing call, is now forced to play 2C and does not get a good score. There are two points here: * It seems a bit hard that South is not allowed to choose his final call after being informed that partner will be silenced. * Even in cases where there is no premature correction, an offending player will need to know before changing his call whether it will result in a L27C or a L27D ruling. I.e., he will need to ask the TD something like "If I bid 2C now, will you allow that as a L27C case, or should I make a guess at a final contract instead?". Both of these points could be solved if the offender was allowed to change his call again to choose the final call *after* the TD had ruled L27D. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 7 23:07:16 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:07:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> Herman: I miss one piece of information in your statement below; >>> how does the Belgian bridge world consider DWS? >>> >>> Would you care to state whether or not the Belgian bridge federations >>> (I understand there are two or three bridge federations in Belgium?) >>> support your ideas on DWS? >>> >>> Is DWS officially recognized as legal in Belgium? >>> >>> Sven >>> >> In the sense that every Director I talk to, and explain my reasons, >> they agree with me, there is no problem here. >> >> But then these people aren't tainted by David Burn's writings on blml. >> >> But you might ask Alain about this. > > Not exactly unexpected this sounds like the answers conveniently given by > politicians: They never seem able to give clear "yes" or "no" answers. > What kind of answer did you expect? No? Yes? Of course the DWS is not officially recognized. How could it be? All I am ever saying is that two kinds of action are acceptable. Do you think anyone would dare outlaw the MS? I don't want that! > BTW I was for a moment thinking of posting a formal inquiry with the Belgian > NBOs but I decided against bothering them for the suspicion that they would > feel embarrassed. > They wouldn't. They'd send your questions to me. The national secretary sends all law-related matters to me. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 7 23:07:59 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:07:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0ssmq31id0b4na4uqmcd0elkaudur7dc27@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <000901c869d5$e751afe0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jesper Dybdal .................... > We had a L27 ruling in our club Tuesday, which caused us to discover an > aspect of L27 that we had not noticed before: > > North opens 1D. East passes. South "opens" 1C. West calls the TD, but > before the TD arrives, South replaces 1C by 2C. > > The TD rules that 2C does not incorporate all the information from 1C > (that decision is not the point here). L27E then tells us that the > correction stands, and the TD applies L27D, silencing North for the rest > of the auction. South, who believed he was making a forcing call, is > now forced to play 2C and does not get a good score. > > There are two points here: > * It seems a bit hard that South is not allowed to choose his final call > after being informed that partner will be silenced. > * Even in cases where there is no premature correction, an offending > player will need to know before changing his call whether it will result > in a L27C or a L27D ruling. I.e., he will need to ask the TD something > like "If I bid 2C now, will you allow that as a L27C case, or should I > make a guess at a final contract instead?". > > Both of these points could be solved if the offender was allowed to > change his call again to choose the final call *after* the TD had ruled > L27D. I think that Laws 9B2 and 9C are the most important laws in this case. It appears to me that the ruling is not only correct but also reasonable. If we start being lenient on the principles in Law 9B2 the chances are very high that situations will eventually get completely out of the Director's control. I guess South will never violate L9B2 again! And L9C is the guarantee to the offender that he has the right to know all consequences of his choices before selecting one. In L27C cases the Director should always warn the offender about L27C2. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 7 23:08:31 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:08:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] Nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c86966$d0755430$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >When this is the situation each player must still give "correct" (in his >own opinion) information to opponents, and then opponents will receive >differing information from the two players indicating that there is some >misunderstanding. Richard Hills: I still disagree. The Laws require correct information, not "correct" information to be given. A player who has a temporarily deluded opinion about their agreement must by Law still give correct information (even though the delusion will cause MI to be given at the table). Sven Pran: >None of the players is allowed to change his own comprehension of their >agreements or change his explanations solely from hearing his partner's >differing explanation to opponents. Richard Hills: Correct. 2007 Law 75A. But an unresolved issue is whether UI from one partner can be used by the other partner to trigger 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." 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 Thu Feb 7 23:14:42 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:14:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > Because Herman has said, and it is the crucial > foundation on which the entire DWS rests, that the words "indicate in > any manner that a mistake has been made" [L20F5(a)] are to be read as > "indicate in any manner whatsoever...", And how else do you want to read this? "indicate in any manner" means "indicate in any manner". No exceptions. You don't need a whatsoever in that sentence. It stands as it is. "In any manner". Can anything be more clear? > thus creating a sufficiently > strong mandate to override, or at least neutralize, the prohibition > against deliberately misexplaining one's agreements. We (or at least > most of us) would like to give Herman the benefit of the doubt, by > assuming that by "in any manner whatsoever" he really means "in any > manner whatsoever" and not "in any manner whatsoever provided it > improves my results". But what does that have to do with it? It is "NOT in any manner". Not at all. If that happens to improve my results, isn't that what the law explicitely wants? Forget the second question for a moment. Do you believe that it is to my benefit for me to remain quiet about the misexplanation? Yes? Then that is what the laws want. What is so bad about interpreting that sentence two seconds later in the same direction? Even if it improves my results? It's what the laws say, don't they? And if you still believe that the dws is not strictly following L20F5, you need your head examined. You may argue that there are higher obligations, but you surely cannot argue that my actions are not those dictated by L20F5. > So we have repeatedly challenged him to defend > DWS practice as he defines it, by explaining to us by what logic "in > any manner whatsoever" should apply only to alerts and explanations > but not to bids, thus by what logic "in any manner whatsoever" should > prevent explaining 3D as anything but "must be passed" but not > prevent doing anything other than passing it. And he has never > responded to those challenges. > I have already three times stated that I have responded to that challenge, and I have once repeated it and Jerry has pasted my response a second time. I'm sick and tired of having to say the same thing over and over again. And I'm sick and tired of having people believe that I don't respond to their challenges. This has become, over the years, a very personal attack. I'm getting tired of it. > Or perhaps he has, and Jerry reposted it 9 hours ago, and I forgot. > So why do you bring it up once again. Why don't you read the reply, and move on to a different argument. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 7 23:48:50 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:48:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c869db$9b955ab0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au ................... > Sven Pran: > > >None of the players is allowed to change his own comprehension of their > >agreements or change his explanations solely from hearing his partner's > >differing explanation to opponents. > > Richard Hills: > > Correct. 2007 Law 75A. But an unresolved issue is whether UI from one > partner can be used by the other partner to trigger 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." I agree; this question is not resolved. But I do know that as Director in charge I would in case evaluate whether the partnership was "saved" from a worse result because of UI that alerted a player of his mistake. If I found this to be likely I would adjust the final result on the board to whatever result was likely had the player not become aware of his mistake and the auction gone wild for this reason. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 8 00:04:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:04:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c86953$0c1e6620$245b3260$@com> Message-ID: David Burn: >Well, I would claim that there are no laws against creating UI. >For my own peace of mind, could you cite one of them? 2007 Law 73A2: "Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick." Richard Hills: However, the key word in Law 73A2 is "undue", which the WBF Code of Practice has defined as "with design". So David's basic point is correct, in that creating UI "without design" is not an infraction. 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 Fri Feb 8 00:46:03 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:46:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802062149x4f5b011bi7611524c29586dd5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >>+=+ Oh, if you could read the howls of scorn of >> DSC colleagues rejecting my suggestion >> that it would be helpful if we actually issued >> as a DSC document our agreed position on >> Herman's perceptions of the law. Nothing >> sophisticated, I assure you - I am informed >> in the plainest language that his posturing >> does not merit a DSC response. >> ~ G ~ +=+ Jerry Fusselman: >Like Nigel said, this tells us more about the DSC than >about anyone else. Richard Hills: Jerry has missed the point. The DSC (which has been given a delegated power to interpret the 2007 Lawbook by the WBF Executive) has ruled that the De Wael School is officially dead, but has decided that the De Wael School is not worthy of a State Funeral. Monty Python: It's not pining it's passed on! This parrot is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late parrot! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it would be pushin' up the daisies! It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This is an ex parrot! Herman De Wael: In fact, why are we having this discussion in the first place? Richard Hills: Why indeed? Instead we could have a lengthy debate on the Scorer#1 School's interpretation of Law 77. 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 Fri Feb 8 00:52:47 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:52:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AABDF0.6030903@skynet.be> <000e01c8696c$3b6b6ea0$b2424be0$@com> <2b1e598b0802070142t2befd757t227c1c2a0c2948c9@mail.gmail.com><007701c869a3$352aeb10$fd219c56@stefanie> <47AB5F86.5020004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00cb01c869e4$8a804060$0100a8c0@stefanie> Herman DeWael >>> 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? >> >> Why indeed? >> > > Are you agreeing with me, Stefanie? > Yes. Once you start deliberately breaking laws, there is no logical reason that you would baulk at breaking yet another one. Stefanie Rohan London, England From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 8 00:59:56 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 17:59:56 -0600 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000701c86953$0c1e6620$245b3260$@com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802071559i5f6c64b5nf8e5ba94162125c4@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 7, 2008 5:04 PM, wrote: > David Burn: > > >Well, I would claim that there are no laws against creating UI. > >For my own peace of mind, could you cite one of them? > > 2007 Law 73A2: > > "Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, > mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. > But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on > the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or > on the first trick." > > Richard Hills: > > However, the key word in Law 73A2 is "undue", which the WBF > Code of Practice has defined as "with design". > > So David's basic point is correct, in that creating UI "without > design" is not an infraction. > There are some kinds of UI creation that are allowed, and some that are not. You have demonstrated a case where creation of UI is allowed. I have given seven cases where creating UI is illegal. You don't see any of the seven? Just look at the first one, if you don't have time for seven. I never said that all kinds of UI creation are illegal. It is you and David who appear to be saying that all kinds of UI creation are legal. But look at my seven cases. Those are all cases of specific kinds of UI creation that are illegal. And they are especially interesting, because they prefer creating or maintaining MI over the risk of UI creation. Now might say, and some have said, that those seven cases have nothing to do with UI or MI. I think most readers can see that they do have to do with MI and UI, provided their minds are not focused on MS for the moment. Alright, I offer this challenge to those of you who think so: If not the prevention of UI, what is the reason for those laws. I will return later to Grattan's insistence that the laws never need any reason or advantage or benefit, they just are what they are. I won't argue that weird point right now. Here is why I think UI is the main reason for case 5 (to pick just one example): It says that neither defender nor dummy can ask for a quitted trick to be rotated to the correct direction after the lead to the next trick. But declarer can. Now why would it be that the only player at the table that can do this is declarer? Think about it. Make up an answer. Random, you think? How can we remember this rule? It's easy. Nobody worries about UI passed from declarer to dummy, so the only person at the table who can do late rotation corrections (during the play period) is declarer, because only declarer has zero risk of creating UI. If anyone has a better explanation of this law, I am all ears. But if someone again says I have no right to think about it or talk about it, well, too bad, I am an American, and I ignore such advice. I consider that argument equal in strength to ad hominem attacks---both signal desperation and generally a weak case. Summary: I never said that all kinds of UI creation are illegal, so Richard's example is no disproof whatsoever. David and Richard say apparently (it's the only way I can make sense of what they are saying) that all kinds of UI creation are legal, which flies in the face of the law again prearranged secret communication devices, if nothing else. It also flies in the face of my seven examples where MI is allowed to remain to prevent UI transmission. In my examples, obviously I am hypothesizing that preventing UI transmission is the reason for the law. Others can speculate too. I would be intrigued to see some other reason (besides UI) for the seven cases. Even one example would be interesting. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 8 01:11:49 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:11:49 -0600 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0802062149x4f5b011bi7611524c29586dd5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802071611x123db96atfe8d049bbf080952@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 7, 2008 5:46 PM, wrote: > >>+=+ Oh, if you could read the howls of scorn of > >> DSC colleagues rejecting my suggestion > >> that it would be helpful if we actually issued > >> as a DSC document our agreed position on > >> Herman's perceptions of the law. Nothing > >> sophisticated, I assure you - I am informed > >> in the plainest language that his posturing > >> does not merit a DSC response. > >> ~ G ~ +=+ > > Jerry Fusselman: > > >Like Nigel said, this tells us more about the DSC than > >about anyone else. > > Richard Hills: > > Jerry has missed the point. The DSC (which has been > given a delegated power to interpret the 2007 Lawbook > by the WBF Executive) has ruled that the De Wael School > is officially dead, but has decided that the De Wael > School is not worthy of a State Funeral. > As to the death, I will believe it when I see it. I stand by my sentence even after reading your paragraph. I know the DSC thinks their work is just about perfect, and almost nothing needs to be changed, almost nothing needs to be clarified, almost nothing needs a response, and almost no new idea could possibly be worth a moment's thought. Jerry Fusselman From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 8 01:38:44 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:38:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred><47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> Message-ID: <014a01c869ea$f5b08830$0100a8c0@stefanie> [EL]: > But an ethical DWS follower will not abandon the DWS in mid-auction > merely because it no longer works to his advantage to follow it. > After all, the entire logic of the DWS rests on the obligation of the > DWSer to avoid indicating *in any manner whatsoever* that his > partner's explanation was incorrect. To achieve that objective, he > must not only describe 3D as "to play", but must also then pass it. Most of this paragraph is invalid due to the oxymoron it begins with. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 8 01:41:19 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:41:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> > What kind of answer did you expect? No? Yes? Of course the DWS is not > officially recognized. How could it be? All I am ever saying is that > two kinds of action are acceptable. Do you think anyone would dare > outlaw the MS? I don't want that! > Herman, if you think that current law "renders acceptable" recognised legal practice and the dWS, what guidelines would you offer to players when deciding which one they should follow? Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 8 01:46:49 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:46:49 +1100 Subject: [blml] Nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c869db$9b955ab0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Correct. 2007 Law 75A. But an unresolved issue is whether UI from >>one partner can be used by the other partner to trigger 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." Sven Pran: >I agree; this question is not resolved. But I do know that as Director >in charge I would in case evaluate whether the partnership was "saved" >from a worse result because of UI that alerted a player of his mistake. >If I found this to be likely I would adjust the final result on the >board to whatever result was likely had the player not become aware of >his mistake and the auction gone wild for this reason. Richard Hills: It is my belief that Laws 20F4 and 75A can operate in parallel. For example, some years ago I switched from a Strong Club to a Strong Pass system. On one hand as dealer I held a grotty 6 hcp, and so I routinely passed. Partner gave me Law 75A UI by explaining my Pass as showing any 15+ hcp. For the rest of the auction I applied Law 20F4 by describing partner's calls in accordance with our current Strong Pass agreement, but also applied Law 75A by bidding in accordance with our previous Strong Club agreement. 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 Fri Feb 8 01:48:19 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:48:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0802062149x4f5b011bi7611524c29586dd5@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0802071611x123db96atfe8d049bbf080952@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <014e01c869ec$4c4b9800$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Jerry has missed the point. The DSC (which has been >> given a delegated power to interpret the 2007 Lawbook >> by the WBF Executive) has ruled that the De Wael School >> is officially dead, but has decided that the De Wael >> School is not worthy of a State Funeral. >> Jerry Fusselman > As to the death, I will believe it when I see it. I stand by my > sentence even after reading your paragraph. I know the DSC thinks > their work is just about perfect, and almost nothing needs to be > changed, almost nothing needs to be clarified, almost nothing needs a > response, and almost no new idea could possibly be worth a moment's > thought. I really wish the DSC would see how short-sighted their behaviour is. They are allowing pride and a refusal to feed HdW's megalomania to persuade them to make a terrible mistake. The dWS is not dangerous now, but surely any mad idea, promulgated by a persuasive and persistent advocate, has the possibility to turn into a full-fledged movement. It costs nothing to nip this one in the bud. Imagine the fury of the group responsible for drafting the 2017 Laws if your failure to do this simple thing should cause them a problem. Grattan, is there any way I can send this email to the DCS to be seen by more people than you and Ton? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 8 01:50:32 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:50:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be><005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <015001c869ec$9bec4490$0100a8c0@stefanie> > It's this bias that I believe to be the worst part of the MS. There is an escape from this and all other disadvantages you claim legal practice creates. Learn your system. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 8 02:11:18 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 01:11:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <015801c869ef$8298c790$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Richard Hills: > > It is my belief that Laws 20F4 and 75A can operate in parallel. > > For example, some years ago I switched from a Strong Club to a Strong > Pass system. On one hand as dealer I held a grotty 6 hcp, and so I > routinely passed. Partner gave me Law 75A UI by explaining my Pass as > showing any 15+ hcp. For the rest of the auction I applied Law 20F4 > by describing partner's calls in accordance with our current Strong > Pass agreement, but also applied Law 75A by bidding in accordance with > our previous Strong Club agreement. I have been thinking about this since the original post on the subject, and I agree with what Richard says above. Of course, it requires one to be 110% certain that partner is right about our agreements and we are wrong. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 8 03:27:56 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:27:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] Nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <015801c869ef$8298c790$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [snip] >>by describing partner's calls in accordance with our current Strong >>Pass agreement, but also applied Law 75A by bidding in accordance with >>our previous Strong Club agreement. Stefanie Rohan: >I have been thinking about this since the original post on the subject, >and I agree with what Richard says above. Of course, it requires one to >be 110% certain that partner is right about our agreements and we are >wrong. Richard Hills: I had a 110% sinking feeling when pard alerted my opening Pass. Sure enough, we eventually lurched into 3D in a non-fit, five off. But the number was only -250, as neither opponent could double on the accurate information of our Strong Pass agreement (they had no claim to an accurate description of my hand - Law 75C). In practice 110% certainty will be available most of the time. Usually partner's explanation will trigger one of these three sinking feelings: (a) Oh no! I am now 110% sure that I forgot the system, or (b) Oh no! I am now 110% sure that pard forgot the system, or (c) Oh no! I am now 110% sure that we did not discuss this call. 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 mustikka at charter.net Fri Feb 8 05:46:20 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 20:46:20 -0800 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000701c869a8$d8d35590$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB601C.3070803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301c86a0d$8d77d8e0$315d5e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > Sven Pran wrote: >> Herman: I miss one piece of information in your statement below; how does >> the Belgian bridge world consider DWS? >> >> Would you care to state whether or not the Belgian bridge federations (I >> understand there are two or three bridge federations in Belgium?) support >> your ideas on DWS? >> >> Is DWS officially recognized as legal in Belgium? >> >> Sven >> > > In the sense that every Director I talk to, and explain my reasons, > they agree with me, there is no problem here. > > But then these people aren't tainted by David Burn's writings on blml. > > But you might ask Alain about this. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html Would any other Belgian TD care to confirm that it is as you said: all Belgian directors follow HDW interpretation. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Feb 9 00:39:50 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:39:50 -0800 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080208153401.038926e0@mail.optusnet.com.au> >Grattan:. > >The NBO could expand the statement with examples such as the >following: > >Example: South opens 2NT with a balanced 20 count. North explains >it as a weak bid, 5-5 in the minors and bids 3D, a response which in >South's mind is a transfer to hearts. He is required to treat the response >as such a transfer. Two possibilities arise: > >Case (i): 2NT does show a strong balanced hand in the system (and >therefore 3D is indeed a transfer). South alerts 3D, and explains that >it is a transfer and he must treat North's response as though it is a >transfer. South has now conveyed unauthorized information to North >and North must not make use of it - he must continue to treat South's >actions as ensuing from the 2NT bid as he (North) explained it. Tres Spooky. This is precisely what happened to me last week, except that I very rarely get a chance to discuss system with the last player left over. Sometimes only "wait till this pair finishes bidding and then double pard". So I opened 2NT on the 20 balanced. She alerts and says for the minors, bids 3D which I "forgot" to alert. I superaccept to 4H and the 4:2 fit fails. Before the lead I give a full and frank admission, allow the last passer to perhaps double (on the bidding). However I have felt guilty all week that I may be a closet DWS ist by my failure to alert the 3D transfer. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From mustikka at charter.net Fri Feb 8 05:57:52 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 20:57:52 -0800 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0802062149x4f5b011bi7611524c29586dd5@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0802071611x123db96atfe8d049bbf080952@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002c01c86a0f$2972c420$315d5e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Feb 7, 2008 5:46 PM, wrote: >> >>+=+ Oh, if you could read the howls of scorn of >> >> DSC colleagues rejecting my suggestion >> >> that it would be helpful if we actually issued >> >> as a DSC document our agreed position on >> >> Herman's perceptions of the law. Nothing >> >> sophisticated, I assure you - I am informed >> >> in the plainest language that his posturing >> >> does not merit a DSC response. >> >> ~ G ~ +=+ >> >> Jerry Fusselman: >> >> >Like Nigel said, this tells us more about the DSC than >> >about anyone else. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Jerry has missed the point. The DSC (which has been >> given a delegated power to interpret the 2007 Lawbook >> by the WBF Executive) has ruled that the De Wael School >> is officially dead, but has decided that the De Wael >> School is not worthy of a State Funeral. >> > > As to the death, I will believe it when I see it. I stand by my > sentence even after reading your paragraph. I know the DSC thinks > their work is just about perfect, and almost nothing needs to be > changed, almost nothing needs to be clarified, almost nothing needs a > response, and almost no new idea could possibly be worth a moment's > thought. > > Jerry Fusselman DWS interpretation is not a new idea, HDW has promoted it for a long time. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 8 07:14:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:14:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >As to the official standing of the DWS, that is this: > >I wrote about this first in 1998. I know Grattan and Ton have read >about it, and they have never commented. Richard Hills: Never? Grattan has made zillions of adverse comments about the De Wael School on blml over the years. Herman De Wael: >My point-of-view has always been that both MS and DWS actions are >acceptable. Richard Hills: And the official interpretation is that the De Wael School is so manifestly absurd that its illegality need not be spelled out in a formal document. Herman De Wael: >Until recently, neither Ton nor Grattan have ever disputed this. It >was my impression that they thought it an amusing sideline, not >worthy of official consideration. Richard Hills: Yes, the De Wael School is so manifestly absurd that its illegality need not be spelled out in a formal document. Herman De Wael: >That was also my impression when talking to Grattan in Antalya. >Other than there, we have never discussed this whenever we have met >(about once a year in the past decade). > >When I saw the drafts to the 2007 laws, I noticed that nothing much >was changed in the laws that govern this problem, Richard Hills: Yes, the De Wael School is so manifestly absurd that its illegality need not be spelled out in a formal document. Herman De Wael: >and so I did not think it necessary to send in anything about DWS. > >Now however, that situation has apparently changed. Although the >laws did not change, the WBFLC is now prepared to issue a statement >saying that the DWS actions are not acceptable. Then, I want to have >my say. Richard Hills: Want to have your say??? Who was it who spammed blml with 184 posts about DWS in January? Herman De Wael: >If Grattan wants that with the approval of the BBF, he'll get it. >But otherwise also, I would like to be heard. They may not think it >is like that, but the WBF would issue a law change if they make the >DWS unacceptable. Richard Hills: Okay. The Drafting Sub-Committee of the World Bridge Federation has ruled that its official interpretation of the 2007 Lawbook maintains the official interpretation of the 1997 Lawbook and the official interpretation of the 1987 Lawbook. They have come to an agreed position that Herman's heresy of the De Wael School is so manifestly absurd that its illegality need not be spelled out in a formal document. And Herman is saying, "Ignore the WBF Constitution, I have the power to decide what is and is not a Law change". Herman De Wael: >I do not think that would be fair to me, and to the several other >people on this list and off it, who have been listening to me and >who would act in DWS manner if the situation ever arose. Richard Hills: As George Bernard Shaw put it, "Life isn't fair, but take comfort my child, it can be delightful". Herman De Wael: >At present, they can point to these discussion, which do not seem to >conclusively make the DWS actions unacceptable. Richard Hills: Conclusive? Grattan wrote that the "agreed position" of the Drafting Sub-Committee - the **authors** of the 2007 Lawbook - was that the De Wael School was meritless posturing. As Matthias Berghaus put it, what more conclusiveness does Herman need - a voice from a burning bush??? 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 Fri Feb 8 07:34:23 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:34:23 +1100 Subject: [blml] Seven arguments for ABF [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080208153401.038926e0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >Tres Spooky. This is precisely what happened to me last week, except >that I very rarely get a chance to discuss system with the last player >left over. Sometimes only "wait till this pair finishes bidding and >then double pard". So I opened 2NT on the 20 balanced. She alerts >and says for the minors, bids 3D which I "forgot" to alert. I >superaccept to 4H and the 4:2 fit fails. Before the lead I give a >full and frank admission, allow the last passer to perhaps double (on >the bidding). However I have felt guilty all week that I may be a >closet DWS ist by my failure to alert the 3D transfer. > >Cheers, > >Tony (Sydney) Richard Hills: I sought formal advice from an ABF National Director (Matthew McManus) on this issue some years ago. His ruling was: (a) if you have a partnership agreement, alert pard's non-systemic call, but (b) if you do not have a partnership agreement, do not alert pard's "undiscussed" call. So Tony is not a closet DWS-ist, and furthermore followed 2007 Law 75A. 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 ziffbridge at t-online.de Fri Feb 8 09:07:55 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:07:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47AC0DDB.1010306@t-online.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > > Instead we could have a lengthy debate on > the Scorer#1 School's interpretation of Law 77. > > You would run out of Monty Python quotes in a matter of minutes...... This guy has revolutionized absurdity all on his own. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 8 09:09:55 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:09:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be> <014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> What kind of answer did you expect? No? Yes? Of course the DWS is not >> officially recognized. How could it be? All I am ever saying is that >> two kinds of action are acceptable. Do you think anyone would dare >> outlaw the MS? I don't want that! >> > Herman, if you think that current law "renders acceptable" recognised legal > practice and the dWS, what guidelines would you offer to players when > deciding which one they should follow? > Let's say, their own conscience. I gather from some of the replies on blml that people find it abhorrant to have to lie to their opponents. Those people can use MS principles if they so wish. All others, I would tell that DWS will work to their benefit (an acceptable benefit IMO), and so why not act that way? > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 8 09:13:44 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:13:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <014a01c869ea$f5b08830$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred><47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <014a01c869ea$f5b08830$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47AC0F38.70100@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > [EL]: > >> But an ethical DWS follower will not abandon the DWS in mid-auction >> merely because it no longer works to his advantage to follow it. >> After all, the entire logic of the DWS rests on the obligation of the >> DWSer to avoid indicating *in any manner whatsoever* that his >> partner's explanation was incorrect. To achieve that objective, he >> must not only describe 3D as "to play", but must also then pass it. > > Most of this paragraph is invalid due to the oxymoron it begins with. > And most of your incomprehension is due to the fact that you assume it's an oxymoron. Do you really have that little respect for my ethics? That being said, most of that paragraph is invalid due to some other misapprehension. My arguments say that L20F5 is stronger than, say, L73 (or whichever law you wish to name for MI). My argument has never been that L20F5 is the strongest law. The strongest law in the book is L1. And, among some others, L16 is stronger than L20F5. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 8 09:15:30 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:15:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <015001c869ec$9bec4490$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be><005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <015001c869ec$9bec4490$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47AC0FA2.8000402@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> It's this bias that I believe to be the worst part of the MS. > > There is an escape from this and all other disadvantages you claim legal > practice creates. Learn your system. > Now this is a good one. Let's write a new revoke law: if you revoke, you should cast a die. The number you roll will be the number of tricks deducted from your side. Crazy rule? Well, you shouldn't have revoked in the first place. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 8 09:23:06 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:23:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Seven arguments for ABF [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47AC116A.2010202@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Tony Musgrove: > >> Tres Spooky. This is precisely what happened to me last week, except >> that I very rarely get a chance to discuss system with the last player >> left over. Sometimes only "wait till this pair finishes bidding and >> then double pard". So I opened 2NT on the 20 balanced. She alerts >> and says for the minors, bids 3D which I "forgot" to alert. I >> superaccept to 4H and the 4:2 fit fails. Before the lead I give a >> full and frank admission, allow the last passer to perhaps double (on >> the bidding). However I have felt guilty all week that I may be a >> closet DWS ist by my failure to alert the 3D transfer. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tony (Sydney) > > Richard Hills: > > I sought formal advice from an ABF National Director (Matthew McManus) > on this issue some years ago. His ruling was: > > (a) if you have a partnership agreement, alert pard's non-systemic call, > > but > > (b) if you do not have a partnership agreement, do not alert pard's > "undiscussed" call. > > So Tony is not a closet DWS-ist, and furthermore followed 2007 Law 75A. > There is a far better lesson to be learnt from this story! Tony did not alert. That particular misinformation did not cause extra damage. He did not give UI to his partner, who probably understood what had happened anyway, and looked at his cards, and would have corrected to 4S if he held 5S and 2H. That contract would not be turned back to 4H because of UI. But what would have happened if Tony had alerted? The misunderstanding would have been revealed just the same, and now Tony's partner would have had UI. Suppose he still bids 4S, would the TD have allowed it? Probably not, since Tony was that TD! So Tony has given his opponents everything they were entitled to. So what's so wrong about that? People who believe Tony's opponents should have gotten more than they did are people who believe opponents are entitled to the information of a misunderstanding. You are allowed to believe that, but it is not (current) practice in Law. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 8 09:31:21 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:31:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47AC1359.40405@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> As to the official standing of the DWS, that is this: >> >> I wrote about this first in 1998. I know Grattan and Ton have read >> about it, and they have never commented. > > Richard Hills: > > Never? Grattan has made zillions of adverse comments about the De > Wael School on blml over the years. > You are mistaken. Please find one. I cannot prove my contention - it's a negative. But I cannot remember Grattan (or Ton) commenting even once on dws. The first one of the sort I remember was a very short "is that still around?" by Ton, I believe early last year. Other than that, nothing. I think I would have remembered if it were otherwise. > Herman De Wael: > >> My point-of-view has always been that both MS and DWS actions are >> acceptable. > > Richard Hills: > > And the official interpretation is that the De Wael School is so > manifestly absurd that its illegality need not be spelled out in a > formal document. > Official? Manifestly? Absurd? Richard, it is this misconception in your mind which blinds you to reason. Have you read the seven arguments? Have you anything so say against any of them, let alone all seven? Do not call something absurd when it is being supported by reasoned argumentation. Try and find seven arguments in favour of MS (less is allright too). Don't resort to shouting. Use reason. > Herman De Wael: > >> Until recently, neither Ton nor Grattan have ever disputed this. It >> was my impression that they thought it an amusing sideline, not >> worthy of official consideration. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, the De Wael School is so manifestly absurd that its illegality > need not be spelled out in a formal document. > > Herman De Wael: > >> That was also my impression when talking to Grattan in Antalya. >> Other than there, we have never discussed this whenever we have met >> (about once a year in the past decade). >> >> When I saw the drafts to the 2007 laws, I noticed that nothing much >> was changed in the laws that govern this problem, > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, the De Wael School is so manifestly absurd that its illegality > need not be spelled out in a formal document. > > Herman De Wael: > >> and so I did not think it necessary to send in anything about DWS. >> >> Now however, that situation has apparently changed. Although the >> laws did not change, the WBFLC is now prepared to issue a statement >> saying that the DWS actions are not acceptable. Then, I want to have >> my say. > > Richard Hills: > > Want to have your say??? Who was it who spammed blml with 184 posts > about DWS in January? > Well, indeed. And did I repeat myself like you did? I even tried not to repeat something, and they said for a fourth time that I hadn't answered a question that I already answered twice. > Herman De Wael: > >> If Grattan wants that with the approval of the BBF, he'll get it. >> But otherwise also, I would like to be heard. They may not think it >> is like that, but the WBF would issue a law change if they make the >> DWS unacceptable. > > Richard Hills: > > Okay. The Drafting Sub-Committee of the World Bridge Federation has > ruled that its official interpretation of the 2007 Lawbook maintains > the official interpretation of the 1997 Lawbook and the official > interpretation of the 1987 Lawbook. They have come to an agreed > position that Herman's heresy of the De Wael School is so manifestly > absurd that its illegality need not be spelled out in a formal > document. > > And Herman is saying, "Ignore the WBF Constitution, I have the power > to decide what is and is not a Law change". > Please show me where any member of the WBFLC or DSC has stated that DWS is illegal under 1997 laws, prior to december 2007. Since they did not, and do now, I consider that a law change. > Herman De Wael: > >> I do not think that would be fair to me, and to the several other >> people on this list and off it, who have been listening to me and >> who would act in DWS manner if the situation ever arose. > > Richard Hills: > > As George Bernard Shaw put it, "Life isn't fair, but take comfort my > child, it can be delightful". > > Herman De Wael: > >> At present, they can point to these discussion, which do not seem to >> conclusively make the DWS actions unacceptable. > > Richard Hills: > > Conclusive? Grattan wrote that the "agreed position" of the Drafting > Sub-Committee - the **authors** of the 2007 Lawbook - was that the De > Wael School was meritless posturing. As Matthias Berghaus put it, > what more conclusiveness does Herman need - a voice from a burning > bush??? > Grattan showed us a first (and a second) draft of what the DSC might publish. They haven't done so (unless it's inside the door of a closet) > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Feb 8 09:50:10 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 08:50:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <001301c86a0d$8d77d8e0$315d5e47@DFYXB361> References: <000701c869a8$d8d35590$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB601C.3070803@skynet.be> <001301c86a0d$8d77d8e0$315d5e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <47AC17C2.80408@NTLworld.com> [Herman de Wael] In the sense that every Director I talk to, and explain my reasons, they agree with me, there is no problem here. [Raija] Would any other Belgian TD care to confirm that it is as you said: all Belgian directors follow HDW interpretation. [Nige1] Unfortunately, I sometimes misquote too; but I don't do it to further my argument. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 8 09:57:54 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:57:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47AC1359.40405@skynet.be> References: <47AC1359.40405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47AC1992.2020901@skynet.be> Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Herman De Wael: >> >>> As to the official standing of the DWS, that is this: >>> >>> I wrote about this first in 1998. I know Grattan and Ton have read >>> about it, and they have never commented. >> Richard Hills: >> >> Never? Grattan has made zillions of adverse comments about the De >> Wael School on blml over the years. >> > > You are mistaken. Please find one. I cannot prove my contention - it's > a negative. But I cannot remember Grattan (or Ton) commenting even > once on dws. The first one of the sort I remember was a very short "is > that still around?" by Ton, I believe early last year. Other than > that, nothing. > I think I would have remembered if it were otherwise. > Point of order: I see that I haven't been precise. I mean comments by Grattan or Ton prior to 2007. There haven't been any. Notice that Richard says "over the years". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 8 09:58:49 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:58:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47AC0DDB.1010306@t-online.de> References: <47AC0DDB.1010306@t-online.de> Message-ID: <47AC19C9.5060901@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: >> Instead we could have a lengthy debate on >> the Scorer#1 School's interpretation of Law 77. >> >> > > You would run out of Monty Python quotes in a matter of minutes...... > This guy has revolutionized absurdity all on his own. > Yet people wish to put me in the same pot. Please Matthias, tell us there is a difference. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 8 10:19:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:19:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00dc01c8699d$75860b00$0701a8c0@john> References: <00dc01c8699d$75860b00$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <47AC1EB4.20106@ulb.ac.be> John Probst a ?crit : >> >> Swiss Teams with imps converted to WBF VPs >> (including difference of 0-10 = 0 imps) >> >> Dlr: North >> Vul: East-West >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 1S 3H(1) Pass >> 4H Pass Pass ? >> >> (1) Weak jump overcall >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> 6432 >> Q >> Q97 >> 98543 >> >> What call do you make? >> What other calls do you consider making? >> >> Note that blmlers who chose to bid 3S on >> the previous round belong to a different >> class of player than the actual South, so >> only blmlers who passed initially should >> answer this second round of questions. >> > > I said pass was an option and I could do it, so I'll dare give an answer. Something positive is needed. Perhaps 5S. This doesn't ask for a heart control, that partner surely has, but rather is a generic slam try in partner's known suit. Bur the situation is a bit strange. My partners would hold a Heart void. What the heck, perhaps advancer is on the same hideand-seek mood than me. NB : this shouldn't happen in civilized countries where you don't open 1S on a 3-loser hand. Best regards Alain > From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 8 10:34:11 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:34:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing about the misunderstanding? Message-ID: <47AC2213.10802@skynet.be> In the course of my considerations regarding DWS in the last few weeks, I have been constructing a full case, and it turns out it means we have to discuss something far more important than the DWS. I have come up with the following hand - but I've only constructed the distribution. High cards and points should be filled in to correspond to the story further on. We are playing a tournament with 100 tables and this is the hand: (S/NS) - x xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx x x xxxxx xxx xxx - xxxx xxx xxxxxx x xxx At every table South opens 1He and at 80 tables, West overcalls 4Sp. Now consider North's actions: At 20 tables, North knows they are playing 4NT for the minors. He bids that, South bids 5Cl. West passes, hoping that NS are too high, but they're not. +600. At 20 tables, North knows they are playing 4NT Blackwood here. So he cannot bid that. He doubles, 4Sx-2, +300 At 20 tables, North is uncertain of the meaning of 4NT in their system, and he doesn't dare bid it. He doubles, +300. At the last 20 tables, North is also uncertain, but he bids it anyway. At ten tables, South guesses correctly, bids 5Cl, and scores +600. At the other ten tables, South thinks 4NT is Blackwood, and he bids 5Di. Now let's look at those tables in more detail: At all of them, West wants to know what is going on. He asks South what 4NT is and gets the response "Blackwood". That should be enough for him, because he now "knows" that there is heart fit. He is not going to wait for North to bid slam or not, and he wants to bid 5Sp immediately. But wait, first he wonders about the 5Di bid. At table one, they are playing with screens (*). West is seated with South, and he asks South about the meaning of 5Di. "One Ace" writes South. West bids 5Sp; North doubles, 3 down, +500. At table two, West realizes that it doesn't matter to him how many aces are in South. 5Sp, +500. At table three, West remembers that his opponents use simple Blackwood. +500 At table four, West consults the SC. +500. At table five, West asks North about 5Di. HDW is sitting North, he replies "one ace", West bids 5Sp, +500. At table six, West also asks North, but here it's Sven sitting North. He replies "diamond preference". West now thinks "maybe they're playing in their weaker minor" (he has three himself). He doubles. 5DX-3, -800. At table seven, Jerry is sitting West. He knows that to ask can work to his advantage. He asks, someone answers (MS fashion), and Jerry doubles. -800. At table eight, David Burn is sitting North. He doesn't even wait for the question but reveals the mistake immediately. West doubles, and David plays 5DiX, by David only two down, -500. Now the TD arrives at all tables, but only at five of them he is really needed. West makes clear that he would not have bid 5Sp if he hadn't been misinformed (about the probable heart fit). The TD turns back the score to ... Yes, to what? I would say that the normal ending of the story at tables 1-5 would be that West would pass 5Di (not knowing about the misunderstanding and thus believing that South bid his longest minor). North would of course have to pass, and the AS would be 5D-3, -300. And then my point is of course that I see no reason why Sven should suffer -800, when he would "get away" with -300 at tables 1-4, where no question is asked. Also I don't see what's so terribly wrong with my actions, since I also suffer the same fate as the tables 1-4. But all this of course assumes that the TD will rule -300. The hands are not written out, but we can imagine hands where it is not logical for West to double 5Di if he thinks that is South's longest minor, but where it is logical for him to gamble doubling when he knows that South has not said anything at all about his minor length. The policy of the EBL AC has been to rule that West will be given the normal bid (bids) without the knowledge of South's misunderstanding, but Ton Kooijman has expressed doubts about that. What do you believe the current practice to be? And would you accept a (possible) law change to ruling that the misinformation becomes entitled knowledge? (*) don't ask why - maybe this is a Swiss tournament where the top tables are playing with screens, I've seen that happen. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Feb 8 10:59:14 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:59:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Lettuce_drive_a_steak_through_the_DWS_=5BS?= =?iso-8859-15?q?EC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <47AC1359.40405@skynet.be> References: <47AC1359.40405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1JNQ0o-0ZMQwC0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Herman De Wael: > > > > > As to the official standing of the DWS, that is this: > > > > > > I wrote about this first in 1998. I know Grattan and Ton have read > > > about it, and they have never commented. > > > > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Never? ?Grattan has made zillions of adverse comments about the De > > Wael School on blml over the years. > > > > You are mistaken. Please find one. I cannot prove my contention - it's > a negative. But I cannot remember Grattan (or Ton) commenting even > once on dws. The first one of the sort I remember was a very short "is > that still around?" by Ton, I believe early last year. Other than > that, nothing. Following a simple google-request I found at once the thread "dWS for the beginner" from the late 2002. Among other replies Grattan answered the following: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2002-November/002161.html > I think I would have remembered if it were otherwise. (??) From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Feb 8 11:01:12 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 23:01:12 +1300 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47AC1EB4.20106@ulb.ac.be> References: <00dc01c8699d$75860b00$0701a8c0@john> <47AC1EB4.20106@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802080201i496e703cq59678af962ac1d2d@mail.gmail.com> On 08/02/2008, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > John Probst a ?crit : > >> > >> Swiss Teams with imps converted to WBF VPs > >> (including difference of 0-10 = 0 imps) > >> > >> Dlr: North > >> Vul: East-West > >> > >> The bidding has gone: > >> > >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >> --- 1S 3H(1) Pass > >> 4H Pass Pass ? > >> > >> (1) Weak jump overcall > >> > >> You, South, hold: > >> > >> 6432 > >> Q > >> Q97 > >> 98543 > >> > >> What call do you make? > >> What other calls do you consider making? > >> > >> Note that blmlers who chose to bid 3S on > >> the previous round belong to a different > >> class of player than the actual South, so > >> only blmlers who passed initially should > >> answer this second round of questions. > >> > > > > > I said pass was an option and I could do it, so I'll dare give an answer. > > Something positive is needed. Perhaps 5S. This doesn't ask for a heart > control, that partner surely has, but rather is a generic slam try in > partner's known suit. > > Bur the situation is a bit strange. My partners would hold a Heart void. > What the heck, perhaps advancer is on the same hideand-seek mood than me. > > NB : this shouldn't happen in civilized countries where you don't open > 1S on a 3-loser hand. > > Best regards > > Alain > I think you are looking at a different auction than I am. WAyne From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 8 12:09:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 12:09:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1JNQ0o-0ZMQwC0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> References: <47AC1359.40405@skynet.be> <1JNQ0o-0ZMQwC0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <47AC385E.1010503@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Herman De Wael >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> Herman De Wael: >>> >>>> As to the official standing of the DWS, that is this: >>>> >>>> I wrote about this first in 1998. I know Grattan and Ton have read >>>> about it, and they have never commented. >>>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Never? Grattan has made zillions of adverse comments about the De >>> Wael School on blml over the years. >>> >> You are mistaken. Please find one. I cannot prove my contention - it's >> a negative. But I cannot remember Grattan (or Ton) commenting even >> once on dws. The first one of the sort I remember was a very short "is >> that still around?" by Ton, I believe early last year. Other than >> that, nothing. > > Following a simple google-request I found at once the thread > "dWS for the beginner" from the late 2002. > Among other replies Grattan answered the following: > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2002-November/002161.html > >> I think I would have remembered if it were otherwise. > > (??) > OK. I stand corrected. One post by Grattan (or are there more?) Hardly Zillions. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 8 12:26:31 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:26:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> Herman, if you think that current law "renders acceptable" recognised >> legal >> practice and the dWS, what guidelines would you offer to players when >> deciding which one they should follow? >> > > Let's say, their own conscience. > I gather from some of the replies on blml that people find it > abhorrant to have to lie to their opponents. Those people can use MS > principles if they so wish. All others, I would tell that DWS will > work to their benefit (an acceptable benefit IMO), and so why not act > that way? So one uses dWS if one can stomach it? This highlights one of the problems with the dWS. Apparently every player must construct a hierarchy of Laws, which might not agree with Herman's. If it does not, then they must follow traditional practice, and eschew the "benefits" of the dWS. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 8 12:32:18 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:32:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Does L12B1 void some rub-of-the-green outcomes? References: <200802042147.m14LlJZq005154@cfa.harvard.edu> <47AA6558.5020907@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <02b901c86a46$43795820$0100a8c0@stefanie> > I can't cite an actual example offhand, but this seems a likely enough > scenario. > Here's a different type of example, adapted from this month's English Bridge. North shows a balanced 23-24, after which South takes an age to bid 6C. North, with prime controls and AQJx of trumps, bids 7. Suppose that 7C is rolled back, but it is matchpoints. At many other tables the auction proceeded more slowly, and NS ended up choosing the inferior 6NT or perhaps 6 of a Major. The NOS, after a successful appeal, end up with a poor score. Stefanie Rohan London, England From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 8 12:47:45 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:47:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47AC385E.1010503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c86a48$6bf05040$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > > Following a simple google-request I found at once the thread > > "dWS for the beginner" from the late 2002. > > Among other replies Grattan answered the following: > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2002-November/002161.html > > > >> I think I would have remembered if it were otherwise. > > > > (??) > > > > OK. I stand corrected. > One post by Grattan (or are there more?) > Hardly Zillions. > Do you really need more? Wasn't that post extremely clear and right to the point? After reading it I understand very well why WBFLC officials have chosen to completely ignore any further issues on DWS as just a waste of time. Sven From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 8 12:51:00 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:51:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > > This highlights one of the problems with the dWS. Apparently every player > must construct a hierarchy of Laws, which might not agree with Herman's. > If > it does not, then they must follow traditional practice, and eschew the > "benefits" of the dWS. > Sorry, wrote too quickly. Actually, choosing legal practice when the dWS is also "acceptable" would be dumping, a violation of new L72A. Anyway, it stands to reason that when two courses of action are available following an irregularity, only one can be condoned by the Laws. Stefanie Rohan London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 8 13:16:15 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:16:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> Herman, if you think that current law "renders acceptable" recognised >>> legal >>> practice and the dWS, what guidelines would you offer to players when >>> deciding which one they should follow? >>> >> Let's say, their own conscience. >> I gather from some of the replies on blml that people find it >> abhorrant to have to lie to their opponents. Those people can use MS >> principles if they so wish. All others, I would tell that DWS will >> work to their benefit (an acceptable benefit IMO), and so why not act >> that way? > > So one uses dWS if one can stomach it? > > This highlights one of the problems with the dWS. Apparently every player > must construct a hierarchy of Laws, which might not agree with Herman's. If > it does not, then they must follow traditional practice, and eschew the > "benefits" of the dWS. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > No Stefanie, my advice to everyone is to use DWS. But I would think you would find that advice even worse than the one I actually gave. You can use MS at my table - please do. I'll gladly take the windfall. You see, I don't care what people do, as long as the TD is there to correct the undue advantages that arise from lawbreaks. That means that I have an advantage over you? Yes it does. But that's your problem, not mine. I don't forbid you to use DWS as well. And please don't repeat that this is an unfair advantage to me. I have no advantage over any MS player who finds an active opponent at his table. I only have an advantage over those unlucky MS players who happen to have a lazy opponent. But as I said, that's the MS player's own doing. All this of course, in an environment where DWS is acceptable. But I gathered from the way you put your question that this condition was satisfied - and I do treat your question as hypothetical, not showing any inclination towards accepting that acceptability. This last paragraph just to counter your "but you have an undue advantage" criticism. If DWS is acceptable, the advantage it gains over the unlucky MS player is not "undue". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Feb 8 13:41:58 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 12:41:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002c01c86a0f$2972c420$315d5e47@DFYXB361> References: <2b1e598b0802062149x4f5b011bi7611524c29586dd5@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0802071611x123db96atfe8d049bbf080952@mail.gmail.com> <002c01c86a0f$2972c420$315d5e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <47AC4E16.70207@NTLworld.com> {Raija] DWS interpretation is not a new idea, HDW has promoted it for a long time. [Nige1] Many BLMLers proposed *new ideas* for the new edition of the laws. The WBFLC rejected them, as is its prerogative. Ambiguities, inconsistencies, and solecisms in the laws are a different matter. Many BLMLers have drawn attention to these. The DWS arose from one of them. Herman claims that DWS is not a new idea -- just a matter of interpretation of current law. On BLML, individual WBFLC law-makers argue that: these "problems" are more imagined than real; and the "intentions" of the committee are clear. Nevertheless, there is vague talk about issuing a clarifying missive or two. IMO: that is an inadequate response: Unsurprisingly, the WBFLC itelf understands what it wrote; but ordinary players still find TNLB unclear; hence it should be clarified. To be of use to most players, directors, and translators, *official* corrections must be made to the *law-book* itself and quickly. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 8 13:42:03 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:42:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing about the misunderstanding? References: <47AC2213.10802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003701c86a56$6ffc3330$abc9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 9:34 AM Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing about the misunderstanding? > In the course of my considerations regarding DWS in the last few > weeks, I have been constructing a full case, and it turns out it means > we have to discuss something far more important than the DWS. > +=+ 'we have to' - really? "My dear, I don't care a damn." +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 8 14:22:46 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:22:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003801c86a56$715385d0$abc9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 6:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > (Richard quotes s.o.else) >> "Until recently, neither Ton nor Grattan have >> ever disputed this. It was my impression that >> they thought it an amusing sideline, not >> worthy of official consideration." > +=+ Ton can speak for himself. It is my opinion that dws is a corrosive heresy and that it should be corrected publicly for the sake of inexperienced TDs who may be misled. The nigh-unanimous view among my colleagues is that the subject should be left to Regulating Authorities to put their TDs right on the subject - that anyone in doubt should ask his/her NBO in the first place and that an NBO may ask the WBFLC if it is unclear as to the answer. (I think this is natural theory, but does it really work in Tsagannuur? It seems not to work in Belgium.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 8 15:39:11 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:39:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> This highlights one of the problems with the dWS. Apparently every player >> must construct a hierarchy of Laws, which might not agree with Herman's. >> If >> it does not, then they must follow traditional practice, and eschew the >> "benefits" of the dWS. >> > Sorry, wrote too quickly. Actually, choosing legal practice when the dWS is > also "acceptable" would be dumping, a violation of new L72A. Anyway, it > stands to reason that when two courses of action are available following an > irregularity, only one can be condoned by the Laws. > Why does that stand to reason? There are many laws that allow for a choice of actions by a NOS, and even by an OS! But if you are asking me to choose, you know what my choice is. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 8 15:44:33 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:44:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing about the misunderstanding? In-Reply-To: <003701c86a56$6ffc3330$abc9403e@Mildred> References: <47AC2213.10802@skynet.be> <003701c86a56$6ffc3330$abc9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47AC6AD1.4060103@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************** > "In situations where a misexplanation > has been given by partner a player > must not indicate that partner has made > a mistake. However, in his own > explanations the player is obliged to state > the partnership agreement correctly. > Knowing this, it is the gravest possible > violation of law to deceive opponent by > not doing so." > ~ Grattan Endicott, (2002 - paraphrase) > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 9:34 AM > Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing > about the misunderstanding? > > >> In the course of my considerations regarding DWS in the last few >> weeks, I have been constructing a full case, and it turns out it means >> we have to discuss something far more important than the DWS. >> > +=+ 'we have to' - really? "My dear, I don't care a damn." +=+ > You forgot the "Frankly" in your quote. I think you are neglecting your duties here, Grattan. I think Ton might find this discussion very interesting! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 8 15:57:40 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 14:57:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006e01c86a63$1614fd40$abc9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > > You see, I don't care what people do, as long > as the TD is there to correct the undue advantages > that arise from lawbreaks. > +=+ So there is your answer, when you sit down against Herman summon the Director and ask him to clarify the law, noting Herman's public pronouncements as to his reading of it (and that as the appointed servant of the EBL Laws Committee he could be thought to reflect its view). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 8 16:15:31 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:15:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003801c86a56$715385d0$abc9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <038901c86a65$72043a60$0100a8c0@stefanie> Grattan Endicott >> > +=+ Ton can speak for himself. It is my opinion > that dws is a corrosive heresy and that it should > be corrected publicly for the sake of inexperienced > TDs who may be misled. By far the most sensible approach. It is surpriseing that this opinion is not unanimous among the WBFLC. > The nigh-unanimous view > among my colleagues is that the subject should be > left to Regulating Authorities to put their TDs right > on the subject - that anyone in doubt should ask > his/her NBO in the first place and that an NBO > may ask the WBFLC if it is unclear as to the answer. > (I think this is natural theory, but does it really work > in Tsagannuur? It seems not to work in Belgium.) It is unlikely to work anywhere. Why not have the information readily available? Remember DALB's account of a player who thought up the dWS on his own. Is the director (say at a club) even going to know whom to contact in his RA? The WBFLC must take notice of the fact that finally, after all these years, Herman has managed to recruit a small band of acolytes. Why not put an end to their confusion? Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 8 15:47:07 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:47:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <0ssmq31id0b4na4uqmcd0elkaudur7dc27@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <00b201c86891$a348c120$20cd403e@Mildred> <0ssmq31id0b4na4uqmcd0elkaudur7dc27@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <979FAC4A-7534-4947-A0D5-5FD2B1CE2E64@starpower.net> On Feb 7, 2008, at 4:37 PM, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > We had a L27 ruling in our club Tuesday, which caused us to > discover an > aspect of L27 that we had not noticed before: > > North opens 1D. East passes. South "opens" 1C. West calls the > TD, but > before the TD arrives, South replaces 1C by 2C. > > The TD rules that 2C does not incorporate all the information from 1C > (that decision is not the point here). L27E then tells us that the > correction stands, and the TD applies L27D, silencing North for the > rest > of the auction. South, who believed he was making a forcing call, is > now forced to play 2C and does not get a good score. > > There are two points here: > * It seems a bit hard that South is not allowed to choose his final > call > after being informed that partner will be silenced. > * Even in cases where there is no premature correction, an offending > player will need to know before changing his call whether it will > result > in a L27C or a L27D ruling. I.e., he will need to ask the TD > something > like "If I bid 2C now, will you allow that as a L27C case, or should I > make a guess at a final contract instead?". > > Both of these points could be solved if the offender was allowed to > change his call again to choose the final call *after* the TD had > ruled > L27D. IMHO, South got exactly what he deserved. In our introduction to duplicate for social bridge players, the first thing taught on the first day is the "rule that trumps all other rules": If anything irregular happens, call the director at once and do nothing until he arrives. South failed to obey this "prime directive", and I see no reason why he shouldn't pay the full price. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 8 16:19:44 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:19:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing aboutthe misunderstanding? References: <47AC2213.10802@skynet.be> <003701c86a56$6ffc3330$abc9403e@Mildred> <47AC6AD1.4060103@skynet.be> Message-ID: <038f01c86a66$091fb320$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> +=+ 'we have to' - really? "My dear, I don't care a damn." +=+ >> > > You forgot the "Frankly" in your quote. No. He has quoted correctly. But I'm sure you are not the first person to be caught out by this one! From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 8 16:29:23 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:29:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> On Feb 7, 2008, at 5:14 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> Because Herman has said, and it is the crucial >> foundation on which the entire DWS rests, that the words "indicate in >> any manner that a mistake has been made" [L20F5(a)] are to be read as >> "indicate in any manner whatsoever...", > > And how else do you want to read this? > "indicate in any manner" means "indicate in any manner". No > exceptions. You don't need a whatsoever in that sentence. It stands as > it is. "In any manner". Can anything be more clear? > >> thus creating a sufficiently >> strong mandate to override, or at least neutralize, the prohibition >> against deliberately misexplaining one's agreements. We (or at least >> most of us) would like to give Herman the benefit of the doubt, by >> assuming that by "in any manner whatsoever" he really means "in any >> manner whatsoever" and not "in any manner whatsoever provided it >> improves my results". > > But what does that have to do with it? It is "NOT in any manner". Not > at all. If that happens to improve my results, isn't that what the law > explicitely wants? > > Forget the second question for a moment. Do you believe that it is to > my benefit for me to remain quiet about the misexplanation? Yes? Then > that is what the laws want. What is so bad about interpreting that > sentence two seconds later in the same direction? Even if it improves > my results? It's what the laws say, don't they? > > And if you still believe that the dws is not strictly following L20F5, > you need your head examined. You may argue that there are higher > obligations, but you surely cannot argue that my actions are not those > dictated by L20F5. > >> So we have repeatedly challenged him to defend >> DWS practice as he defines it, by explaining to us by what logic "in >> any manner whatsoever" should apply only to alerts and explanations >> but not to bids, thus by what logic "in any manner whatsoever" should >> prevent explaining 3D as anything but "must be passed" but not >> prevent doing anything other than passing it. And he has never >> responded to those challenges. > > I have already three times stated that I have responded to that > challenge, and I have once repeated it and Jerry has pasted my > response a second time. I'm sick and tired of having to say the same > thing over and over again. And I'm sick and tired of having people > believe that I don't respond to their challenges. This has become, > over the years, a very personal attack. I'm getting tired of it. On Feb 7, 2008, at 4:42 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > 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? Despite Herman's and Jerry's repeated assertions, this is not at all responsive to the question I have raised. Only the proponents of the DWS think that "we're discussing what the hierarchy of the laws is". Its opponents see no need to imagine an arbitrary hierarchy in order to determine one's legal obligations in the DWS situation. For clarity, I leave that to a different discussion and accept the DWSists' context for the current one. The "hierarchy of the laws" put forth by the DWSists is a very peculiar one indeed. Consider: The prohibition found in the DWS interpretation of L20F5(a) is sufficiently strong as to "outrank in the hierarchy of the laws" the obligation to fully disclose one's actual agreements found in L75. This justifies explaining 3D as "to play" even though that is an explicit violation. Despite this, that same prohibition is not sufficiently strong to warrant passing 3D, a perfectly legal action which would not violate any other law in any way at all. How do the proponents of the DWS justify this? They have repeatly offered arguments in justification of the misexplanation, but have yet to explain why or how those same arguments fail to apply to the pass. I do not want to believe that the key difference here is that misdescribing 3D will genrerally work to the DWSists' advantage, whereas passing 3D would work to their disadvantage. Thus I anxiously await a better explanation. Herman? Jerry? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Feb 8 16:50:10 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:50:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Lettuce_drive_a_steak_through_the_DWS_=5BS?= =?iso-8859-15?q?EC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <47AC385E.1010503@skynet.be> References: <47AC1359.40405@skynet.be> <1JNQ0o-0ZMQwC0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> <47AC385E.1010503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1JNVUQ-295fc00@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > Peter Eidt wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > > > > > Never? ?Grattan has made zillions of adverse comments about the > > > > De Wael School on blml over the years. > > > > > > > > > > > You are mistaken. Please find one. I cannot prove my contention - > > > it's a negative. But I cannot remember Grattan (or Ton) commenting > > > even once on dws. The first one of the sort I remember was a very > > > short "is that still around?" by Ton, I believe early last year. > > > Other than that, nothing. > > > > > > > Following a simple google-request I found at once the thread > > "dWS for the beginner" from the late 2002. > > Among other replies Grattan answered the following: > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2002-November/002161.html > > > > > I think I would have remembered if it were otherwise. > > > > (??) > > > OK. I stand corrected. > One post by Grattan (or are there more?) > Hardly Zillions. You want another ?? here you get one: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2002-November/002365.html and there are zillions more of this calibre. Perhaps you forgot due to a protective function of your brain ... From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 8 20:05:47 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:05:47 -0600 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be> <7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802081105m791a3654n48e0eab86c0cfcfd@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 8, 2008 9:29 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > Despite this, that same prohibition is not sufficiently strong to > warrant passing 3D, a perfectly legal action which would not violate > any other law in any way at all. > Eric, I am getting a little confused by some of your paragraphs today, though it may well be my fault. Are you referring to Grattan's case here? [Grattan] Example: South opens 2NT with a balanced 20 count. North explains it as a weak bid, 5-5 in the minors and bids 3D, a response which in South's mind is a transfer to hearts. He is required to treat the response as such a transfer. Two possibilities arise: Case (i): 2NT does show a strong balanced hand in the system (and therefore 3D is indeed a transfer). South alerts 3D, and explains that it is a transfer and he must treat North's response as though it is a transfer. South has now conveyed unauthorized information to North and North must not make use of it - he must continue to treat South's actions as ensuing from the 2NT bid as he (North) explained it. Case (ii): the 2NT opening is a misbid. The system really is as explained by North; weak, 5-5 in the minors. South realises this on hearing North's explanation. South is still obliged to treat 3D as though it is a transfer, But he must explain the bid according to the system - 3D is to play. In giving this explanation he has been prompted by unauthorized information (he has only been reminded that 3D is to play because he heard the correct explanation of 2NT); he may not base a call or play on the unauthorized information (Laws 16A3 and 16B1). [Jerry] Eric, is this case the context in which you just wrote that passing 3D is a "a perfectly legal action which would not violate any other law in any way at all?" Are you disagreeing with Grattan's assertion that he is required to treat 3D as a transfer? Jerry Fusselman From geller at nifty.com Fri Feb 8 20:13:20 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:13:20 +0900 Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing aboutthe misunderstanding? In-Reply-To: <038f01c86a66$091fb320$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <038f01c86a66$091fb320$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <200802081913.AA12386@geller204.nifty.com> Stefanie Rohan writes: >>> +=+ 'we have to' - really? "My dear, I don't care a damn." +=+ >>> >> >> You forgot the "Frankly" in your quote. > >No. He has quoted correctly. But I'm sure you are not the first person to >be caught out by this one! According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankly,_my_dear,_I_don't_give_a_damn. the quote used by Grattan is correctly taken from the novel (a best seller in the late 1930s) whereas the famous quote cited by Herman as correct is the one from the movie. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 8 20:17:51 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:17:51 -0600 Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing aboutthe misunderstanding? In-Reply-To: <200802081913.AA12386@geller204.nifty.com> References: <038f01c86a66$091fb320$0100a8c0@stefanie> <200802081913.AA12386@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802081117x13575e75o90f5ea82b735a378@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 8, 2008 1:13 PM, Robert Geller wrote: > Stefanie Rohan writes: > >>> +=+ 'we have to' - really? "My dear, I don't care a damn." +=+ > >>> > >> > >> You forgot the "Frankly" in your quote. > > > >No. He has quoted correctly. But I'm sure you are not the first person to > >be caught out by this one! > > > According to Wikipedia > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankly,_my_dear,_I_don't_give_a_damn. > the quote used by Grattan is correctly taken from the novel > (a best seller in the late 1930s) whereas the famous quote > cited by Herman as correct is the one from the movie. > > -Bob > But it has "give" not "care." "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." is a line from the 1939 film Gone with the Wind starring Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh. From geller at nifty.com Fri Feb 8 20:35:24 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:35:24 +0900 Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing aboutthe misunderstanding? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802081117x13575e75o90f5ea82b735a378@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0802081117x13575e75o90f5ea82b735a378@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802081935.AA12387@geller204.nifty.com> True. I missed that. -Bob Jerry Fusselman ????????: >On Feb 8, 2008 1:13 PM, Robert Geller wrote: >> Stefanie Rohan writes: >> >>> +=+ 'we have to' - really? "My dear, I don't care a damn." +=+ >> >>> >> >> >> >> You forgot the "Frankly" in your quote. >> > >> >No. He has quoted correctly. But I'm sure you are not the first person to >> >be caught out by this one! >> >> >> According to Wikipedia >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankly,_my_dear,_I_don't_give_a_damn. >> the quote used by Grattan is correctly taken from the novel >> (a best seller in the late 1930s) whereas the famous quote >> cited by Herman as correct is the one from the movie. >> >> -Bob >> > >But it has "give" not "care." > >"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." is a line from the 1939 film >Gone with the Wind starring Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 8 20:44:48 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 19:44:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] O Times, O Daily Mirror In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802081117x13575e75o90f5ea82b735a378@mail.gmail.com> References: <038f01c86a66$091fb320$0100a8c0@stefanie> <200802081913.AA12386@geller204.nifty.com> <2b1e598b0802081117x13575e75o90f5ea82b735a378@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000b01c86a8b$105196c0$30f4c440$@com> >"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." is a line from the 1939 film Gone with the Wind starring Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh. Indeed, but it nearly wasn't. The use of the word "damn" was permitted only because it was "essential and required for portrayal, in proper historical context, of any scene or dialogue based upon historical fact or folklore, or a quotation from a literary work". It was stipulated, however, that the word should not be emphasised, which is why Gable had to utter the immortal line with an unnatural stress on "give" rather than "damn". It may be refreshing to note that ridiculous legal arguments are not solely the province of bridge players. David Burn London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 8 21:14:21 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 20:14:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be><005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be><47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de><035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net><2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com><2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net><47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802081105m791a3654n48e0eab86c0cfcfd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <041801c86a8f$316b1cb0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > > [Jerry] > > Eric, is this case the context in which you just wrote that passing 3D > is a "a perfectly legal action which would not violate any other law > in any way at all?" Are you disagreeing with Grattan's assertion that > he is required to treat 3D as a transfer? No, I think he is wondering why followers of the dWS are not required to pass. But he suspects that he knows the answer. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 8 21:18:03 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 20:18:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be> Message-ID: <042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Why does that stand to reason? > There are many laws that allow for a choice of actions by a NOS, and > even by an OS! In these cases, normally the choices are laid out in the Laws. > But if you are asking me to choose, you know what my choice is. Alas, I do. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 8 21:42:41 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 20:42:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <042f01c86a93$26a69fd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > No Stefanie, my advice to everyone is to use DWS. But I would think > you would find that advice even worse than the one I actually gave. Why would I find anything wrong with that advice if I thought it was legal? I have to admit that I would think it was a misguided Law, but I would consider that my obligation is not to approve or disapprove, but to follow it. We would all do well to take this approach... > You can use MS at my table - please do. I'll gladly take the windfall. Please stop with MS. It makes it seem as if you consider it an alternative approach, rather than the procedure mandated by Law. > > You see, I don't care what people do, as long as the TD is there to > correct the undue advantages that arise from lawbreaks. I care a lot whether people break Laws deliberately. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 8 21:54:14 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 20:54:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Herman: >>> Let's say, their own conscience. >>> I gather from some of the replies on blml that people find it >>> abhorrant to have to lie to their opponents. Those people can use MS >>> principles if they so wish. All others, I would tell that DWS will >>> work to their benefit (an acceptable benefit IMO), and so why not act >>> that way? > > No Stefanie, my advice to everyone is to use DWS. But I would think > you would find that advice even worse than the one I actually gave. > You can use MS at my table - please do. I'll gladly take the windfall. I really want you to answer this one, if you don't mind -- why would anyone's conscience bother themto use the dWS, or would they find the dWS abhorrent, if they thought it was a legal practice? Bridge requires one to use the rules to one's advantage, and it is a violation of Law (don't remember, but included it in a recent post) to do otherwise. So if the dWS were legal, traditional practice would be illegal. And law-abiding types would feel, even if they didn't like the Law, that not obeying it was "abhorrent". Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 8 22:39:53 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 21:39:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47AC0DDB.1010306@t-online.de> <47AC19C9.5060901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <062e01c86a9b$247f0b40$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> You would run out of Monty Python quotes in a matter of minutes...... >> [Guy with weird scoring program] has revolutionized absurdity all on his >> own. >> > > Yet people wish to put me in the same pot. > Please Matthias, tell us there is a difference. > Herman, "absurd" is the nicest word most people would use to describe the dWS. Do you really think you are earning people's respect? Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 8 23:20:50 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:20:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802081105m791a3654n48e0eab86c0cfcfd@mail.gmail.com> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be> <7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802081105m791a3654n48e0eab86c0cfcfd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <96BCA341-D000-4D88-98F1-258E0D5C5A58@starpower.net> On Feb 8, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Feb 8, 2008 9:29 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> Despite this, that same prohibition is not sufficiently strong to >> warrant passing 3D, a perfectly legal action which would not violate >> any other law in any way at all. > > Eric, I am getting a little confused by some of your paragraphs today, > though it may well be my fault. Are you referring to Grattan's case > here? > > [Grattan] > > Example: South opens 2NT with a balanced 20 count. North explains > it as a weak bid, 5-5 in the minors and bids 3D, a response which in > South's mind is a transfer to hearts. He is required to treat the > response > as such a transfer. Two possibilities arise: > > Case (i): 2NT does show a strong balanced hand in the system (and > therefore 3D is indeed a transfer). South alerts 3D, and explains that > it is a transfer and he must treat North's response as though it is a > transfer. South has now conveyed unauthorized information to North > and North must not make use of it - he must continue to treat South's > actions as ensuing from the 2NT bid as he (North) explained it. > > Case (ii): the 2NT opening is a misbid. The system really is as > explained > by North; weak, 5-5 in the minors. South realises this on hearing > North's > explanation. South is still obliged to treat 3D as though it is a > transfer, > But he must explain the bid according to the system - 3D is to play. > In giving this explanation he has been prompted by unauthorized > information (he has only been reminded that 3D is to play because he > heard the correct explanation of 2NT); he may not base a call or play > on the unauthorized information (Laws 16A3 and 16B1). > > [Jerry] > > Eric, is this case the context in which you just wrote that passing 3D > is a "a perfectly legal action which would not violate any other law > in any way at all?" Are you disagreeing with Grattan's assertion that > he is required to treat 3D as a transfer? I certainly agree with Grattan (and just about everyone else) that it is proper to treat 3D as a transfer (I'll get to "required" in a bit). But then I also agree with Grattan (and just about everyone else) that it is proper to describe 3D as a transfer when it is by agreement a transfer. If, however, one were to accept the basic premise of the DWS (i.e. Herman's interpretation of L20F5(a)), one would, of course, be disagreeing with Grattan about the latter, and, I assert, consistency would require disagreeing with him about the former as well. If, as Grattan suggests, there is a *requirement* to treat 3D as a transfer, that should not bother the proponents of the DWS. After all, DWS principles trump the requirement to describe one's agreement about 3D accurately, and that is an explicit requirement of L75. At best, the requirement that one treat 3D as a transfer is a procedural one, derived from L16 by regulation or precedent rather than the explicit words of the law. So in any imagined "hierarchy" of laws based on something other than getting good results for DWSers, if one is justified in ignoring the former, how can one not be justified in ignoring the latter? That is, in effect, what I have been asking all along. As to whether the player in Grattan's example is "required" to treat 3D as a transfer, it's really irrelevant to the issue at hand. The answer, of course, depends on whether the UI suggests that passing will be more successful than bidding 3H. It doesn't strike me that it does (although I suppose it might depend on South's actual holding). That might make for an interesting, if unrelated, thread. If anyone doesn't like this particular example in the current context, feel free to adjust it so that you have no legal problem with passing. But that shouldn't bother the DWSists. Their whole argument is that it is OK to ignore what the law requires you to do when the DWS philosophy warrants it. I submit that the unusual amount of nastiness and invective directed against Herman is explained by the fact that the "DWS philosophy" seems to "warrant it" only when "it" figures to work to his advantage result-wise but not in other circumstances, and we have yet to see consistent general principles that would explain the discrepancies. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Feb 9 00:13:23 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 23:13:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing about the misunderstanding? In-Reply-To: <47AC2213.10802@skynet.be> References: <47AC2213.10802@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c86aa8$34737150$9d5a53f0$@com> [HdW] In the course of my considerations regarding DWS in the last few weeks, I have been constructing a full case, and it turns out it means we have to discuss something far more important than the DWS. I have come up with the following hand - but I've only constructed the distribution. High cards and points should be filled in to correspond to the story further on. We are playing a tournament with 100 tables and this is the hand: (S/NS) - x xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx x x xxxxx xxx xxx - xxxx xxx xxxxxx x xxx At every table South opens 1He and at 80 tables, West overcalls 4Sp. Now consider North's actions: At 20 tables, North knows they are playing 4NT for the minors. He bids that, South bids 5Cl. West passes, hoping that NS are too high, but they're not. +600. At 20 tables, North knows they are playing 4NT Blackwood here. So he cannot bid that. He doubles, 4Sx-2, +300 At 20 tables, North is uncertain of the meaning of 4NT in their system, and he doesn't dare bid it. He doubles, +300. At the last 20 tables, North is also uncertain, but he bids it anyway. At ten tables, South guesses correctly, bids 5Cl, and scores +600. At the other ten tables, South thinks 4NT is Blackwood, and he bids 5Di. Now let's look at those tables in more detail: At all of them, West wants to know what is going on. He asks South what 4NT is and gets the response "Blackwood". That should be enough for him, because he now "knows" that there is heart fit. He is not going to wait for North to bid slam or not, and he wants to bid 5Sp immediately. But wait, first he wonders about the 5Di bid. At table one, they are playing with screens (*). West is seated with South, and he asks South about the meaning of 5Di. "One Ace" writes South. West bids 5Sp; North doubles, 3 down, +500. At table two, West realizes that it doesn't matter to him how many aces are in South. 5Sp, +500. At table three, West remembers that his opponents use simple Blackwood. +500 At table four, West consults the SC. +500. At table five, West asks North about 5Di. HDW is sitting North, he replies "one ace", West bids 5Sp, +500. At table six, West also asks North, but here it's Sven sitting North. He replies "diamond preference". West now thinks "maybe they're playing in their weaker minor" (he has three himself). He doubles. 5DX-3, -800. At table seven, Jerry is sitting West. He knows that to ask can work to his advantage. He asks, someone answers (MS fashion), and Jerry doubles. -800. At table eight, David Burn is sitting North. He doesn't even wait for the question but reveals the mistake immediately. West doubles, and David plays 5DiX, by David only two down, -500. Now the TD arrives at all tables, but only at five of them he is really needed. West makes clear that he would not have bid 5Sp if he hadn't been misinformed (about the probable heart fit). The TD turns back the score to ... Yes, to what? I would say that the normal ending of the story at tables 1-5 would be that West would pass 5Di (not knowing about the misunderstanding and thus believing that South bid his longest minor). North would of course have to pass, and the AS would be 5D-3, -300. And then my point is of course that I see no reason why Sven should suffer -800, when he would "get away" with -300 at tables 1-4, where no question is asked. Also I don't see what's so terribly wrong with my actions, since I also suffer the same fate as the tables 1-4. [DALB] No, you don't. At the table where you were North, you were plus 500 against five spades doubled. And you would have remained plus 500 against five spades doubled unless East-West worked out that they needed to call the Director. Now, I am sure that you personally would have called the Director yourself as North, because you know the rules and you are an ethical player. But very many Norths who "play the dWS" are not even aware that they are doing so - they are just doing their best (foolishly, but in all innocence and good faith) to explain what South has, instead of what South's bids mean. They would be positively affronted at the notion that they had done any wrong at all, and it would be very hard to convince them that they should be minus 300 in five diamonds instead of plus 500 against five spades doubled. Moreover, very many East-Wests would not actually have known that there was a problem - they might have felt dimly that something was amiss, but they would not have understood that the Director needed calling. That is what really is wrong with the dWS, and why it really is bad for bridge. If all concerned know the rules and their rights under them, and the Director is a competent one (such as HdW or Sven Pran), then equity will probably be restored. But in the real world, this simply does not happen in the vast majority of cases. In the real world, MS players will go down in five diamonds (doubled or not) while dWS players will get 500 from five spades doubled. You may say that this is no more than their due, because they have exercised their right to break one law rather than another. But I say (with Eric) that they are obtaining an unfair advantage by choosing to break the law most likely to improve their results. I am sure you didn't mean to do so, Herman, but you have concocted a case that shows very clearly what some of us have been telling you for some time. The dWS is a licence to cheat. Not that you personally are a cheat - I know you to be an honourable and intelligent man, a diligent worker for the game in a legal capacity, and a thoroughly nice fellow into the bargain. But the dWS in the hands of hoi polloi is high pollution. David Burn London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Feb 9 01:41:10 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 00:41:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing about themisunderstanding? References: <47AC2213.10802@skynet.be> <000001c86aa8$34737150$9d5a53f0$@com> Message-ID: <068801c86ab4$77012380$0100a8c0@stefanie> (About the five tables) [HDW] I would say that the normal ending of the story at tables 1-5 would be that West would pass 5Di (not knowing about the misunderstanding and thus believing that South bid his longest minor). North would of course have to pass, and the AS would be 5D-3, -300. [SR] This story does not address the "lack of consistency" you cite, because the normal ending, as long as the opponents are all informed at the end of the hand that they have been given misinformation, is that they will say that they would have doubled 5D. At all tables the "Blackwood" explainers will go for 800. So it is not such a great example. Though it does, as DALB notes, highlight the danger of a dWSist who forgets to mention the misinformation. Stefanie Rohan London, England From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Feb 9 16:51:53 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 10:51:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Does L12B1 void some rub-of-the-green outcomes? In-Reply-To: <02b901c86a46$43795820$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <200802042147.m14LlJZq005154@cfa.harvard.edu><47AA6558.5020907@nhcc.net> <02b901c86a46$43795820$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <0F04FF21584D416A9A9FBB4DDD8207FF@erdos> "Stefanie Rohan" writes: >> I can't cite an actual example offhand, but this seems a likely enough >> scenario. >> > Here's a different type of example, adapted from this month's English > Bridge. North shows a balanced 23-24, after which South takes an age to bid > 6C. North, with prime controls and AQJx of trumps, bids 7. > > Suppose that 7C is rolled back, but it is matchpoints. At many other tables > the auction proceeded more slowly, and NS ended up choosing the inferior 6NT > or perhaps 6 of a Major. > > The NOS, after a successful appeal, end up with a poor score. This is a fair ruling. The NOS is entitled to the most favorable result which was likely without the infraction, and anything that was independent of the infraction can affect that score. Once South decided to bid 6C, N-S were headed for a good score (as the cards lie) whether North bid seven or not; only the difference between 6C and 7C was damage caused by the infraction. I have been involved in a similar situation. The opponents forgot to alert an artificial bid, and I would have doubled it for the lead had I known it was artificial. They bid to 6S making seven. I called the director at the end of the hand, and the director determined that partner would have led the suit if I had doubled, but 6S would still make six, still a bad score for -980 against my teammates' +510. I was entitled to an adjustment for the damage caused by the infraction (the failure to alert) but not for the damage caused by the opponents' decision to bid a slam. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Feb 10 06:36:08 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 05:36:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Seven arguments for ABF [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47AC116A.2010202@skynet.be> Message-ID: <084401c86ba6$d6d31500$0100a8c0@stefanie> HDW > There is a far better lesson to be learnt from this story! > > Tony did not alert. That particular misinformation did not cause extra > damage. He did not give UI to his partner, who probably understood > what had happened anyway, and looked at his cards, and would have > corrected to 4S if he held 5S and 2H. That contract would not be > turned back to 4H because of UI. Tony realised that he didn't actually have an agreement, so alerting is what would have given misinformation. > > But what would have happened if Tony had alerted? The misunderstanding > would have been revealed just the same, and now Tony's partner would > have had UI. Suppose he still bids 4S, would the TD have allowed it? > Probably not, since Tony was that TD! That depends. If 2NT for the minors could only have been weak, then the 4H bid is impossible, and the information that a wheel has come off is authorised to his partner. Anyway, whom are you trying to impress with this argument? If you have actually read any of the posts against your dWS, you must by now realise that the fact that it sometimes helps the offenders is not considered a point in its favour. Stefanie Rohan London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 10 10:44:19 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:44:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be> <042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> Why does that stand to reason? >> There are many laws that allow for a choice of actions by a NOS, and >> even by an OS! > > In these cases, normally the choices are laid out in the Laws. > And what difference does that make? There are also choices not laid out in the laws. If, after an infraction, NOS are presented with choices, sometimes they can prohibit the lead of one suit. That choice is laid out in the laws. That they can choose between Spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs is not "laid out" in full. That does not prevent the choice from being there. Besides, we are talking about a gap in the laws - so if our final decision is that there is a choice between two acceptable courses of action, of course that choice is not "laid out" in the laws. We are talking about a gap, after all. So this is not an argument, Stefanie. >> But if you are asking me to choose, you know what my choice is. > > Alas, I do. > Now please tell me, apart from the fact that you don't like there being two acceptable courses of action, and apart from the fact that you believe the laws prohibit the dws, what you find so abhorrant to the DWS? And please don't say "it's lying to my opponents". We've been there before. It's misinformation, that's OK, but I was talking "abhorrant", not "irregular". There are lots of misinformations going around and we don't find those abhorrant. So please Stefanie, think about it. It's a serious question. And if you can't come up with a serious answer, then maybe it's time for you to drop your instinctive loathing of the DWS and look at it with fresh eyes. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 10 10:49:13 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:49:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <042f01c86a93$26a69fd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be> <042f01c86a93$26a69fd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47AEC899.5090801@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> No Stefanie, my advice to everyone is to use DWS. But I would think >> you would find that advice even worse than the one I actually gave. > But Stefanie, the laws work quite well without either action being prohibited or obligatory. If you can't live with incomplete laws, then it's high time you looked at the two sets of laws and decide which one you think is best for the game. > Why would I find anything wrong with that advice if I thought it was legal? > I have to admit that I would think it was a misguided Law, but I would > consider that my obligation is not to approve or disapprove, but to follow > it. We would all do well to take this approach... > OK, then think again about it being misguided. Do you believe L20F5 to be misguided? Why is it that you feel OK to leave harmful MI in place but you find it bad to add a small bit of harmless MI to it? You must get it out of your head that active lying is worse than passive lying. There is no talk about lying in the laws, just about MI. Both L20F5 and DWS create MI, DWS only very slightly more than L20F5. Why do you think L20F5 is OK, but DWS misguided? >> You can use MS at my table - please do. I'll gladly take the windfall. > > Please stop with MS. It makes it seem as if you consider it an alternative > approach, rather than the procedure mandated by Law. >> You see, I don't care what people do, as long as the TD is there to >> correct the undue advantages that arise from lawbreaks. > > I care a lot whether people break Laws deliberately. > > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 10 10:52:03 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:52:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <042f01c86a93$26a69fd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be> <042f01c86a93$26a69fd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47AEC943.1030005@skynet.be> (previous answer sent too quickly, one more thing to comment upon) Stefanie Rohan wrote: > >> You can use MS at my table - please do. I'll gladly take the windfall. > > Please stop with MS. It makes it seem as if you consider it an alternative > approach, rather than the procedure mandated by Law. The abbreviations DWS and MS have been coined long ago, let's continue using them. As to the "mandated", I don't agree with that, so allow me to use MS. It's the view still held by a majority of posters here. When that number dwindles, I'll swithch to mS. >> You see, I don't care what people do, as long as the TD is there to >> correct the undue advantages that arise from lawbreaks. > > I care a lot whether people break Laws deliberately. > But Stefanie, we were talking about hypothetical laws, and about what I believe the laws to be. In my view, both actions still break the laws. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 10 10:59:19 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:59:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be> <047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47AECAF7.6040300@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Herman: > >>>> Let's say, their own conscience. >>>> I gather from some of the replies on blml that people find it >>>> abhorrant to have to lie to their opponents. Those people can use MS >>>> principles if they so wish. All others, I would tell that DWS will >>>> work to their benefit (an acceptable benefit IMO), and so why not act >>>> that way? >> No Stefanie, my advice to everyone is to use DWS. But I would think >> you would find that advice even worse than the one I actually gave. >> You can use MS at my table - please do. I'll gladly take the windfall. > > I really want you to answer this one, if you don't mind -- I absolutely don't mind. It takes quite a specific kind of post for me to mind to reply to it, and yours are far from that specificity. In fact, I like the way you gradually edge to important points. > why would > anyone's conscience bother themto use the dWS, or would they find the dWS > abhorrent, if they thought it was a legal practice? When DWS gets voted into law, I hope people would start thinking about the current MS practices as abhorrant in the same way as no-one thinks about breaking L20F5. (I have only once seen L75D2 been broken, and that was by an absolute beginner). However, I understand that to many people, keeping quiet about MI is OK while actively telling a lie is counterintuitive. I would feel that to break DWS principles (remember, when they have become law) would incur lesser of a penalty than a current break of L20F5. But we are talking about two different things here. I thought you were asking what my advice would be, if DWS were merely acceptable. I answered that one. Now you seem to say that you were asking what my advice would be if DWS were the only legal option. I don't regard that as a very interesting question: follow the law, of course, what else? > Bridge requires one to > use the rules to one's advantage, and it is a violation of Law (don't > remember, but included it in a recent post) to do otherwise. So if the dWS > were legal, traditional practice would be illegal. > Indeed it is. > And law-abiding types would feel, even if they didn't like the Law, that not > obeying it was "abhorrent". > Yes, but that is hardly interesting, is it? > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 10 11:04:16 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:04:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be> <7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be> Stop it, Eric, you have made a factual error here: Eric Landau wrote: > > The prohibition found in the DWS interpretation of L20F5(a) is > sufficiently strong as to "outrank in the hierarchy of the laws" the > obligation to fully disclose one's actual agreements found in L75. > This justifies explaining 3D as "to play" even though that is an > explicit violation. > > Despite this, that same prohibition is not sufficiently strong to > warrant passing 3D, a perfectly legal action which would not violate > any other law in any way at all. > Stop it! In the original, 3D was, in the eyes of the 2NT bidder (20+ hand) a transfer. That makes any action other than bidding 3He a "suggested action" by L16. So this is not "a perfectly legal action". I have stated, a few times already, that if there are more than one "non-suggested" actions, then it would be wrong for the player to select the one which most clearly clarifies the misunderstanding to partner. It is Law 16 that supersedes Law 20F5. If there are no L16 restrictions on a bid, then I do believe that L20F5 restricts other, non-suggested bids. Does that solve your problem? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 10 11:06:02 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:06:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <96BCA341-D000-4D88-98F1-258E0D5C5A58@starpower.net> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be> <7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802081105m791a3654n48e0eab86c0cfcfd@mail.gmail.com> <96BCA341-D000-4D88-98F1-258E0D5C5A58@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47AECC8A.5010806@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > I certainly agree with Grattan (and just about everyone else) that it > is proper to treat 3D as a transfer (I'll get to "required" in a > bit). But then I also agree with Grattan (and just about everyone > else) that it is proper to describe 3D as a transfer when it is by > agreement a transfer. If, however, one were to accept the basic > premise of the DWS (i.e. Herman's interpretation of L20F5(a)), one > would, of course, be disagreeing with Grattan about the latter, and, > I assert, consistency would require disagreeing with him about the > former as well. > Why would I be disagreeing with Grattan on the former? I am not of the school that seems to prevail on blml that anything an opponent says must automatically be wrong! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 10 11:11:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:11:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing about the misunderstanding? In-Reply-To: <000001c86aa8$34737150$9d5a53f0$@com> References: <47AC2213.10802@skynet.be> <000001c86aa8$34737150$9d5a53f0$@com> Message-ID: <47AECDC6.2090403@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > > [DALB] > > No, you don't. At the table where you were North, you were plus 500 against > five spades doubled. And you would have remained plus 500 against five > spades doubled unless East-West worked out that they needed to call the > Director. > This is the most spurious argument ever. I have stated quite often that I will clear up any misunderstanding after the hand. If you continue to question my ethics, I will not read any more of your highly entertaining posts. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 10 11:15:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:15:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing about the misunderstanding? In-Reply-To: <000001c86aa8$34737150$9d5a53f0$@com> References: <47AC2213.10802@skynet.be> <000001c86aa8$34737150$9d5a53f0$@com> Message-ID: <47AECEB6.1060208@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > I am sure you didn't mean to do so, Herman, but you have concocted a case > that shows very clearly what some of us have been telling you for some time. > The dWS is a licence to cheat. Not that you personally are a cheat - I know > you to be an honourable and intelligent man, a diligent worker for the game > in a legal capacity, and a thoroughly nice fellow into the bargain. But the > dWS in the hands of hoi polloi is high pollution. > OK, I apologise for my rash response to the earlier message. What makes you think that at Sven's table there could not be seated (instead, I emphasise) a cheat who has never heard of DWS, but who explains 5Di as "one ace" nevertheless? If the player wants to cheat, then he will. The DWS is no different from the current wording of L20F5 and others: stay quiet now, explain and call the TD at the earliest possible moment. To say that one law encourages cheating more than some other law is an unsubstantiated fact. > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 10 11:19:53 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:19:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing about themisunderstanding? In-Reply-To: <068801c86ab4$77012380$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47AC2213.10802@skynet.be> <000001c86aa8$34737150$9d5a53f0$@com> <068801c86ab4$77012380$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47AECFC9.1010903@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > (About the five tables) > > [HDW] > > I would say that the normal ending of the story at tables 1-5 would be that > West would pass 5Di (not knowing about the misunderstanding and thus > believing that South bid his longest minor). North would of course have to > pass, and the AS would be 5D-3, -300. > > [SR] > > This story does not address the "lack of consistency" you cite, because the > normal ending, as long as the opponents are all informed at the end of the > hand that they have been given misinformation, is that they will say that > they would have doubled 5D. At all tables the "Blackwood" explainers will go > for 800. So it is not such a great example. > Yes Stefanie, you have just grasped the real issue here. What is the normal rectification at tables 1-4? According to current practice, it is to 5D-3 undoubled!!!!!!! Without the added information that South may not hold more diamonds than clubs, there is no real reason to double 5 diamonds (just imagine that the cards show this). That is the inconsistency. If you believe that the correct rectification at tables 1-4 is 5DX-3, then of course you do away the inconsistency, but you do so as a member of the Kooijman School. Ton Kooijman has suggested that, behind screens, then current practice of giving 5D-3 undoubled should change into giving 5D doubled, since West should be entitled to the information that there has been a misunderstanding. And THAT is the subject of this thread! > Though it does, as DALB notes, highlight the danger of a dWSist who forgets > to mention the misinformation. > Answered to David, that one. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 10 11:44:44 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:44:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] O Times, O Daily Mirror References: <038f01c86a66$091fb320$0100a8c0@stefanie> <200802081913.AA12386@geller204.nifty.com><2b1e598b0802081117x13575e75o90f5ea82b735a378@mail.gmail.com> <000b01c86a8b$105196c0$30f4c440$@com> Message-ID: <004c01c86bd2$4e898a40$d3cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 7:44 PM Subject: [blml] O Times, O Daily Mirror > >"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." is a line from the 1939 film > >Gone > with the Wind starring Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh. > > Indeed, but it nearly wasn't. The use of the word "damn" was permitted > only > because it was "essential and required for portrayal, in proper historical > context, of any scene or dialogue based upon historical fact or folklore, > or > a quotation from a literary work". It was stipulated, however, that the > word > should not be emphasised, which is why Gable had to utter the immortal > line > with an unnatural stress on "give" rather than "damn". > > It may be refreshing to note that ridiculous legal arguments are not > solely > the province of bridge players. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Allow me to express regret if my carelessly written allusion to the book and film has caused any unnecessary correspondence. In my mind was not so much the content of the quotation as the title of the book/film in question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 10 11:45:50 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:45:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Seven arguments for ABF [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47AC116A.2010202@skynet.be> <084401c86ba6$d6d31500$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <004d01c86bd2$4f817ed0$d3cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 5:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Seven arguments for ABF [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Anyway, whom are you trying to impress with > this argument? > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > +=+ It is possible, Stefanie, that his target is the EBL Laws Committee. If its five members were to minute their agreement in some wise that "the dws is not strictly following L20F5" he would be on record saying of the possessor of such an opinion "you need your head examined" (sic). Currently four of the five committee members constitute half of the membership of the WBF Laws Drafting Subcommittee. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 10 12:49:41 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:49:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0802062149x4f5b011bi7611524c29586dd5@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0802071611x123db96atfe8d049bbf080952@mail.gmail.com><002c01c86a0f$2972c420$315d5e47@DFYXB361> <47AC4E16.70207@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <008c01c86bdb$5bf74240$d3cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > ordinary players still find TNLB unclear; hence it should > be clarified. To be of use to most players, directors, and > translators, *official* corrections must be made to the > *law-book* itself and quickly. > +=+ The task of a 'translator' is to reproduce in another language whatever is written in the first language. Numbers of translations of the 2007 laws now exist. Some are in use already. The view of the Drafting Subcommittee is that players and directors who seek guidance on the meaning of the laws should address their enquiries to the NBO. (As a member of the WBF an NBO that has a problem has direct access to the WBF committee. ) As all NBOs are aware, the WBF DSC is reviewing Law 27C and NBOs will be informed soon of its findings. There is no prospect of change in the wording of any other Law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Sun Feb 10 13:22:41 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:22:41 +0900 Subject: [blml] New L27C2 question Message-ID: <200802101222.AA12394@geller204.nifty.com> Here's a hand from a tourney today. IMPS, Dlr E, None Vul North S AQx H 98x D KTxx C K9x West East S JT8x S xx H Ax H QJxx D Jx D AQ98xx C JTxxxx C x S Kxxx H KTxx D x CAQxx Here in Japan the old laws are in still in effect (till late April). South opened 1C out of turn. West didn't accept it, and the auction reverted to South. The bidding proceeded as follows. W N E S - - 1D 2C P P* 2D P *forced under old laws P 3NT P P DBL P P P 3NTx was not successful, but that's not why I'm bringing this up. My qeustion is, what rectification would be made under the new L27C2 as it now stands? -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 10 14:16:34 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:16:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27C2 question In-Reply-To: <200802101222.AA12394@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000001c86be7$29b53ce0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > Here's a hand from a tourney today. > > IMPS, Dlr E, None Vul > North > S AQx > H 98x > D KTxx > C K9x > West East > S JT8x S xx > H Ax H QJxx > D Jx D AQ98xx > C JTxxxx C x > S Kxxx > H KTxx > D x > CAQxx > Here in Japan the old laws are in still in effect (till late April). > South opened 1C out of turn. West didn't accept it, and the auction > reverted > to South. The bidding proceeded as follows. > W N E S > - - 1D 2C > P P* 2D P *forced under old laws > P 3NT P P > DBL P P P > > 3NTx was not successful, but that's not why I'm bringing this up. My > qeustion is, what rectification would be made under the new L27C2 as it > now stands? Are there some misprints here? The correct law for a bid out of turn as described here is Law 31A2(a), North's pass at his first turn to call is forced also under the new laws and that's all there is to it. If instead of opening out of turn South actually bid 1C in turn then Law 27C is the correct law and North would probably (pending the outcome of the current discussions at WBFLC) be free to make any call he wanted after South corrected his bid to 2C. At the end of the play the Director will apply Law 27C2, but I don't think it is unreasonable for N/S to reach 3NT without "assistance" of the IB? Besides, could E/W expect any better result than what they got? Regards Sven From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 10 14:21:45 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:21:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] New L27C2 question References: <200802101222.AA12394@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000a01c86be7$f795b4a0$d3cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 12:22 PM Subject: [blml] New L27C2 question > Here's a hand from a tourney today. > > IMPS, Dlr E, None Vul > North > S AQx > H 98x > D KTxx > C K9x > West East > S JT8x S xx > H Ax H QJxx > D Jx D AQ98xx > C JTxxxx C x > S Kxxx > H KTxx > D x > CAQxx > Here in Japan the old laws are in still in effect (till > late April). > South opened 1C out of turn. West didn't accept > it, and the auction reverted to South. The bidding > proceeded as follows. > W N E S > - - 1D 2C > P P* 2D P *forced under old laws > P 3NT P P > DBL P P P > > 3NTx was not successful, but that's not why I'm > bringing this up. My qeustion is, what rectification > would be made under the new L27C2 as it > now stands? > > -Bob > +=+ Have I understood correctly? North played 3NT was doubled, went light, and you say EW were damaged? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Feb 10 15:02:32 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:02:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be><047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AECAF7.6040300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <08c601c86bed$94ae4810$0100a8c0@stefanie> > But we are talking about two different things here. I thought you were > asking what my advice would be, if DWS were merely acceptable. I > answered that one. Now you seem to say that you were asking what my > advice would be if DWS were the only legal option. I don't regard that > as a very interesting question: follow the law, of course, what else? No, you misunderstand. I am asking why, if the dWS were indeed "acceptable", why anyone would find it "abhorrent" to follow it. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Feb 10 15:03:30 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:03:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be><042f01c86a93$26a69fd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC943.1030005@skynet.be> Message-ID: <08c801c86bed$b717f180$0100a8c0@stefanie> > But Stefanie, we were talking about hypothetical laws, and about what > I believe the laws to be. In my view, both actions still break the laws. Indeed you do. And it will make your life easier when you are finally convinced that this is not the case. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Feb 10 15:29:41 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:29:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be><042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be> Message-ID: <08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > If, after an infraction, NOS are presented with choices, sometimes > they can prohibit the lead of one suit. That choice is laid out in the > laws. That they can choose between Spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs > is not "laid out" in full. That does not prevent the choice from being > there. I so not have a copy of the Laws at hand. There might be a defninition of "suits", which defines them as hearts, spades, diamonds and clubs. Even if there is not, most bridge players I know are aware that those four comprise the suits. So this argument is specious. > Besides, we are talking about a gap in the laws - so if our final > decision is that there is a choice between two acceptable courses of > action, of course that choice is not "laid out" in the laws. We are > talking about a gap, after all. > So this is not an argument, Stefanie. Except that there is no gap. > > > Now please tell me, apart from the fact that you don't like there > being two acceptable courses of action, and apart from the fact that > you believe the laws prohibit the dws, what you find so abhorrant to > the DWS? I think that it is the wrong way to go. I think that the obligation to answer truthfully questions about system is fundamental to the game. I do not think that Laws should exist for the purpose of protecting offenders. You should really stop this. Why do you think that anyone who not does agree with your very idiosyncratic view should provide reasons for not agreeing? And that if you don't think their reasons are good enough, should provide some more, or endure your "your reasons are weak, see, you really agree with me"? Why should not this same consideration be extended to those who think, for example, that overtricks should be scored differently from presetn? > And please don't say "it's lying to my opponents". We've been there > before. It's misinformation, that's OK, but I was talking "abhorrant", > not "irregular". There are lots of misinformations going around and we > don't find those abhorrant. You have grasped on the word "lying" in some weird way, thinking that somehow it was used in some context other than "deliberately giving misinformation". You are really a bully. Anyway, I disagree with your "It's misinformation, but that's OK". It is not OK. > > So please Stefanie, think about it. It's a serious question. And if > you can't come up with a serious answer, then maybe it's time for you > to drop your instinctive loathing of the DWS and look at it with fresh > eyes. > It is not an "instinctive loathing". I have been involved with this, with breaks, for these past ten years. I am bored with explaining myself, and so is everyone else. If your dWS were, somehow, acceptable, then the Laws would need to be tightened up so that one and only one procedure was legal. I prefer one, and you can choose to accept or not accept my reasons. They are really none of your business anyway. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Feb 10 15:37:28 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:37:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> HDW: > Stop it, Eric, you have made a factual error here: > > Eric Landau wrote: >> >> The prohibition found in the DWS interpretation of L20F5(a) is >> sufficiently strong as to "outrank in the hierarchy of the laws" the >> obligation to fully disclose one's actual agreements found in L75. >> This justifies explaining 3D as "to play" even though that is an >> explicit violation. >> >> Despite this, that same prohibition is not sufficiently strong to >> warrant passing 3D, a perfectly legal action which would not violate >> any other law in any way at all. >> > > Stop it! In the original, 3D was, in the eyes of the 2NT bidder (20+ > hand) a transfer. That makes any action other than bidding 3He a > "suggested action" by L16. So this is not "a perfectly legal action". > > I have stated, a few times already, that if there are more than one > "non-suggested" actions, then it would be wrong for the player to > select the one which most clearly clarifies the misunderstanding to > partner. It is Law 16 that supersedes Law 20F5. If there are no L16 > restrictions on a bid, then I do believe that L20F5 restricts other, > non-suggested bids. > > Does that solve your problem? The "problem" of having an arbitrary hierarchy of Laws is more troublesome than just the dWS. Please explain the mechanism by with L20F5 is discarded and L16 kicks in. Besides the fact that, by using it, you can continue to protect your score. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Feb 10 15:39:48 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:39:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred><47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net><014a01c869ea$f5b08830$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0F38.70100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <08ce01c86bf2$c9b13270$0100a8c0@stefanie> HDW: > Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> >>> But an ethical DWS follower [=oxymoron] > And most of your incomprehension is due to the fact that you assume > it's an oxymoron. Do you really have that little respect for my ethics? > Yes, I'm afraid I do. > That being said, most of that paragraph is invalid due to some other > misapprehension. My arguments say that L20F5 is stronger than, say, > L73 (or whichever law you wish to name for MI). My argument has never > been that L20F5 is the strongest law. The strongest law in the book is > L1. And, among some others, L16 is stronger than L20F5. It would help if you would list all the Laws in order of priority, so we that who are ignorant of the hierarchy can benefit from your superior wisdom. Stefanie Rohan London, England From schoderb at msn.com Sun Feb 10 15:45:50 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:45:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] New L27C2 question References: <000001c86be7$29b53ce0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Please! None. Why are we looking at the law for Insufficient Bid when we are faced with a BID OUT OF ROTATION? Am I missing something, or is this another foray into trying to make something out of context fit? Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 8:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] New L27C2 question > > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > > Here's a hand from a tourney today. > > > > IMPS, Dlr E, None Vul > > North > > S AQx > > H 98x > > D KTxx > > C K9x > > West East > > S JT8x S xx > > H Ax H QJxx > > D Jx D AQ98xx > > C JTxxxx C x > > S Kxxx > > H KTxx > > D x > > CAQxx > > Here in Japan the old laws are in still in effect (till late April). > > South opened 1C out of turn. West didn't accept it, and the auction > > reverted > > to South. The bidding proceeded as follows. > > W N E S > > - - 1D 2C > > P P* 2D P *forced under old laws > > P 3NT P P > > DBL P P P > > > > 3NTx was not successful, but that's not why I'm bringing this up. My > > qeustion is, what rectification would be made under the new L27C2 as it > > now stands? > > Are there some misprints here? > > The correct law for a bid out of turn as described here is Law 31A2(a), > North's pass at his first turn to call is forced also under the new laws > and > that's all there is to it. > > If instead of opening out of turn South actually bid 1C in turn then Law > 27C > is the correct law and North would probably (pending the outcome of the > current discussions at WBFLC) be free to make any call he wanted after > South > corrected his bid to 2C. At the end of the play the Director will apply > Law > 27C2, but I don't think it is unreasonable for N/S to reach 3NT without > "assistance" of the IB? Besides, could E/W expect any better result than > what they got? > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Feb 10 15:54:16 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:54:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be><042f01c86a93$26a69fd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC899.5090801@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005601c86bf4$cedd6ff0$0100a8c0@stefanie> HDW: > You must > get it out of your head that active lying is worse than passive lying. Must I? Why, to satisfy you? What are you to me? I don't even know you. You are , as far as I am concerned, just a crackpot, but not a harmless one. > There is no talk about lying in the laws, just about MI. Then what on earth is your quote at the top apropos of? Stefanie Rohan London, England From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 10 16:02:56 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:02:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000301c86bf6$0584df60$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > > If, after an infraction, NOS are presented with choices, sometimes > > they can prohibit the lead of one suit. That choice is laid out in > > the laws. That they can choose between Spades, hearts, diamonds > > and clubs is not "laid out" in full. That does not prevent the > > choice from being there. > > I so not have a copy of the Laws at hand. There might be a definition > of "suits", which defines them as hearts, spades, diamonds and clubs. > Even if there is not, most bridge players I know are aware that those > four comprise the suits. So this argument is specious. For your convenience: The definition of "Suit" is as follows: Suit ? One of four groups of cards in the pack, each group comprising thirteen cards and having a characteristic symbol: spades (?), hearts (?), diamonds (?), clubs (?). And Law 26 clearly enables Declarer to name the particular suit or suits that shall be subject to a lead restriction, so the choice is indeed "laid out" in full. As usual Herman was again just inventing rubbish. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 10 16:59:33 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:59:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] New L27C2 question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c86bfd$ee1d88b0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of WILLIAM SCHODER > Please! None. Why are we looking at the law for > Insufficient Bid when we are faced with a > BID OUT OF ROTATION? Am I missing something, or > is this another foray into trying to make > something out of context fit? > > Kojak Frankly I suspect that OP made a misprint and that he was indeed faced with an insufficient bid. In my comment I considered both possibilities and gave comments to each. Regards Sven > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 8:16 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] New L27C2 question > > > > > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > > > Here's a hand from a tourney today. > > > > > > IMPS, Dlr E, None Vul > > > North > > > S AQx > > > H 98x > > > D KTxx > > > C K9x > > > West East > > > S JT8x S xx > > > H Ax H QJxx > > > D Jx D AQ98xx > > > C JTxxxx C x > > > S Kxxx > > > H KTxx > > > D x > > > CAQxx > > > Here in Japan the old laws are in still in effect (till late April). > > > South opened 1C out of turn. West didn't accept it, and the auction > > > reverted > > > to South. The bidding proceeded as follows. > > > W N E S > > > - - 1D 2C > > > P P* 2D P *forced under old laws > > > P 3NT P P > > > DBL P P P > > > > > > 3NTx was not successful, but that's not why I'm bringing this up. My > > > qeustion is, what rectification would be made under the new L27C2 as > it > > > now stands? > > > > Are there some misprints here? > > > > The correct law for a bid out of turn as described here is Law 31A2(a), > > North's pass at his first turn to call is forced also under the new laws > > and > > that's all there is to it. > > > > If instead of opening out of turn South actually bid 1C in turn then Law > > 27C > > is the correct law and North would probably (pending the outcome of the > > current discussions at WBFLC) be free to make any call he wanted after > > South > > corrected his bid to 2C. At the end of the play the Director will apply > > Law > > 27C2, but I don't think it is unreasonable for N/S to reach 3NT without > > "assistance" of the IB? Besides, could E/W expect any better result than > > what they got? > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml at amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Feb 10 18:24:37 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:24:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000301c86bf6$0584df60$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <00c301c86c09$d00149f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Suit ? One of four groups of cards in the pack, each group comprising > thirteen cards and having a characteristic symbol: spades (?), hearts (?), > diamonds (?), clubs (?). > > And Law 26 clearly enables Declarer to name the particular suit or suits > that shall be subject to a lead restriction, so the choice is indeed "laid > out" in full. > > As usual Herman was again just inventing rubbish. This particular bit of rubbish was so silly it seems that it was an attempt at a joke. Maybe to deflect attention from the fact that the point was not going to be answered, or maybe because, at this point, Herman is just taking the pis out of all of us. Stefanie Rohan London, England From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 10 19:15:55 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:15:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <00c301c86c09$d00149f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000601c86c10$fa8ab510$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan ................. > > As usual Herman was again just inventing rubbish. > > This particular bit of rubbish was so silly it seems that it > was an attempt at a joke. Maybe to deflect attention from the > fact that the point was not going to be answered, or maybe > because, at this point, Herman is just taking the pis out of > all of us. I have never noticed any indication other than that he intends himself to be taken seriously, something I haven't done for a long time. And frankly I am astonished that the Belgian NBOs accept one of their senior officers openly arguing opinions like his in a way that they can easily be taken as official opinions of the NBOs. I refuse to even suspect that he has any support for dWS from his own organizations; such support would be too incredible. Regards Sven From geller at nifty.com Sun Feb 10 19:21:14 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:21:14 +0900 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <000a01c86be7$f795b4a0$d3cd403e@Mildred> References: <000a01c86be7$f795b4a0$d3cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200802101821.AA12396@geller204.nifty.com> Sorry, my bad. I wasn't thinking or writing clearly. What I should have said was, if we change the circumstances of the actually example in several ways it can (perhaps) serve as the basis for a hypothetical question. Please delete the previous example and let me start over again. IMPS, Dlr E, None Vul South S Kxxx H KTxx D x CAQxx Q1. Let's look only at the South cards for a moment, Suppose East opens 1D and, not having seen it, South then makes an insufficient bid of 1C, not accepted by West. If he then changes this to 2C, should the 2C call be regarded as "incorporating the information contained in the insufficient bid" (1C)? If the answer to Q1 is no presumably 27D1 then applies and we can stop here. But if the answer to Q1 is yes then presumably the auction is allowed to continue for the moment. Suppose the North hand is North S AQx H 98x D KTxx C K9x. Q2a. If West passes, North bids 2NT and South raises to 3NT, which happens to make, should this result be rectified under 27C2? Does the answer depend on the quality of the EW defense? Q2b. If West passes, North bids 2NT and South passes, and 2NT happens to make, should this result be rectified under 27C2? Does the answer depend on the quality of the EW defense? Q2c. If West passes, North bids 3NT and South passes, and 3NT happens to make, should this result be rectified under 27C2? Does the answer depend on the quality of the EW defense? ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From geller at nifty.com Sun Feb 10 19:33:04 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:33:04 +0900 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <200802101833.AA12397@geller204.nifty.com> Stefanie Rohan writes: >> If, after an infraction, NOS are presented with choices, sometimes >> they can prohibit the lead of one suit. That choice is laid out in the >> laws. That they can choose between Spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs >> is not "laid out" in full. That does not prevent the choice from being >> there. > >I so not have a copy of the Laws at hand. There might be a defninition of >"suits", which defines them as hearts, spades, diamonds and clubs. Even if >there is not, most bridge players I know are aware that those four comprise >the suits. So this argument is specious. "Suit" is indeed defined as followed by the new laws: *********************************************************** Suit . One of four groups of cards in the pack, each group comprising thirteen cards and having a characteristic symbol: spades (S), hearts (H), diamonds (D), clubs (C). ********************************************************* where the suit symbols (which don't reproduce properly in text mail) are replaced by SHDC here, ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 10 20:56:20 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:56:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <200802101821.AA12396@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000701c86c1f$021a4080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> For a definite answer to your questions we hall better await the outcome of the discussions currently in progress within WBFLC. But the main intention with the new Law 27C was (as I have understood it) to allow a normal contract to be reached in spite of an insufficient bid during the auction provided the contract should be reached without any "assistance" from the insufficient bid. In your case the IB "probably" shows opening strength. Say that this is sufficient for partner to go for a game contract. If South has available a legal call to replace his IB that eventually will allow the partnership to reach the same successful contract while disregarding all special information no longer available from the "opening bid" in 1C then reaching this contract should be permissible. One example that was initially presented is the auction: 1C - 1S - 1H where the IB (1H) is replaced by a negative double. Both the IB and the replacement call essentially show four hearts and some values. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > Sent: 10. februar 2008 19:21 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question > > Sorry, my bad. I wasn't thinking or writing clearly. What I should > have > said was, if we change the circumstances of the actually example in > several ways it can (perhaps) serve as the basis for a hypothetical > question. Please delete the previous example and let me start over > again. > > > IMPS, Dlr E, None Vul > South > S Kxxx > H KTxx > D x > CAQxx > Q1. Let's look only at the South cards for a moment, > Suppose East opens 1D and, not having seen it, South then makes > an insufficient bid of 1C, not accepted by West. If he then changes this > to 2C, should the 2C call be regarded as "incorporating the information > contained in the insufficient bid" (1C)? > > If the answer to Q1 is no presumably 27D1 then applies and we can stop > here. > But if the answer to Q1 is yes then presumably the auction is allowed > to continue for the moment. > > Suppose the North hand is > North > S AQx > H 98x > D KTxx > C K9x. > Q2a. If West passes, North bids 2NT and South raises to 3NT, which happens > to make, should this result be rectified under 27C2? Does the answer > depend on the quality of the EW defense? > > Q2b. If West passes, North bids 2NT and South passes, and 2NT happens > to make, should this result be rectified under 27C2? Does the answer > depend on the quality of the EW defense? > > Q2c. If West passes, North bids 3NT and South passes, and 3NT happens > to make, should this result be rectified under 27C2? Does the answer > depend on the quality of the EW defense? > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > 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 Sun Feb 10 21:04:40 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:04:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question References: <000701c86c1f$021a4080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <013301c86c20$2c197bc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > One example that was initially presented is the auction: > 1C - 1S - 1H where the IB (1H) is replaced by a negative double. Both the > IB > and the replacement call essentially show four hearts and some values. A double that guarantees four hearts should not, in my opinion, be called a "negative double". Stefanie Rohan London, England From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 10 22:11:48 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:11:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <013301c86c20$2c197bc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000801c86c29$8cf2a3f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > > One example that was initially presented is the auction: > > 1C - 1S - 1H where the IB (1H) is replaced by a negative double. > > Both the IB > > and the replacement call essentially show four hearts and some > > values. > A double that guarantees four hearts should not, in my opinion, > be called a "negative double". I believe this is mainly a matter of customs. In Norway my example is typical for a hand that holds four hearts (or five hearts with insufficient strength to bid 2H), and the common name for that convention is just "negative double". The original idea was to show that "I have lost my intended bid" e.g. 1H with 6+ HCP). The convention is extended to cover among else the following situation: 1m - 1H - ? A double now (still termed "negative") shows four spades while a bid of 1S shows (at least) five spades. Regards Sven From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Feb 10 22:21:36 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:21:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question References: <000801c86c29$8cf2a3f0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <018401c86c2a$eb0a5bd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Sven Pran: >> On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan >> > One example that was initially presented is the auction: >> > 1C - 1S - 1H where the IB (1H) is replaced by a negative double. >> > Both the IB >> > and the replacement call essentially show four hearts and some >> > values. >> A double that guarantees four hearts should not, in my opinion, >> be called a "negative double". > > I believe this is mainly a matter of customs. > > In Norway my example is typical for a hand that holds four hearts (or five > hearts with insufficient strength to bid 2H), and the common name for that > convention is just "negative double". The original idea was to show that > "I > have lost my intended bid" e.g. 1H with 6+ HCP). The convention is > extended > to cover among else the following situation: > 1m - 1H - ? > A double now (still termed "negative") shows four spades while a bid of 1S > shows (at least) five spades. > This terminology is used here in England too. I don't think that it is accurate terminology. But the worst part is that in England, a double in one of those auctions is not alerted, whether it is for takeout or promises 4 of the other major. And if you needed to know what it was, you'd need to ask a lot of questions, because players with both agreements will likely answer "negative". Stefanie Rohan London, England From geller at nifty.com Sun Feb 10 22:58:02 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:58:02 +0900 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <000701c86c1f$021a4080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000701c86c1f$021a4080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <200802102158.AA12400@geller204.nifty.com> A 1C open promises opening bid strength, but may show only 3 (2) cards in clubs. OTH a 2C overcall of 1D should show at least a good 5 card suit, but might be less than opening bid strength. Thus it isn't clear to me that when South changes his insufficient 1C (intended as an opener) to 2C that the 2C call "incorporating the information contained in the insufficient bid." I suppose we'll have to wait for the wisdom of the WBFLC on the meaning of "incorporate." -Bob Sven Pran writes: >For a definite answer to your questions we hall better await the outcome of >the discussions currently in progress within WBFLC. > >But the main intention with the new Law 27C was (as I have understood it) to >allow a normal contract to be reached in spite of an insufficient bid during >the auction provided the contract should be reached without any "assistance" >from the insufficient bid. > >In your case the IB "probably" shows opening strength. Say that this is >sufficient for partner to go for a game contract. > >If South has available a legal call to replace his IB that eventually will >allow the partnership to reach the same successful contract while >disregarding all special information no longer available from the "opening >bid" in 1C then reaching this contract should be permissible. > >One example that was initially presented is the auction: >1C - 1S - 1H where the IB (1H) is replaced by a negative double. Both the IB >and the replacement call essentially show four hearts and some values. > >Regards Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] >> On Behalf Of Robert Geller >> Sent: 10. februar 2008 19:21 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question >> >> Sorry, my bad. I wasn't thinking or writing clearly. What I should >> have >> said was, if we change the circumstances of the actually example in >> several ways it can (perhaps) serve as the basis for a hypothetical >> question. Please delete the previous example and let me start over >> again. >> >> >> IMPS, Dlr E, None Vul >> South >> S Kxxx >> H KTxx >> D x >> CAQxx >> Q1. Let's look only at the South cards for a moment, >> Suppose East opens 1D and, not having seen it, South then makes >> an insufficient bid of 1C, not accepted by West. If he then changes this >> to 2C, should the 2C call be regarded as "incorporating the information >> contained in the insufficient bid" (1C)? >> >> If the answer to Q1 is no presumably 27D1 then applies and we can stop >> here. >> But if the answer to Q1 is yes then presumably the auction is allowed >> to continue for the moment. >> >> Suppose the North hand is >> North >> S AQx >> H 98x >> D KTxx >> C K9x. >> Q2a. If West passes, North bids 2NT and South raises to 3NT, which happens >> to make, should this result be rectified under 27C2? Does the answer >> depend on the quality of the EW defense? >> >> Q2b. If West passes, North bids 2NT and South passes, and 2NT happens >> to make, should this result be rectified under 27C2? Does the answer >> depend on the quality of the EW defense? >> >> Q2c. If West passes, North bids 3NT and South passes, and 3NT happens >> to make, should this result be rectified under 27C2? Does the answer >> depend on the quality of the EW defense? >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- >> 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 geller at nifty.com Sun Feb 10 22:54:02 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:54:02 +0900 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <013301c86c20$2c197bc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <013301c86c20$2c197bc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <200802102154.AA12399@geller204.nifty.com> Stefanie Rohan writes: >A double [1D-(1S)-X] >that guarantees four hearts should not, in my opinion, be called a >"negative double" Back in the stone ages the double was a "penalty double," showing a desire to defend 1Sx. When Roth and Stone proposed a new use for the double in the mid-1950s the name "negative double" came to be applied to this usagem to differentiate it from the penalty double. At least in the US (by the late 1960s) and in Japan (I don't know when, but sometime before I moved here in 1984) this double was more or less universally used to show 4+ cards in hearts, and is universally called a "negative double." If this device were being named today, when no one uses "penalty doubles" of 1S, it probably wouldn't be called a negative double, but we're stuck with the name from the history of the development of this convention. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Feb 10 23:08:45 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:08:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question References: <013301c86c20$2c197bc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <200802102154.AA12399@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <01aa01c86c31$80feaaf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Bob Geller: > Stefanie Rohan writes: >>A double [1D-(1S)-X] >>that guarantees four hearts should not, in my opinion, be called a >>"negative double" > > Back in the stone ages the double was a "penalty double," showing a desire > to defend 1Sx. When Roth and Stone proposed a new use for the double > in the mid-1950s the name "negative double" came to be applied to this > usagem to differentiate it from the penalty double. At least in the US > (by the late 1960s) and in Japan (I don't know when, but sometime before > I moved here in 1984) this double was more or less universally used > to show 4+ cards in hearts, and is universally called a "negative double." Originally, a hand with 4 hearts was just one of the hand types shown by a negative double. And many people still play it this way. Stefanie Rohan From geller at nifty.com Sun Feb 10 23:25:04 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:25:04 +0900 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <01aa01c86c31$80feaaf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <01aa01c86c31$80feaaf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <200802102225.AA12401@geller204.nifty.com> Stefanie Rohan writes: >Originally, a hand with 4 hearts was just one of the hand types shown by a >negative double. And many people still play it this way. This may be true in the UK, but from almost the very onset a negative double of 1S showed 4+ hearts in the US. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 10 23:33:26 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:33:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <018401c86c2a$eb0a5bd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000901c86c34$f43f7dc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan ............... > This terminology is used here in England too. I don't think that it > is accurate terminology. But the worst part is that in England, a > double in one of those auctions is not alerted, whether it is for > takeout or promises 4 of the other major. And if you needed to know > what it was, you'd need to ask a lot of questions, because players > with both agreements will likely answer "negative". Oh dear! In Norway such doubles are always for takeout and promises 4 cards in unbid major suit(s). As such they are alerted as are the similar so called Hi-Lo double which is either weak (below say 10) or strong (above say 13). An interesting point which is not always observed is that a pass in a position for negative or hi-lo double shall also be alerted because it can suggest a penalty double by opener. The opener will typically double with a void or a singleton in opponent's trump suit. Opener's partner will then takeout if he does not have values for a double (or if he has higher ambitions). But now I think we are way into the field of regulations rather than law. Regards Sven From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Feb 10 23:35:19 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:35:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question References: <01aa01c86c31$80feaaf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <200802102225.AA12401@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <01de01c86c35$37451580$0100a8c0@stefanie> Bob Geller > Stefanie Rohan writes: >>Originally, a hand with 4 hearts was just one of the hand types shown by a >>negative double. And many people still play it this way. > > This may be true in the UK, but from almost the very onset a > negative double of 1S showed 4+ hearts in the US. > Not by Roth and Stone. Stefanie Rohan London, England From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 11 00:08:25 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:08:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <200802102158.AA12400@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000a01c86c39$d7b46a80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > A 1C open promises opening bid strength, but may show only 3 (2) cards > in clubs. OTH a 2C overcall of 1D should show at least a good 5 card > suit, > but might be less than opening bid strength. Thus it isn't clear to me > that > when South changes his insufficient 1C (intended as an opener) to 2C > that the 2C call "incorporating the information > contained in the insufficient bid." > > I suppose we'll have to wait for the wisdom of the WBFLC on the > meaning of "incorporate." Precisely. But the way I have previously understood the intention it is not necessary that the replacement bid alone makes the situation clear to North immediately if North/South have in their system methods available that eventually will bring them to the favourable contract without North using any of the information specific to the retracted insufficient bid as such. Regards Sven From geller at nifty.com Mon Feb 11 00:12:05 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:12:05 +0900 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <01de01c86c35$37451580$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <01de01c86c35$37451580$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <200802102312.AA12402@geller204.nifty.com> Stefanie Rohan ????????: >Bob Geller > > >> Stefanie Rohan writes: >>>Originally, a hand with 4 hearts was just one of the hand types shown by a >>>negative double. And many people still play it this way. >> >> This may be true in the UK, but from almost the very onset a >> negative double of 1S showed 4+ hearts in the US. >> >Not by Roth and Stone." I know. That's why I wrote "from almost the very onset" rather than "from the very onset." The original R-S idea (in their book "Bridge is a partnership game" and also magazine aarticles) was different but it never really got any traction in the U.S. Their idea of using the dbl for takeout did catch on quickly though, with (at least in the US, Norway and Japan) the "neg x" at the one level showing 4 (if unbid is spades) or 4+ (if hearts) in the unbid maj. -Bob -Bob > >Stefanie Rohan >London, England > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From geller at nifty.com Mon Feb 11 00:14:07 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:14:07 +0900 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <000a01c86c39$d7b46a80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000a01c86c39$d7b46a80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <200802102314.AA12403@geller204.nifty.com> This is a delicate issue, and many of our relatively less experienced directors will have a tough time sorting this out.... I hope the WBFLC provides good rules. -Bob Sven Pran ????????: >> On Behalf Of Robert Geller >> A 1C open promises opening bid strength, but may show only 3 (2) cards >> in clubs. OTH a 2C overcall of 1D should show at least a good 5 card >> suit, >> but might be less than opening bid strength. Thus it isn't clear to me >> that >> when South changes his insufficient 1C (intended as an opener) to 2C >> that the 2C call "incorporating the information >> contained in the insufficient bid." >> >> I suppose we'll have to wait for the wisdom of the WBFLC on the >> meaning of "incorporate." > >Precisely. > >But the way I have previously understood the intention it is not necessary >that the replacement bid alone makes the situation clear to North >immediately if North/South have in their system methods available that >eventually will bring them to the favourable contract without North using >any of the information specific to the retracted insufficient bid as such. > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From blml at dybdal.dk Mon Feb 11 00:21:35 2008 From: blml at dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:21:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <979FAC4A-7534-4947-A0D5-5FD2B1CE2E64@starpower.net> References: <00b201c86891$a348c120$20cd403e@Mildred> <0ssmq31id0b4na4uqmcd0elkaudur7dc27@nuser.dybdal.dk> <979FAC4A-7534-4947-A0D5-5FD2B1CE2E64@starpower.net> Message-ID: <981vq3p4975ucu2ec476ghi9ptm53dbch4@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:47:07 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >On Feb 7, 2008, at 4:37 PM, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> There are two points here: >> * It seems a bit hard that South is not allowed to choose his final >> call >> after being informed that partner will be silenced. >> * Even in cases where there is no premature correction, an offending >> player will need to know before changing his call whether it will >> result >> in a L27C or a L27D ruling. I.e., he will need to ask the TD >> something >> like "If I bid 2C now, will you allow that as a L27C case, or should I >> make a guess at a final contract instead?". > >IMHO, South got exactly what he deserved. In our introduction to >duplicate for social bridge players, the first thing taught on the >first day is the "rule that trumps all other rules": If anything >irregular happens, call the director at once and do nothing until he >arrives. South failed to obey this "prime directive", and I see no >reason why he shouldn't pay the full price. Though I find the penalty for the actual South unreasonably hard, that is not my main worry - hard penalties in situations that could easily have been avoided are not a serious problem. My main worry is the other point. If I, as offender, wait patiently for the TD to tell me what L27 says, then I will need to know exactly which calls the TD will allow under L27C. If this information is to be given to the offender at the table without lots of UI being given, the TD will have to tell the offender which specific calls he will allow - and in order to do that, the TD will have to know a lot about the offender's system. Alternatively, it seems to me that the TD will have to inform the offender away from the table, where the offender can ask questions like "Can I under L27C bid 2C, which shows ..., now?" without giving his partner UI. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Feb 11 00:22:24 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:22:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS In-Reply-To: <200802071540.m17FewJi015042@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200802071540.m17FewJi015042@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47AF8730.6030004@nhcc.net> [Sorry if some of the following points have been made by others. As I've mentioned before, my access to BLML is irregular, and I haven't read messages since Friday.] SW>I think we all agree that in an ideal world, there would SW>never be either MI or UI. > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au> > In my ideal world there would be neither MI nor _use_ of > UI. So you _like_ assessing logical alternatives and "carefully avoid[ing] taking any advantage...?!" Or you like your opponents having to do so, then seeking a ruling when you think they have failed? There's no accounting for taste, but if this is what you enjoy, I think you are in a very small minority! > What Steve and Herman dub the "Majority School" (MS) is a > begging-the-question misnomer. The correct title should > be "official interpretation". Has there been an official interpretation I've missed? If not, spreading falsehoods doesn't make for a strong argument. Regardless of that, L25B was the "official interpretation" for quite some time (and still is for a few months more in many places), but that didn't and shouldn't stop BLML from considering which rules lead to the best game. To start that off, I'm going to list six "schools" that Laws or interpretations could establish for the situation when one player has given MI. I was hoping to make a comprehensive list of pros and cons of each but have run out of time. One thing I will put in, though, is my rating of "Importance of Remembering Agreements (IoRA)," which is only one figure of merit but an important one. I'll arbitrarily set the value behind screens to be 5. If you forget an agreement, you will probably end in a bad contract, and at least one opponent will have MI, but you might either catch your mistake or luck out. And I'll set IoRA=0 for an imaginary game that allows players to read system notes at any time. Herewith the schools: MS: always explain the true agreement as best you know it. IoRA = 6 Pro: easy to explain to players, avoids change in practice Con: creates UI, rewards asking questions, needs mind reading to enforce SPS: explain the agreement as you thought it was before hearing partner's explanation. IoRA = 7 Pro: (can't think of any) Con: creates UI, creates extra MI, rewards questions, needs mind reading to enforce (though less than MS), is a change from current practice dWS: explain consistent with the first explanation the opponents have received IoRA = 7 Pro: avoids some UI (especially in auctions with no MI), avoids rewarding questions, seldom needs mind reading to enforce Con: hard to explain to players, is a change from current practice RS: always explain the true agreement as best you know it, but _correct_ explanations are AI. IoRA = 5 Pro: easy to explain to players, avoids rewarding questions, avoids UI, seldom needs mind reading to enforce Con: is a change from current Law (but is close to 1975-1987 Law) Other (could be pro or con, depending on taste): creates a new skill (or rather, resurrects an old one) of avoiding asking questions when opponents are having a misunderstanding. DBS1: if partner gives MI, correct the wrong explanation immediately. IorA = 8 Pro: avoids MI Con: creates much UI DBS2: if partner gives MI, stop play and write -1700 on your scoresheet. IoRA = 10 (OK, this is a bit of a joke, but it makes no sense to me to keep playing when your choices cannot possibly matter.) If the DSC is serious about issuing an interpretation, I _hope_ filling out a table like this one is how they are going about it. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 00:42:37 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:42:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS References: <200802071540.m17FewJi015042@cfa.harvard.edu> <47AF8730.6030004@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <021601c86c3e$9e0ca4a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Steve Willner: > DBS1: if partner gives MI, correct the wrong explanation immediately. > IorA = 8 > Pro: avoids MI > Con: creates much UI What does DB stand for? David Burn? Maybe you should read his posts instead of relying on the words Herman has put into his mouth to find out if he ever advocated this practice. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 01:35:15 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:35:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question References: <01de01c86c35$37451580$0100a8c0@stefanie> <200802102312.AA12402@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <024701c86c45$f8b58cd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> >>Bob Geller >> >> >>> Stefanie Rohan writes: >>>>Originally, a hand with 4 hearts was just one of the hand types shown by >>>>a >>>>negative double. And many people still play it this way. >>> >>> This may be true in the UK, but from almost the very onset a >>> negative double of 1S showed 4+ hearts in the US. >>> >>Not by Roth and Stone." > > > I know. That's why I wrote "from almost the very onset" rather than > "from the very onset." The original R-S idea (in their book > "Bridge is a partnership game" and also magazine aarticles) was different > but > it never really got any traction in the U.S. Their idea of using the dbl > for > takeout did catch on quickly though, with (at least in the US, Norway and > Japan) the "neg x" at the one level showing 4 (if unbid is spades) or > 4+ (if hearts) in the unbid maj. > I am not concerned with what people play, but I am a bit annoyed at the new EBU regulations. Double of a suit bid is takeout, but a double that guarantees length in a particular suit is not really "takeout". But these doubles are also not alerted. Stefanie Rohan London, England From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 11 01:45:55 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:45:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS In-Reply-To: <47AF8730.6030004@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000b01c86c47$76c551e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Had the submission below come from Herman I would just have ignored it, but it worries me when such issues come from other sources. There is an established principle at least 75 years old that a partnership shall always give their opponents full and correct description of any of their methods. This is only crossed by the rule that a player may not inform his partner that he (the partner) has (in the player's opinion) given incorrect information to opponents. Various laws for bridge have expressed this principle essentially unchanged since 1932. Law 20F5 specifically states that correction of a partner's incorrect explanation must not be given until the advantage to partner from receiving the corresponding unauthorized information is negligible. And the safeguard is that opponents are entitled to redress for any damage suffered. This law may seem to be in conflict with the main principle quoted above, but all requests for clarification by WBFLC has to my knowledge been answered by unambiguously confirming the main principle that giving correct answers to whatever question asked takes precedence over any seeming prohibition against giving partner UI. So anybody still claiming that Law 20F5 prevents a player who has heard his partner giving incorrect information to opponents from giving correct but conflicting information is deliberately acting against what should be his better knowledge. No player should ever worry about UI communicated to his partner when answering questions from opponents. Such UI is partner's worry and nobody else's. The activities by Herman who I understand is a senior officer in the Belgian NBOs are extremely dangerous just because of his position, as they can mislead other players to deliberately violate some of the most essential laws for bridge. Such players may claim ignorance of the laws, but that ignorance is inexcusable and unforgivable, and Herman should really be the first person to teach players the laws rather than promoting his own conflicting ideas to them. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sent: 11. februar 2008 00:22 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS > > [Sorry if some of the following points have been made by others. > As I've mentioned before, my access to BLML is irregular, and I > haven't read messages since Friday.] > > SW>I think we all agree that in an ideal world, there would > SW>never be either MI or UI. > > > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au> > > In my ideal world there would be neither MI nor _use_ of > > UI. > > So you _like_ assessing logical alternatives and "carefully avoid[ing] > taking any advantage...?!" Or you like your opponents having to do so, > then seeking a ruling when you think they have failed? There's no > accounting for taste, but if this is what you enjoy, I think you are in > a very small minority! > > > What Steve and Herman dub the "Majority School" (MS) is a > > begging-the-question misnomer. The correct title should > > be "official interpretation". > > Has there been an official interpretation I've missed? If not, > spreading falsehoods doesn't make for a strong argument. Regardless of > that, L25B was the "official interpretation" for quite some time (and > still is for a few months more in many places), but that didn't and > shouldn't stop BLML from considering which rules lead to the best game. > > To start that off, I'm going to list six "schools" that Laws or > interpretations could establish for the situation when one player has > given MI. I was hoping to make a comprehensive list of pros and cons of > each but have run out of time. One thing I will put in, though, is my > rating of "Importance of Remembering Agreements (IoRA)," which is only > one figure of merit but an important one. I'll arbitrarily set the > value behind screens to be 5. If you forget an agreement, you will > probably end in a bad contract, and at least one opponent will have MI, > but you might either catch your mistake or luck out. And I'll set > IoRA=0 for an imaginary game that allows players to read system notes at > any time. > > Herewith the schools: > > MS: always explain the true agreement as best you know it. > IoRA = 6 > Pro: easy to explain to players, avoids change in practice > Con: creates UI, rewards asking questions, needs mind reading to enforce > > SPS: explain the agreement as you thought it was before hearing > partner's explanation. > IoRA = 7 > Pro: (can't think of any) > Con: creates UI, creates extra MI, rewards questions, needs mind reading > to enforce (though less than MS), is a change from current practice > > dWS: explain consistent with the first explanation the opponents have > received > IoRA = 7 > Pro: avoids some UI (especially in auctions with no MI), avoids > rewarding questions, seldom needs mind reading to enforce > Con: hard to explain to players, is a change from current practice > > RS: always explain the true agreement as best you know it, but _correct_ > explanations are AI. > IoRA = 5 > Pro: easy to explain to players, avoids rewarding questions, avoids UI, > seldom needs mind reading to enforce > Con: is a change from current Law (but is close to 1975-1987 Law) > Other (could be pro or con, depending on taste): creates a new skill (or > rather, resurrects an old one) of avoiding asking questions when > opponents are having a misunderstanding. > > DBS1: if partner gives MI, correct the wrong explanation immediately. > IorA = 8 > Pro: avoids MI > Con: creates much UI > > DBS2: if partner gives MI, stop play and write -1700 on your scoresheet. > IoRA = 10 > (OK, this is a bit of a joke, but it makes no sense to me to keep > playing when your choices cannot possibly matter.) > > If the DSC is serious about issuing an interpretation, I _hope_ filling > out a table like this one is how they are going about it. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 01:49:43 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:49:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS References: <000b01c86c47$76c551e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <025701c86c47$fdf4b610$0100a8c0@stefanie> I just wish the DSC would take note and see that they need to make the legal position official. Stefanie Rohan London, England Sven Pran: > Had the submission below come from Herman I would just have ignored it, > but > it worries me when such issues come from other sources. > > There is an established principle at least 75 years old that a partnership > shall always give their opponents full and correct description of any of > their methods. This is only crossed by the rule that a player may not > inform > his partner that he (the partner) has (in the player's opinion) given > incorrect information to opponents. Various laws for bridge have expressed > this principle essentially unchanged since 1932. > > Law 20F5 specifically states that correction of a partner's incorrect > explanation must not be given until the advantage to partner from > receiving > the corresponding unauthorized information is negligible. And the > safeguard > is that opponents are entitled to redress for any damage suffered. This > law > may seem to be in conflict with the main principle quoted above, but all > requests for clarification by WBFLC has to my knowledge been answered by > unambiguously confirming the main principle that giving correct answers to > whatever question asked takes precedence over any seeming prohibition > against giving partner UI. > > So anybody still claiming that Law 20F5 prevents a player who has heard > his > partner giving incorrect information to opponents from giving correct but > conflicting information is deliberately acting against what should be his > better knowledge. > > No player should ever worry about UI communicated to his partner when > answering questions from opponents. Such UI is partner's worry and nobody > else's. > > The activities by Herman who I understand is a senior officer in the > Belgian > NBOs are extremely dangerous just because of his position, as they can > mislead other players to deliberately violate some of the most essential > laws for bridge. Such players may claim ignorance of the laws, but that > ignorance is inexcusable and unforgivable, and Herman should really be the > first person to teach players the laws rather than promoting his own > conflicting ideas to them. > > Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org >> [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] >> On Behalf Of Steve Willner >> Sent: 11. februar 2008 00:22 >> To: blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS >> >> [Sorry if some of the following points have been made by others. >> As I've mentioned before, my access to BLML is irregular, and I >> haven't read messages since Friday.] >> >> SW>I think we all agree that in an ideal world, there would >> SW>never be either MI or UI. >> >> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au> >> > In my ideal world there would be neither MI nor _use_ of >> > UI. >> >> So you _like_ assessing logical alternatives and "carefully avoid[ing] >> taking any advantage...?!" Or you like your opponents having to do so, >> then seeking a ruling when you think they have failed? There's no >> accounting for taste, but if this is what you enjoy, I think you are in >> a very small minority! >> >> > What Steve and Herman dub the "Majority School" (MS) is a >> > begging-the-question misnomer. The correct title should >> > be "official interpretation". >> >> Has there been an official interpretation I've missed? If not, >> spreading falsehoods doesn't make for a strong argument. Regardless of >> that, L25B was the "official interpretation" for quite some time (and >> still is for a few months more in many places), but that didn't and >> shouldn't stop BLML from considering which rules lead to the best game. >> >> To start that off, I'm going to list six "schools" that Laws or >> interpretations could establish for the situation when one player has >> given MI. I was hoping to make a comprehensive list of pros and cons of >> each but have run out of time. One thing I will put in, though, is my >> rating of "Importance of Remembering Agreements (IoRA)," which is only >> one figure of merit but an important one. I'll arbitrarily set the >> value behind screens to be 5. If you forget an agreement, you will >> probably end in a bad contract, and at least one opponent will have MI, >> but you might either catch your mistake or luck out. And I'll set >> IoRA=0 for an imaginary game that allows players to read system notes at >> any time. >> >> Herewith the schools: >> >> MS: always explain the true agreement as best you know it. >> IoRA = 6 >> Pro: easy to explain to players, avoids change in practice >> Con: creates UI, rewards asking questions, needs mind reading to enforce >> >> SPS: explain the agreement as you thought it was before hearing >> partner's explanation. >> IoRA = 7 >> Pro: (can't think of any) >> Con: creates UI, creates extra MI, rewards questions, needs mind reading >> to enforce (though less than MS), is a change from current practice >> >> dWS: explain consistent with the first explanation the opponents have >> received >> IoRA = 7 >> Pro: avoids some UI (especially in auctions with no MI), avoids >> rewarding questions, seldom needs mind reading to enforce >> Con: hard to explain to players, is a change from current practice >> >> RS: always explain the true agreement as best you know it, but _correct_ >> explanations are AI. >> IoRA = 5 >> Pro: easy to explain to players, avoids rewarding questions, avoids UI, >> seldom needs mind reading to enforce >> Con: is a change from current Law (but is close to 1975-1987 Law) >> Other (could be pro or con, depending on taste): creates a new skill (or >> rather, resurrects an old one) of avoiding asking questions when >> opponents are having a misunderstanding. >> >> DBS1: if partner gives MI, correct the wrong explanation immediately. >> IorA = 8 >> Pro: avoids MI >> Con: creates much UI >> >> DBS2: if partner gives MI, stop play and write -1700 on your scoresheet. >> IoRA = 10 >> (OK, this is a bit of a joke, but it makes no sense to me to keep >> playing when your choices cannot possibly matter.) >> >> If the DSC is serious about issuing an interpretation, I _hope_ filling >> out a table like this one is how they are going about it. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 11 01:55:12 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:55:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <981vq3p4975ucu2ec476ghi9ptm53dbch4@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <000c01c86c48$c27d3610$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Jesper Dybdal ......................... > Though I find the penalty for the actual South unreasonably hard, that > is not my main worry - hard penalties in situations that could easily > have been avoided are not a serious problem. I fully agree > My main worry is the other point. If I, as offender, wait patiently for > the TD to tell me what L27 says, then I will need to know exactly which > calls the TD will allow under L27C. If this information is to be given > to the offender at the table without lots of UI being given, the TD will > have to tell the offender which specific calls he will allow - and in > order to do that, the TD will have to know a lot about the offender's > system. Alternatively, it seems to me that the TD will have to inform > the offender away from the table, where the offender can ask questions > like "Can I under L27C bid 2C, which shows ..., now?" without giving his > partner UI. But here I strongly disagree. Whenever I have a case of UI in progress or a Law 27C situation I inform the player receiving the UI or having a choice of call (and of course also the other players at the table) that it is his responsibility alone to select an alternative that afterwards will pass the scrutiny of satisfying the conditions in the laws. Regards Sven From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 02:04:04 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:04:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <000c01c86c48$c27d3610$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <026201c86c49$ff37ab70$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> My main worry is the other point. If I, as offender, wait patiently for >> the TD to tell me what L27 says, then I will need to know exactly which >> calls the TD will allow under L27C. If this information is to be given >> to the offender at the table without lots of UI being given, the TD will >> have to tell the offender which specific calls he will allow - and in >> order to do that, the TD will have to know a lot about the offender's >> system. Alternatively, it seems to me that the TD will have to inform >> the offender away from the table, where the offender can ask questions >> like "Can I under L27C bid 2C, which shows ..., now?" without giving his >> partner UI. > > But here I strongly disagree. Whenever I have a case of UI in progress or > a > Law 27C situation I inform the player receiving the UI or having a choice > of > call (and of course also the other players at the table) that it is his > responsibility alone to select an alternative that afterwards will pass > the > scrutiny of satisfying the conditions in the laws. > But the new Law is going to be very complicated, and the player will have difficulty figuring out whether the bid they choose will pass the scrutiny. It seems quite likely that the player will have to discuss a number of potential bids in order to see if there is an acceptable one. Surely this is best done away from the table! Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 11 03:36:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:36:09 +1100 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47AF8730.6030004@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >>>I think we all agree that in an ideal world, there would >>>never be either MI or UI. Richard Hills: >>In my ideal world there would be neither MI nor _use_ of >>UI. >> >>This avoids the false dichotomy between MI and _creation_ >>of UI in the Wael/Willner philosophy. Steve Willner: >So you _like_ assessing logical alternatives and "carefully >avoid[ing] taking any advantage...?!" Or you like your >opponents having to do so, then seeking a ruling when you >think they have failed? There's no accounting for taste, >but if this is what you enjoy, I think you are in a very >small minority! Richard Hills: Even in an ideal world screens will not be universally used. And without screens a regular partner provides you with constant UI via subtle twitches and flinches (as noted by Konrad Ciborowski). So "carefully avoid[ing] taking any advantage" is a skill I routinely use. What's the problem? 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 04:06:53 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:06:53 +1300 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <026201c86c49$ff37ab70$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000c01c86c48$c27d3610$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <026201c86c49$ff37ab70$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802101906s1553fff9t5ea853990b540dac@mail.gmail.com> On 11/02/2008, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > >> My main worry is the other point. If I, as offender, wait patiently for > >> the TD to tell me what L27 says, then I will need to know exactly which > >> calls the TD will allow under L27C. If this information is to be given > >> to the offender at the table without lots of UI being given, the TD will > >> have to tell the offender which specific calls he will allow - and in > >> order to do that, the TD will have to know a lot about the offender's > >> system. Alternatively, it seems to me that the TD will have to inform > >> the offender away from the table, where the offender can ask questions > >> like "Can I under L27C bid 2C, which shows ..., now?" without giving his > >> partner UI. > > > > But here I strongly disagree. Whenever I have a case of UI in progress or > > a > > Law 27C situation I inform the player receiving the UI or having a choice > > of > > call (and of course also the other players at the table) that it is his > > responsibility alone to select an alternative that afterwards will pass > > the > > scrutiny of satisfying the conditions in the laws. > > > But the new Law is going to be very complicated, and the player will have > difficulty figuring out whether the bid they choose will pass the scrutiny. > It seems quite likely that the player will have to discuss a number of > potential bids in order to see if there is an acceptable one. Surely this is > best done away from the table! > The new law seems pretty simple to me. My paraphrase is if you gain additional information from your insufficient bid then the correct is not allowed without penalty. To me this makes perfect sense. I wish more laws were like this. Wayne From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Feb 11 23:16:25 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:16:25 -0800 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <200802102314.AA12403@geller204.nifty.com> References: <000a01c86c39$d7b46a80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200802102314.AA12403@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080211140753.0c5704e0@mail.optusnet.com.au> > >> On Behalf Of Robert Geller > >> A 1C open promises opening bid strength, but may show only 3 (2) cards > >> in clubs. OTH a 2C overcall of 1D should show at least a good 5 card > >> suit, > >> but might be less than opening bid strength. Thus it isn't clear to me > >> that > >> when South changes his insufficient 1C (intended as an opener) to 2C > >> that the 2C call "incorporating the information > >> contained in the insufficient bid." > >> > >> I suppose we'll have to wait for the wisdom of the WBFLC on the > >> meaning of "incorporate." > > Bob's original question gave me some cause for concern as I have had two cases of 1C (1C) under the new laws. I have in both cases allowed a negative double although I have tried to give them the opportunity of bidding 2C (if it is non-conventional) if they wish. (Very hard to explain at the table BTW). Under the old rulesI used to shoot them if they opened 2 card club suits, and allow a change to 2C if they played better minor (or some such). Now it occurs to me that I myself would have 4 clubs to open 1C, so I cannot be allowed to change my insufficient bid to double which might promise only 3 say. Fortunately I never make insufficient bids, just lots of bids which are too sufficient. Cheers (Tony) From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 04:38:55 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:38:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <000c01c86c48$c27d3610$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><026201c86c49$ff37ab70$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2a1c3a560802101906s1553fff9t5ea853990b540dac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <02d801c86c5f$a0ce32a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Wayne Burrows: > The new law seems pretty simple to me. > > My paraphrase is if you gain additional information from your > insufficient bid then the correct is not allowed without penalty. > > To me this makes perfect sense. I wish more laws were like this. Yes, it is easy enough to understand what it says. It is putting it into practice that will be a nightmare. One of the problems, of course, is that directors are not required to be expert players, and, as Jesper mentioned, will not in any case be experts in the system the OS are playing, so will not know (if at all) without a lot of questioning (which had really better be away from the table or the UI will be impossible to deal with) whether a substitute bid contains less information. And if neither the offender nor the director are experts... well, if you asked half the people in my local club whether a bid contained more or less information than another bid, you would be met with a blank look. That brings up an interesting question -- will weak players get more leeway since they are not really aware of the information contained in ANY bid? I expect that this Law will prove a windfall to experienced players who are also Laws-savvy. They will be able to work out (certainly after the fact!) some extra information contained in the insufficient bid. But the AC will rule director's error, so no one loses, everyone is happy, WTP? This is not to say that I believe, in theory, that this law is bad. I have not yet formed an opinion one way or another, but am leaning slightly in favour. Still, I shudder to think of how it will be implemented. Stefanie Rohan London, England From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 04:39:55 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:39:55 +1300 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080211140753.0c5704e0@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <000a01c86c39$d7b46a80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200802102314.AA12403@geller204.nifty.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080211140753.0c5704e0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802101939w1f078a7dj67728f1976e47e7e@mail.gmail.com> On 12/02/2008, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > >> On Behalf Of Robert Geller > > >> A 1C open promises opening bid strength, but may show only 3 (2) cards > > >> in clubs. OTH a 2C overcall of 1D should show at least a good 5 card > > >> suit, > > >> but might be less than opening bid strength. Thus it isn't clear to me > > >> that > > >> when South changes his insufficient 1C (intended as an opener) to 2C > > >> that the 2C call "incorporating the information > > >> contained in the insufficient bid." > > >> > > >> I suppose we'll have to wait for the wisdom of the WBFLC on the > > >> meaning of "incorporate." > > > > > Bob's original question gave me some cause for concern as I have had > two cases of 1C (1C) under the new laws. I have in both cases allowed > a negative double although I have tried to give them the opportunity of > bidding 2C (if it is non-conventional) if they wish. (Very hard to explain at > the table BTW). > Under the old rulesI used to shoot them if they opened 2 card club suits, > and allow a change to 2C if they played better minor (or some such). > Now it occurs to me that I myself would have 4 clubs to open 1C, so I > cannot be allowed to change my insufficient bid to double which might > promise only 3 say. Fortunately I never make insufficient bids, just lots > of bids which are too sufficient. > I don't think an insufficient 1C should be allowed to be changed to a takeout double. The information from the 1C means that partner knows you dont have a strong hand with spades for example or a classic takeout double with a stiff club. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 04:51:31 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:51:31 +1300 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <02d801c86c5f$a0ce32a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000c01c86c48$c27d3610$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <026201c86c49$ff37ab70$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2a1c3a560802101906s1553fff9t5ea853990b540dac@mail.gmail.com> <02d801c86c5f$a0ce32a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802101951m56bc7398nd480b90f28bd68f6@mail.gmail.com> On 11/02/2008, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Wayne Burrows: > > > The new law seems pretty simple to me. > > > > My paraphrase is if you gain additional information from your > > insufficient bid then the correct is not allowed without penalty. > > > > To me this makes perfect sense. I wish more laws were like this. > > Yes, it is easy enough to understand what it says. It is putting it into > practice that will be a nightmare. > > One of the problems, of course, is that directors are not required to be > expert players, and, as Jesper mentioned, will not in any case be experts in > the system the OS are playing, so will not know (if at all) without a lot > of questioning (which had really better be away from the table or the UI > will be impossible to deal with) whether a substitute bid contains less > information. And if neither the offender nor the director are experts... > well, if you asked half the people in my local club whether a bid contained > more or less information than another bid, you would be met with a blank > look. That brings up an interesting question -- will weak players get more > leeway since they are not really aware of the information contained in ANY > bid? > > I expect that this Law will prove a windfall to experienced players who are > also Laws-savvy. They will be able to work out (certainly after the fact!) > some extra information contained in the insufficient bid. But the AC will > rule director's error, so no one loses, everyone is happy, WTP? > > This is not to say that I believe, in theory, that this law is bad. I have > not yet formed an opinion one way or another, but am leaning slightly in > favour. Still, I shudder to think of how it will be implemented. > You just need to ask of the proposed replacement bid. Is there any hand that you would make this bid on that you would not have made the insufficient bid? If the answer is yes then you cannot make this replacement bid without penalties. If this question is asked it is not director's error if the opponents give an incorrect answer. Wayne From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 04:56:36 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:56:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question References: <000a01c86c39$d7b46a80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><200802102314.AA12403@geller204.nifty.com><6.1.0.6.2.20080211140753.0c5704e0@mail.optusnet.com.au> <2a1c3a560802101939w1f078a7dj67728f1976e47e7e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <02eb01c86c62$192c7d40$0100a8c0@stefanie> Wayne Burrow: > On 12/02/2008, Tony Musgrove wrote: >> >> > >> On Behalf Of Robert Geller >> > >> A 1C open promises opening bid strength, but may show only 3 (2) >> > >> cards >> > >> in clubs. OTH a 2C overcall of 1D should show at least a good 5 >> > >> card >> > >> suit, >> > >> but might be less than opening bid strength. Thus it isn't clear to >> > >> me >> > >> that >> > >> when South changes his insufficient 1C (intended as an opener) to 2C >> > >> that the 2C call "incorporating the information >> > >> contained in the insufficient bid." >> > >> >> > >> I suppose we'll have to wait for the wisdom of the WBFLC on the >> > >> meaning of "incorporate." >> > > >> >> Bob's original question gave me some cause for concern as I have had >> two cases of 1C (1C) under the new laws. I have in both cases allowed >> a negative double although I have tried to give them the opportunity of >> bidding 2C (if it is non-conventional) if they wish. (Very hard to >> explain at >> the table BTW). >> Under the old rulesI used to shoot them if they opened 2 card club >> suits, >> and allow a change to 2C if they played better minor (or some such). >> Now it occurs to me that I myself would have 4 clubs to open 1C, so I >> cannot be allowed to change my insufficient bid to double which might >> promise only 3 say. Fortunately I never make insufficient bids, just >> lots >> of bids which are too sufficient. >> > > I don't think an insufficient 1C should be allowed to be changed to a > takeout double. > > The information from the 1C means that partner knows you dont have a > strong hand with spades for example or a classic takeout double with a > stiff club. Tony's auction is a little unclear, since he says negative double. But assuming the auction really went 1C(1C), then the 2C correction is surely impossible. This is not normally played as a natural bid! Does the insufficient bidder's system change from eg a Michaels cue-bid to a natural overcall in clubs? Some may remember a discussion that goes back a long time, when there were some objections to the fact that IBers got a new weapon in their arsenal (penalty double, natural cuebid, etc) when they knew that partner was barred from the remainder of the auction. I never had a problem with that, but I am not comfortable with a *penalty-fee* correction that introduces new elements of system. As for negative doubles, I realise that a lot of people promise 4+ cards in the unbid major(s). But do they ALWAYS have it? Have they never picked up a hand unsuited for another bid (eg a 1NT response that doesn't have a stopper in the overcall suit)? Have they never had 4-3 in the majors after 1C-1D? A hand with values but unsuitable for immediately raising partner's suit to the 2 or 3 or 3+ level? (Before anyone jumps down my throat, the question marks mean that I am ASKING. With my regular partner I play these doubles as takeout. I do agree to this majors-promising stuff with other partners, but I have never thought to ask just how firm a promise it actually is). Stefanie Rohan London, England From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Feb 12 00:05:15 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:05:15 -0800 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <02eb01c86c62$192c7d40$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000a01c86c39$d7b46a80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200802102314.AA12403@geller204.nifty.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080211140753.0c5704e0@mail.optusnet.com.au> <2a1c3a560802101939w1f078a7dj67728f1976e47e7e@mail.gmail.com> <02eb01c86c62$192c7d40$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080211150057.0c5aa020@mail.optusnet.com.au> > sr: >Tony's auction is a little unclear, since he says negative double. But >assuming the auction really went 1C(1C), then the 2C correction is surely >impossible. This is not normally played as a natural bid! Does the >insufficient bidder's system change from eg a Michaels cue-bid to a natural >overcall in clubs? Maybe so, but I have a lot of lols who overcall 2C over a short 1C to mean "his may be short but mine isn't" Naturally, if they play it as Michaels their partner is going to be hors de combat. Tony (Sydney) From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 05:09:49 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:09:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <000c01c86c48$c27d3610$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><026201c86c49$ff37ab70$0100a8c0@stefanie><2a1c3a560802101906s1553fff9t5ea853990b540dac@mail.gmail.com><02d801c86c5f$a0ce32a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2a1c3a560802101951m56bc7398nd480b90f28bd68f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <02f101c86c63$f2339cd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Wayne Burrows: > You just need to ask of the proposed replacement bid. Is there any > hand that you would make this bid on that you would not have made the > insufficient bid? If the answer is yes then you cannot make this > replacement bid without penalties. The problem is that many players will have no idea of the answer to this question, or even what is being asked ( I understand exactly what we are talking about and am having trouble just getting my head round the question!) Those capable of coming up with an answer might lack imagination and miss something. > If this question is asked it is not director's error if the opponents > give an incorrect answer. Surely the director will make this determination before allowing the substitution? In any case, the incorrect answers will, of course, be by mistake, but will have been answered to the best of the IBer's ability. Depending on the player's experience and imagination, it might be unfair to ask a question that will almost inevitably elicit an erroneous answer, and cause them to lose the hand in the AC when they were told they were entitled to a penalty-free correction. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 05:44:54 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:44:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question References: <000a01c86c39$d7b46a80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><200802102314.AA12403@geller204.nifty.com><6.1.0.6.2.20080211140753.0c5704e0@mail.optusnet.com.au><2a1c3a560802101939w1f078a7dj67728f1976e47e7e@mail.gmail.com><02eb01c86c62$192c7d40$0100a8c0@stefanie> <6.1.0.6.2.20080211150057.0c5aa020@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <031b01c86c68$d8ce0c80$0100a8c0@stefanie> SR: >>Tony's auction is a little unclear, since he says negative double. But >>assuming the auction really went 1C(1C), then the 2C correction is surely >>impossible. This is not normally played as a natural bid! Does the >>insufficient bidder's system change from eg a Michaels cue-bid to a >>natural >>overcall in clubs? TM: > Maybe so, but I have a lot of lols who overcall 2C over a short 1C to mean > "his > may be short but mine isn't" Wel, ther'e no legislation against bad bridge -- luckily for all of us! > > Naturally, if they play it as Michaels their partner is going to be hors > de > combat. Well, I hope so. But even this isn't exactly clear to me. Stefanie Rohan London, England From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 05:51:27 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:51:27 +1300 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <031b01c86c68$d8ce0c80$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000a01c86c39$d7b46a80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200802102314.AA12403@geller204.nifty.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080211140753.0c5704e0@mail.optusnet.com.au> <2a1c3a560802101939w1f078a7dj67728f1976e47e7e@mail.gmail.com> <02eb01c86c62$192c7d40$0100a8c0@stefanie> <6.1.0.6.2.20080211150057.0c5aa020@mail.optusnet.com.au> <031b01c86c68$d8ce0c80$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802102051i71f3382eida3bdb0bc25643e4@mail.gmail.com> On 11/02/2008, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > SR: > > >>Tony's auction is a little unclear, since he says negative double. But > >>assuming the auction really went 1C(1C), then the 2C correction is surely > >>impossible. This is not normally played as a natural bid! Does the > >>insufficient bidder's system change from eg a Michaels cue-bid to a > >>natural > >>overcall in clubs? > > TM: > > > Maybe so, but I have a lot of lols who overcall 2C over a short 1C to mean > > "his > > may be short but mine isn't" > > Wel, ther'e no legislation against bad bridge -- luckily for all of us! Who says this is bad bridge? Wayne From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 06:02:56 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:02:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question References: <000a01c86c39$d7b46a80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><200802102314.AA12403@geller204.nifty.com><6.1.0.6.2.20080211140753.0c5704e0@mail.optusnet.com.au><2a1c3a560802101939w1f078a7dj67728f1976e47e7e@mail.gmail.com><02eb01c86c62$192c7d40$0100a8c0@stefanie><6.1.0.6.2.20080211150057.0c5aa020@mail.optusnet.com.au><031b01c86c68$d8ce0c80$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2a1c3a560802102051i71f3382eida3bdb0bc25643e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <033001c86c6b$5dcd3850$0100a8c0@stefanie> TM: >> >> > Maybe so, but I have a lot of lols who overcall 2C over a short 1C to >> > mean >> > "his >> > may be short but mine isn't" >> >> Wel, ther'e no legislation against bad bridge -- luckily for all of us! > WB > Who says this is bad bridge? > It doesn't matter; this is not the proper forum for discussing such things. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Feb 12 01:03:13 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:03:13 -0800 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <033001c86c6b$5dcd3850$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000a01c86c39$d7b46a80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200802102314.AA12403@geller204.nifty.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080211140753.0c5704e0@mail.optusnet.com.au> <2a1c3a560802101939w1f078a7dj67728f1976e47e7e@mail.gmail.com> <02eb01c86c62$192c7d40$0100a8c0@stefanie> <6.1.0.6.2.20080211150057.0c5aa020@mail.optusnet.com.au> <031b01c86c68$d8ce0c80$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2a1c3a560802102051i71f3382eida3bdb0bc25643e4@mail.gmail.com> <033001c86c6b$5dcd3850$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080211160234.0c5aa020@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 09:02 PM 10/02/2008, you wrote: > TM: > >> > >> > Maybe so, but I have a lot of lols who overcall 2C over a short 1C to > >> > mean > >> > "his > >> > may be short but mine isn't" > >> > >> Wel, ther'e no legislation against bad bridge -- luckily for all of us! > > >WB > > > Who says this is bad bridge? > > > >It doesn't matter; this is not the proper forum for discussing such things. We are only allowed to discuss what is bad *for* bridge?? T From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 11 06:15:59 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:15:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47AF8730.6030004@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >>Has there been an official interpretation I've >>missed? If not, spreading falsehoods doesn't make >>for a strong argument. Grattan Endicott: >"In situations where a misexplanation >has been given by partner a player >must not indicate that partner has made >a mistake. However, in his own >explanations the player is obliged to state >the partnership agreement correctly. >Knowing this, it is the gravest possible >violation of law to deceive opponent by >not doing so." > ~ Grattan Endicott, 2002 (paraphrase) >+=+ Ton can speak for himself. It is my opinion >that dws is a corrosive heresy and that it should >be corrected publicly for the sake of inexperienced >TDs who may be misled. The nigh-unanimous view >among my colleagues is that the subject should be >left to Regulating Authorities to put their TDs right >on the subject - that anyone in doubt should ask >his/her NBO in the first place and that an NBO >may ask the WBFLC if it is unclear as to the answer. >(I think this is natural theory, but does it really >work in Tsagannuur? It seems not to work in Belgium.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: The idiosyncratic German player "scorer #1" believes that Law 77 can be interpreted so that scores are non-reciprocal and a passed-in board is worth zero matchpoints for both sides. Can we assume that the official interpretation of Law 77 does not need a formal ruling from the WBF LC? Or should the WBF Laws Committee issue a formal ruling refuting "scorer #1"? And should the WBF LC issue a formal ruling refuting a TD's illegal fourth-seat variant on the minor penalty card rule? And should the WBF LC issue a formal ruling refuting my own mephitic interpretation of Law 1? Reductio ad absurdum. If an interpretation of Law is absurd, a formal ruling refuting it is not needed; an informal email advising the "agreed position" of the WBF LC is more than adequate. 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 Mon Feb 11 06:37:15 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:37:15 -0600 Subject: [blml] Law 27C and mind reading the information content of the IB Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802102137r5d085474q3722f605bbc3d39b@mail.gmail.com> There is another part of law 27C that I find endlessly confusing. Suppose North is dealer and opens 1NT. Suppose East now bids 1D, insufficient. What is the information content? Did East mean to open 1D? Did East mean to overcall 1D thinking that 1C was what North opened? Did East mean to overcall 2D showing diamonds and forgot the system over 1NT? Did East mean to overcall 2D showing the majors based on his convention card? Did East mean to overcall 2D showing diamonds and a major based on his partner's convention card? Did East think that West was the one who had opened 1NT and meant to transfer to hearts? How does the director decide the information content of a mistake, when the mistake might have happened in several different ways? Indeed, who has agreements as to what 1D shows when it is an overcall after 1NT? And how does the director decide if the information content of the IB is the same for everyone at the table? Does he even care? And how does he explain the situation to East assuming law 27C might come into play? Oh, and if law 27D comes into play, what are the lead penalties? If that's too many questions, just go with one: How does the director decide the information content of a mistake, when the mistake might have happened in several different ways? Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080210/d3751915/attachment.htm From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 09:31:34 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:31:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be><042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be> <08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B007E6.2010605@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> If, after an infraction, NOS are presented with choices, sometimes >> they can prohibit the lead of one suit. That choice is laid out in the >> laws. That they can choose between Spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs >> is not "laid out" in full. That does not prevent the choice from being >> there. > > I so not have a copy of the Laws at hand. There might be a defninition of > "suits", which defines them as hearts, spades, diamonds and clubs. Even if > there is not, most bridge players I know are aware that those four comprise > the suits. So this argument is specious. > It is not a very good argument, I agree. But I don't see why choices should necessarily be "laid out" in the laws for them to exist. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 09:33:32 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:33:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be><042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be> <08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B0085C.9000907@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > >> Besides, we are talking about a gap in the laws - so if our final >> decision is that there is a choice between two acceptable courses of >> action, of course that choice is not "laid out" in the laws. We are >> talking about a gap, after all. >> So this is not an argument, Stefanie. > > Except that there is no gap. >> Stefanie, you do need to keep track of the different sub-discussions here. This one started with you asking me a hypothetical question. I have answered it, assuming the hypothetical to be true. At the end, you say that the hypothetical isn't true. You may believe that, but in this sub-discussion, that does not matter. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 09:47:19 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:47:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be><042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be> <08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B00B97.6080706@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> >> Now please tell me, apart from the fact that you don't like there >> being two acceptable courses of action, and apart from the fact that >> you believe the laws prohibit the dws, what you find so abhorrant to >> the DWS? > > I think that it is the wrong way to go. I think that the obligation to > answer truthfully questions about system is fundamental to the game. I do > not think that Laws should exist for the purpose of protecting offenders. > Well Stefanie, that really does not answer my question. Why do you think this is the wrong way to go? "Because I think this is the wrong way to go". We have talked at length about the two other sentences you write above. As to "fundamental", I believe we have covered that one very thoroughly. No, MI is _NOT_ the most fundamental to the game. As to protecting offenders, as has often been shown, my offenders are no worse off than any other offenders except those that dif their own extra grave by handing the opponents information they are not entitled to. > You should really stop this. Why do you think that anyone who not does agree > with your very idiosyncratic view should provide reasons for not agreeing? Because it is easy to say "I don't agree". And my views may be idiosyncratic (whatever you want to mean with that), but they are well founded and internally consistent. So if you want to continue to say "I don't agree", without providing reasons, then YOU are the one with the idiosyncratic views. If mine were the accepted notion, and you would say "but I want to do it this way", then you would need to provide reasons. But you can't. I keep asking you, and your only reply is "because our views are the majoritary ones, and yours are idiosyncratic". Don't you see that your only argument is "we're in the majority"? > And that if you don't think their reasons are good enough, should provide > some more, or endure your "your reasons are weak, see, you really agree with > me"? > But what else am I supposed to do? Do you really believe that you have made any reasonable arguments? > Why should not this same consideration be extended to those who think, for > example, that overtricks should be scored differently from presetn? > But I do believe such consideration should be extended to them. But there is one difference. It is very hard to conclusively determine that the DWS currently breaks law. Overtricks are far more conclusively dealt with in the laws. And even if you happen to believe that dws currently breaks law, is there any reason why I should not be allowed to express the view that DWS would be a better set of laws than MS? >> And please don't say "it's lying to my opponents". We've been there >> before. It's misinformation, that's OK, but I was talking "abhorrant", >> not "irregular". There are lots of misinformations going around and we >> don't find those abhorrant. > > You have grasped on the word "lying" in some weird way, thinking that > somehow it was used in some context other than "deliberately giving > misinformation". You are really a bully. Anyway, I disagree with your "It's > misinformation, but that's OK". It is not OK. But other forms of MI are treated as being OK! That is the main point of this whole discussion. If your opponent does not ask a question, you are bound by law to leave him believing the MI that he has received. And you don't even think twice about it (if you did, you'd have agreed with this argument of mine decades ago). Yet when he asks a question, suddenly it's a terrible crime to let the MI grow by a minuscule amount. Is this so terribly hard to see? Please Stefanie, do me one favour. Tell me that you understand this argument, tell me that it is true, and that you have other reasons for wanting to play MS. I really can't grasp that you don't understand the "bias" argument. >> So please Stefanie, think about it. It's a serious question. And if >> you can't come up with a serious answer, then maybe it's time for you >> to drop your instinctive loathing of the DWS and look at it with fresh >> eyes. >> > It is not an "instinctive loathing". I have been involved with this, with > breaks, for these past ten years. I am bored with explaining myself, and so > is everyone else. If your dWS were, somehow, acceptable, then the Laws would > need to be tightened up so that one and only one procedure was legal. I > prefer one, and you can choose to accept or not accept my reasons. They are > really none of your business anyway. > As are mine noty any of yours. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 09:49:02 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:49:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <000601c86c10$fa8ab510$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000601c86c10$fa8ab510$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47B00BFE.301@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > ................. >>> As usual Herman was again just inventing rubbish. >> This particular bit of rubbish was so silly it seems that it >> was an attempt at a joke. Maybe to deflect attention from the >> fact that the point was not going to be answered, or maybe >> because, at this point, Herman is just taking the pis out of >> all of us. > > I have never noticed any indication other than that he intends himself to be > taken seriously, something I haven't done for a long time. > > And frankly I am astonished that the Belgian NBOs accept one of their senior > officers openly arguing opinions like his in a way that they can easily be > taken as official opinions of the NBOs. I refuse to even suspect that he has > any support for dWS from his own organizations; such support would be too > incredible. > > Regards Sven > Not as incredible as your refusal to listen to and grasp very clear arguments. And to stick to a different view in the face of seven arguments without trying to disprove any of the seven, or of providing arguments in favour. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 09:53:06 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:53:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <08c601c86bed$94ae4810$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be><047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AECAF7.6040300@skynet.be> <08c601c86bed$94ae4810$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B00CF2.60004@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> But we are talking about two different things here. I thought you were >> asking what my advice would be, if DWS were merely acceptable. I >> answered that one. Now you seem to say that you were asking what my >> advice would be if DWS were the only legal option. I don't regard that >> as a very interesting question: follow the law, of course, what else? > > No, you misunderstand. I am asking why, if the dWS were indeed "acceptable", > why anyone would find it "abhorrent" to follow it. > You asked me why I would not insist on making DWS the only acceptable option. I answered that I don't need to do that and that some people might prefer it if they could keep playing MS, since they might find it abhorrant to have to "lie". If you insist that this should not be abhorrant, then by all means suggest to the WBF that they outlaw MS altogether. But why should _I_ go that far. Currently, you're suggesting I'm the worst criminal for what I do. Getting it to be acceptable is more than enough for me. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 09:57:29 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:57:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be> <08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > HDW: > >> Stop it, Eric, you have made a factual error here: >> >> Eric Landau wrote: >>> The prohibition found in the DWS interpretation of L20F5(a) is >>> sufficiently strong as to "outrank in the hierarchy of the laws" the >>> obligation to fully disclose one's actual agreements found in L75. >>> This justifies explaining 3D as "to play" even though that is an >>> explicit violation. >>> >>> Despite this, that same prohibition is not sufficiently strong to >>> warrant passing 3D, a perfectly legal action which would not violate >>> any other law in any way at all. >>> >> Stop it! In the original, 3D was, in the eyes of the 2NT bidder (20+ >> hand) a transfer. That makes any action other than bidding 3He a >> "suggested action" by L16. So this is not "a perfectly legal action". >> >> I have stated, a few times already, that if there are more than one >> "non-suggested" actions, then it would be wrong for the player to >> select the one which most clearly clarifies the misunderstanding to >> partner. It is Law 16 that supersedes Law 20F5. If there are no L16 >> restrictions on a bid, then I do believe that L20F5 restricts other, >> non-suggested bids. >> >> Does that solve your problem? > > The "problem" of having an arbitrary hierarchy of Laws is more troublesome > than just the dWS. Who says it's arbitrary? My hierarchy is well-founded in logic and consistent. You also work off a hierarchy. You keep saying that "not lying about agreements is fundamental to the game". So YOU are the one that ranks L73 above L20F5. I rank L73 below L20F5. I rank L16 above L20F5. What do you do? And why should we call either of these arbitrary? > Please explain the mechanism by with L20F5 is discarded > and L16 kicks in. Besides the fact that, by using it, you can continue to > protect your score. > Don't you believe that L16 ranks higher than L20F5? If no question is asked, you are bound by L20F5. You say you would remain quiet. Are you going to pass 3Di because bidding 3He would "reveal that a mistake is being made". No you are not. You will also rank L16 above L20F5. So why do you criticize me for making a ranking of the laws? > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 09:56:30 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:56:30 +1300 Subject: [blml] Law 27C and mind reading the information content of the IB In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802102137r5d085474q3722f605bbc3d39b@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0802102137r5d085474q3722f605bbc3d39b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802110056x7e6b7623lc892df4f64b95902@mail.gmail.com> On 11/02/2008, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > There is another part of law 27C that I find endlessly confusing. Suppose > North is dealer and opens 1NT. Suppose East now bids 1D, insufficient. > What is the information content? > > Did East mean to open 1D? > > Did East mean to overcall 1D thinking that 1C was what North opened? > > Did East mean to overcall 2D showing diamonds and forgot the system over > 1NT? > > Did East mean to overcall 2D showing the majors based on his convention > card? > > Did East mean to overcall 2D showing diamonds and a major based on his > partner's convention card? > > Did East think that West was the one who had opened 1NT and meant to > transfer to hearts? > > How does the director decide the information content of a mistake, when the > mistake might have happened in several different ways? Indeed, who has > agreements as to what 1D shows when it is an overcall after 1NT? > > And how does the director decide if the information content of the IB is the > same for everyone at the table? Does he even care? > > And how does he explain the situation to East assuming law 27C might come > into play? > > Oh, and if law 27D comes into play, what are the lead penalties? > > If that's too many questions, just go with one: How does the director > decide the information content of a mistake, when the mistake might have > happened in several different ways? > A novel approach you could try asking the bidder. Wayne From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 09:59:12 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:59:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <08ce01c86bf2$c9b13270$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred><47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net><014a01c869ea$f5b08830$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0F38.70100@skynet.be> <08ce01c86bf2$c9b13270$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B00E60.7070408@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > HDW: > >> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>>> But an ethical DWS follower [=oxymoron] > >> And most of your incomprehension is due to the fact that you assume >> it's an oxymoron. Do you really have that little respect for my ethics? >> > Yes, I'm afraid I do. > >> That being said, most of that paragraph is invalid due to some other >> misapprehension. My arguments say that L20F5 is stronger than, say, >> L73 (or whichever law you wish to name for MI). My argument has never >> been that L20F5 is the strongest law. The strongest law in the book is >> L1. And, among some others, L16 is stronger than L20F5. > > It would help if you would list all the Laws in order of priority, so we > that who are ignorant of the hierarchy can benefit from your superior > wisdom. > Stefanie, I think I have done that. I think you have done that too. I don't even think our hierarchies would differ (except in one place). It really doesn't become you to be sarcastic. I have never claimed superior wisdom. I am trying to argue this out. You keep losing sub-arguments and in the end, you resort to sarcasm. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Feb 11 10:24:46 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:24:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <200802101821.AA12396@geller204.nifty.com> References: <000a01c86be7$f795b4a0$d3cd403e@Mildred> <200802101821.AA12396@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47B0145E.3060403@NTLworld.com> Fro TNLB, The WBFLC had the chance to make this law simpler and fairer, along the lines suggested by David Burn. Instead, by leaving both sides with options, the WBFLC - maximise unauthorised information and - increase opportunities for special agreements contingent on the option chosen. The new L27 opens up more cans of worms :( I suppose, at least, it has been made consistent with all the other laws that encourage their own infraction :) The new law gives a further boost to those who prepared to economise on the truth -- here, about about information that a bid includes. It would contravene so-called "equity" principles but it would be much more simple and just to penalise the insufficient bid itself. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Feb 11 10:25:50 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:25:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <200802101821.AA12396@geller204.nifty.com> References: <000a01c86be7$f795b4a0$d3cd403e@Mildred> <200802101821.AA12396@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47B0149E.2060703@NTLworld.com> With TNLB, The WBFLC had the chance to make L27 simpler and fairer, along the lines suggested by David Burn. Instead, by leaving both sides with options, the WBFLC - maximise unauthorised information and - increase opportunities for special agreements contingent on the option chosen. The new L27 opens up more cans of worms :( I suppose, at least, it has been made consistent with all the other laws that encourage their own infraction :) The new law gives a further boost to those who prepared to economise on the truth -- here, about about information that a bid includes. It would contravene so-called "equity" principles but it would be much more simple and just to penalise the insufficient bid itself. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 11:45:27 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:45:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> HDW: > Who says it's arbitrary? My hierarchy is well-founded in logic and > consistent. > > You also work off a hierarchy. You keep saying that "not lying about > agreements is fundamental to the game". > So YOU are the one that ranks L73 above L20F5. No, I don't. I know whwere one applies and one doesn't. > I rank L73 below L20F5. > I rank L16 above L20F5. > > What do you do? And why should we call either of these arbitrary? Any such ranking system is arbitrary. > >> Please explain the mechanism by with L20F5 is discarded >> and L16 kicks in. Besides the fact that, by using it, you can continue to >> protect your score. >> > > Don't you believe that L16 ranks higher than L20F5? I think they apply at different times. How wxactly doyou come by your ranking system? > If no question is asked, you are bound by L20F5. You say you would > remain quiet. Are you going to pass 3Di because bidding 3He would > "reveal that a mistake is being made". If I were a dWSist, I would probably feel obligated to do this. > No you are not. You will also > rank L16 above L20F5. *I* will do no such thing, because I am aware that the Laws are not in conflict. But it does suit the purposes of dWSists to use this particular ranking system. > > So why do you criticize me for making a ranking of the laws? Because it's a chaotic way to run a game. There is no reason why I should not make a different private ranking system, and no reason to think that it is more or less valid than yours. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 11:51:26 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:51:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be><047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AECAF7.6040300@skynet.be><08c601c86bed$94ae4810$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00CF2.60004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <037701c86c9c$0d436e00$0100a8c0@stefanie> SR: >> No, you misunderstand. I am asking why, if the dWS were indeed >> "acceptable", >> why anyone would find it "abhorrent" to follow it. >> HDW: > You asked me why I would not insist on making DWS the only acceptable > option. Well, no. But anyway I strongly believe that, in such a case as this there can logically be only one legal way to proceed. > I answered that I don't need to do that and that some people > might prefer it if they could keep playing MS, since they might find > it abhorrant to have to "lie". Would you please answer my question, which is, why would anyone find it abhorrent to follow the Laws as they are written? > If you insist that this should not be abhorrant, then by all means > suggest to the WBF that they outlaw MS altogether. There is nothing right or wrong about a the rules of a game. You have been accusing others of appealing to some sort of higher authority "Bible" for the rules of bridge. But you are the one who is doing it. For the rest of us, we will lie if the Laws say "lie" and tell the truth if the Laws say "tell the truth". There is no moral value to either option. > But why should _I_ go that far. Currently, you're suggesting I'm the > worst criminal for what I do. Getting it to be acceptable is more than > enough for me. Good luck with that. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 11:53:33 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:53:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred><47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net><014a01c869ea$f5b08830$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0F38.70100@skynet.be><08ce01c86bf2$c9b13270$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00E60.7070408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <038101c86c9c$586bb1d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> It would help if you would list all the Laws in order of priority, so we >> that who are ignorant of the hierarchy can benefit from your superior >> wisdom. >> > > Stefanie, I think I have done that. I think you have done that too. No. You have listed three Laws. Please list them all. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 12:52:02 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:52:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be><042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be><08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00B97.6080706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <03ef01c86ca4$83eb9570$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> I think that it is the wrong way to go. I think that the obligation to >> answer truthfully questions about system is fundamental to the game. I do >> not think that Laws should exist for the purpose of protecting offenders. >> > > Well Stefanie, that really does not answer my question. Why do you > think this is the wrong way to go? "Because I think this is the wrong > way to go". The fact that the Laws should not exist to protect offenders is as far as I can go. > We have talked at length about the two other sentences you write > above. As to "fundamental", I believe we have covered that one very > thoroughly. No, MI is _NOT_ the most fundamental to the game. As to > protecting offenders, as has often been shown, my offenders are no > worse off than any other offenders except those that dif their own > extra grave by handing the opponents information they are not entitled to. The opponents are entitled to truthful disclosure. Nothing more and nothing less. > >> You should really stop this. Why do you think that anyone who not does >> agree >> with your very idiosyncratic view should provide reasons for not >> agreeing? > > Because it is easy to say "I don't agree". And my views may be > idiosyncratic (whatever you want to mean with that), but they are well > founded and internally consistent. So if you want to continue to say > "I don't agree", without providing reasons, then YOU are the one with > the idiosyncratic views. If mine were the accepted notion, and you > would say "but I want to do it this way", then you would need to > provide reasons. But you can't. I keep asking you, and your only reply > is "because our views are the majoritary ones, and yours are > idiosyncratic". Don't you see that your only argument is "we're in the > majority"? No, I and others have offered plenty of arguments. And yes, if I wanted to change the status quo, I would provide reasons. > >> And that if you don't think their reasons are good enough, should provide >> some more, or endure your "your reasons are weak, see, you really agree >> with >> me"? >> > > But what else am I supposed to do? Do you really believe that you have > made any reasonable arguments? I have made arguments that are good enough for me. > >> Why should not this same consideration be extended to those who think, >> for >> example, that overtricks should be scored differently from presetn? >> > > But I do believe such consideration should be extended to them. But > there is one difference. It is very hard to conclusively determine > that the DWS currently breaks law. Overtricks are far more > conclusively dealt with in the laws. We have all been told that the dWS does indeed break laws. > > And even if you happen to believe that dws currently breaks law, is > there any reason why I should not be allowed to express the view that > DWS would be a better set of laws than MS? You can do what you like, but your badgering and bullying of people who disagree with you is getting out of hand. > > But other forms of MI are treated as being OK! MI is not OK, Unfortunately, sometimes it happens. > > That is the main point of this whole discussion. If your opponent does > not ask a question, you are bound by law to leave him believing the MI > that he has received. And you don't even think twice about it (if you > did, you'd have agreed with this argument of mine decades ago). Yet > when he asks a question, suddenly it's a terrible crime to let the MI > grow by a minuscule amount. Is this so terribly hard to see? No, it is easy to understand. It is wrong, though. > Please Stefanie, do me one favour. Tell me that you understand this > argument, tell me that it is true, and that you have other reasons for > wanting to play MS. I really can't grasp that you don't understand the > "bias" argument. What do you mean, "it is true"? The argument supports your position, so I guess it is "true". So what? As far as "bias" is concerned, again, so what? I told a story about a revoke where I got two tricks, and another where the NOS got nothing. This is the way it goes sometimes. >> you can choose to accept or not accept my reasons. They are >> really none of your business anyway. >> > > As are mine noty any of yours. > Good! I hope to hear no more about them. Stefanie Rohan London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 12:54:11 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:54:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <037701c86c9c$0d436e00$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be><047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AECAF7.6040300@skynet.be><08c601c86bed$94ae4810$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00CF2.60004@skynet.be> <037701c86c9c$0d436e00$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B03763.9070709@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > Would you please answer my question, which is, why would anyone find it > abhorrent to follow the Laws as they are written? > I am not one to shirk responsability, so when I twice cannot answer a question, it is because the question does not make sense. Indeed, why should anyone find it abhorrant to follow the laws as written? Who says I believe they do? What I did say was that, if both options are acceptable, then the only reason I can think of for a player to follow MS, is because he finds it abhorrant to actively lie (while he doesn't find it abhorrant to passibely lie, but that's his problem). Apparently, some people are like this. This saying of mine came as a reply to your question what I would advise people to do. That particular question only makes sense when two options are acceptable. So your question as to following the (single) law is in a different universe. Of course if the WBF legislate that DWS is the only option (not my wish, I repeat) then following the DWS should be what people should and they should not believe it abhorrant. I have answered your question in full, out of politeness. I still believe your question is senseless since it takes some contrasting things from two different universes. OK? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 12:52:44 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:52:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question References: <000a01c86c39$d7b46a80$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><200802102314.AA12403@geller204.nifty.com><6.1.0.6.2.20080211140753.0c5704e0@mail.optusnet.com.au><2a1c3a560802101939w1f078a7dj67728f1976e47e7e@mail.gmail.com><02eb01c86c62$192c7d40$0100a8c0@stefanie><6.1.0.6.2.20080211150057.0c5aa020@mail.optusnet.com.au><031b01c86c68$d8ce0c80$0100a8c0@stefanie><2a1c3a560802102051i71f3382eida3bdb0bc25643e4@mail.gmail.com><033001c86c6b$5dcd3850$0100a8c0@stefanie> <6.1.0.6.2.20080211160234.0c5aa020@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <03f501c86ca4$9d690140$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> > Who says this is bad bridge? >> > >> >>It doesn't matter; this is not the proper forum for discussing such >>things. > > > We are only allowed to discuss what is bad *for* bridge?? > > T The Laws indicate how Bridge must be played, not how it *should* be played. SR From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 13:02:41 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:02:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be> <036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > HDW: > >> Who says it's arbitrary? My hierarchy is well-founded in logic and >> consistent. >> >> You also work off a hierarchy. You keep saying that "not lying about >> agreements is fundamental to the game". >> So YOU are the one that ranks L73 above L20F5. > > No, I don't. I know whwere one applies and one doesn't. > No Stefanie, that's where you're wrong. L20F5 applies throughout. You believe that L73 is stronger and this creates an exception to L20F5. You believe this because the WBFLC (or rather, Grattan) has told you so. That is a hierarchy, nothing more, nothing less. >> I rank L73 below L20F5. >> I rank L16 above L20F5. >> >> What do you do? And why should we call either of these arbitrary? > > Any such ranking system is arbitrary. Yes, any such ranking. The WBFLC's as well. So why do you insist that I'm wrong in trying to rank the laws? >>> Please explain the mechanism by with L20F5 is discarded >>> and L16 kicks in. Besides the fact that, by using it, you can continue to >>> protect your score. >>> >> Don't you believe that L16 ranks higher than L20F5? > > I think they apply at different times. How wxactly doyou come by your > ranking system? > Of course they do not. You say that L20F5 tells a player to pass 3Di (and I quite agree), while L16 tells him to bid 3He (Everyone agrees). So if you bit 3He, it is because you rank L16 higher than L20F5. I come by my ranking system through logical thought. You do as well, with some different thinking, but it would be wrong to say that I rank laws and you don't. You do as well. >> If no question is asked, you are bound by L20F5. You say you would >> remain quiet. Are you going to pass 3Di because bidding 3He would >> "reveal that a mistake is being made". > > If I were a dWSist, I would probably feel obligated to do this. > But there is no question, so no DWS problem! And a dwsist would CERTAINLY NOT pass 3Di. If you think that, then you have not understood anything, despite 200 messages. >> No you are not. You will also >> rank L16 above L20F5. > > *I* will do no such thing, because I am aware that the Laws are not in > conflict. YES THEY ARE. L20F5 instructs you to pass. L16 instructs you to bid 3He. That is a conflict. If you believe that this is not a conflict it is because you have already decided that L16 is stronger than L20F5. > But it does suit the purposes of dWSists to use this particular > ranking system. But my ranking system, with L16 on top, is the same as yours, with L16 on top, except for the ranking of L20F5 and L73. >> So why do you criticize me for making a ranking of the laws? > > Because it's a chaotic way to run a game. There is no reason why I should > not make a different private ranking system, and no reason to think that it > is more or less valid than yours. > But of course you do that. And you do believe that your ranking system is more valid than mine. Without any proof for that, and in the persistance of proof in favour of my ranking. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 13:13:26 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:13:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be><047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AECAF7.6040300@skynet.be><08c601c86bed$94ae4810$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00CF2.60004@skynet.be><037701c86c9c$0d436e00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03763.9070709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <040901c86ca7$81326180$0100a8c0@stefanie> > I have answered your question in full, out of politeness. I still > believe your question is senseless since it takes some contrasting > things from two different universes. OK? It doesn't, really. IF an option is legal, then there are no legitimate reasons for not choosing it.* If the dWS were legal, there is absolutely no reason that people could find following it to be "abhorrent". I have been trying to tell you that the reason that people object to "lying" is because it is illegal, not because of whatever reason you seem to think. So you understand now? You have this thing about "lying", but if "lying" were legal, no one would choose not to (at least, in a case like this, where "lying" can improve one's score). And, as I have mentioned, if "lying" is both legal and can improve one's score, then it would necessarily be an infraction not to do it. So in effect, if the dWS were legal, failing to practice it would be illegal. As it should be. Your notion that people should choose between two legal options for reasons of, I don't know, aesthetics I guess, is not at all consistent with the way the rules for a game are formulated. Stefanie Rohan London, England *Within reason. Once an old lady tried to alert, but took out the wrong dark blue card. My husband's (ex- after that session) partner called the director and had her penalised for making an illegal redouble out of turn. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 13:18:26 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:18:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <038101c86c9c$586bb1d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred><47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net><014a01c869ea$f5b08830$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0F38.70100@skynet.be><08ce01c86bf2$c9b13270$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00E60.7070408@skynet.be> <038101c86c9c$586bb1d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B03D12.3010001@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> It would help if you would list all the Laws in order of priority, so we >>> that who are ignorant of the hierarchy can benefit from your superior >>> wisdom. >>> >> Stefanie, I think I have done that. I think you have done that too. > > No. You have listed three Laws. Please list them all. > Tell me where laws contradict, and I'll tell you which is the higher ranking one. The WBF have done quite a good job though, in putting the hierarchies into the law text. So we don't really need to do the exercise. We've recently discovered two conflicts that the laws don't deal with: the second one being between L20F5 and L16. We both agree that L16 is the stronger one. Why are we argueing then? > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 13:19:22 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:19:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> HDW > I come by my ranking system through logical thought. You do as well, > with some different thinking, but it would be wrong to say that I rank > laws and you don't. You do as well. Keep saying it and maybe it will be true. What a bully you are! I do not rank Laws. > >>> If no question is asked, you are bound by L20F5. You say you would >>> remain quiet. Are you going to pass 3Di because bidding 3He would >>> "reveal that a mistake is being made". >> >> If I were a dWSist, I would probably feel obligated to do this. >> > > But there is no question, so no DWS problem! > And a dwsist would CERTAINLY NOT pass 3Di. > If you think that, then you have not understood anything, despite 200 > messages. Yes, yes, I know. Passing 3D will not protect your precious score. So NOW L16 comes into play. I see now that this is just a coincidence; but how very convenient! By the way, if 3H is an impossible bid in your system, how does your dWSist partner explain it when asked? "Undiscussed"? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 13:20:54 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:20:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred><47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net><014a01c869ea$f5b08830$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0F38.70100@skynet.be><08ce01c86bf2$c9b13270$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00E60.7070408@skynet.be><038101c86c9c$586bb1d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03D12.3010001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <041501c86ca8$8c435e70$0100a8c0@stefanie> > We've recently discovered two conflicts that the laws don't deal with: > the second one being between L20F5 and L16. We both agree that L16 is > the stronger one. Why are we argueing then? Because I don't agree, I have never said that I did. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 13:40:32 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:40:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000601c86c10$fa8ab510$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <04d901c86cab$4af22610$0100a8c0@stefanie> SP: > And frankly I am astonished that the Belgian NBOs accept one of their > senior > officers openly arguing opinions like his in a way that they can easily be > taken as official opinions of the NBOs. I refuse to even suspect that he > has > any support for dWS from his own organizations; such support would be too > incredible. Yes. If Herman really does have the authority he claims*, then it is irresponsible for the DSC not to clarify the legal position to his satisfaction, because he is in the position to answer directors' questions with what they would believe was the force of law, and would have no recourse to the WBFLC except through him (and he would hardly ask them about the dWS!) * I think that it is possible that he does. For all I know, Herman might be competent in areas unconnected to the dWS. And it is quite likely that he keeps quiet, in Belgium, about the latter, because he would not wish to become, in real life, the laughingstock he is on BLML. Stefanie Rohan London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 14:35:33 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:35:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <03ef01c86ca4$83eb9570$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be><042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be><08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00B97.6080706@skynet.be> <03ef01c86ca4$83eb9570$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B04F25.7000804@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> I think that it is the wrong way to go. I think that the obligation to >>> answer truthfully questions about system is fundamental to the game. I do >>> not think that Laws should exist for the purpose of protecting offenders. >>> >> Well Stefanie, that really does not answer my question. Why do you >> think this is the wrong way to go? "Because I think this is the wrong >> way to go". > > The fact that the Laws should not exist to protect offenders is as far as I > can go. > Stefanie, the laws do exist to protect offenders. Why else are there laws like "revokes in the penultimate trick are not punished", "inadvertent calls may be retracted", "a claimer cannot revoke", and many many more? The laws are not there to punish infractions, just to cause redress for infractions that cause damage. The situation for a DWS adept is exactly the same as for a MS adept who does not get a question asked. There is no damage to the "infraction" that the DWSist commits. There is no reason therefor for the laws to "punish" this "infraction". >> We have talked at length about the two other sentences you write >> above. As to "fundamental", I believe we have covered that one very >> thoroughly. No, MI is _NOT_ the most fundamental to the game. As to >> protecting offenders, as has often been shown, my offenders are no >> worse off than any other offenders except those that dif their own >> extra grave by handing the opponents information they are not entitled to. > > The opponents are entitled to truthful disclosure. Nothing more and nothing > less. Indeed, nothing MORE! They are entitled to it. If they don't get it, the laws provide for redress. MS interpretation gives the opponents MORE than what they are entitled to (the knowledge of the misunderstanding). >>> You should really stop this. Why do you think that anyone who not does >>> agree >>> with your very idiosyncratic view should provide reasons for not >>> agreeing? >> Because it is easy to say "I don't agree". And my views may be >> idiosyncratic (whatever you want to mean with that), but they are well >> founded and internally consistent. So if you want to continue to say >> "I don't agree", without providing reasons, then YOU are the one with >> the idiosyncratic views. If mine were the accepted notion, and you >> would say "but I want to do it this way", then you would need to >> provide reasons. But you can't. I keep asking you, and your only reply >> is "because our views are the majoritary ones, and yours are >> idiosyncratic". Don't you see that your only argument is "we're in the >> majority"? > > No, I and others have offered plenty of arguments. And yes, if I wanted to > change the status quo, I would provide reasons. OK, list me your arguments like I did, ONE to SEVEN (no need to go to seven either). >>> And that if you don't think their reasons are good enough, should provide >>> some more, or endure your "your reasons are weak, see, you really agree >>> with >>> me"? >>> >> But what else am I supposed to do? Do you really believe that you have >> made any reasonable arguments? > > I have made arguments that are good enough for me. But not good enough for me. I have made arguments that are good enough for me, but not for you. Now where do we stand? That you're in a majority. And majority of course rules. >>> Why should not this same consideration be extended to those who think, >>> for >>> example, that overtricks should be scored differently from presetn? >>> >> But I do believe such consideration should be extended to them. But >> there is one difference. It is very hard to conclusively determine >> that the DWS currently breaks law. Overtricks are far more >> conclusively dealt with in the laws. > > We have all been told that the dWS does indeed break laws. So does the MS. Both break the law they consider the lower in the hierarchy. Both could be saying that to break a law that is lower in the hierarchy means not breaking a law at all. In fact, that is what the MS are saying about their point of view. But the DWS is not allowed to use the same argument. Do you see that you still have made not a single argument other than, "we are in the majority, so we must be right?". >> And even if you happen to believe that dws currently breaks law, is >> there any reason why I should not be allowed to express the view that >> DWS would be a better set of laws than MS? > > You can do what you like, but your badgering and bullying of people who > disagree with you is getting out of hand. I think I have been extremely nice in the laws few weeks. Do you wish me to cite some of the words you've been using this past week? It's not pretty, believe me. >> But other forms of MI are treated as being OK! > > MI is not OK, Unfortunately, sometimes it happens. Well, unfortunately, DWS is one of those times! Only when it's DWS, you don't call it unfortunate that it happens, but you call it cheating. And again, I know what you are saying: it's deliberate. Yes it is, but no more deliberate than your keeping quiet if no question is asked (L20F5). And of course you're going to reply "but that's what the laws instruct us". And then my reply is, "then why don't the laws also instruct DWS?". And if you then say "but they don't", my reply is going to be: "why" - and the answer to that is "because you're in the majority". And that is what it all boils down to. The MS is the "accepted" way because it is in the Majority. There is no good argument in favour of choosing the MS over the DWS. And there are seven good arguments for choosing the DWS over the MS. >> That is the main point of this whole discussion. If your opponent does >> not ask a question, you are bound by law to leave him believing the MI >> that he has received. And you don't even think twice about it (if you >> did, you'd have agreed with this argument of mine decades ago). Yet >> when he asks a question, suddenly it's a terrible crime to let the MI >> grow by a minuscule amount. Is this so terribly hard to see? > > No, it is easy to understand. It is wrong, though. > Please tell me why. Because Grattan says so? >> Please Stefanie, do me one favour. Tell me that you understand this >> argument, tell me that it is true, and that you have other reasons for >> wanting to play MS. I really can't grasp that you don't understand the >> "bias" argument. > > What do you mean, "it is true"? The argument supports your position, so I > guess it is "true". So what? > No Stefanie, I mean that it is true in the sense that, with MS, a "lazy" opponent gets a benefit over an "active" one, and a "devious" opponent (who always asks questions) gets a benefit over a "normal" one (who only asks questions in order to know the answer). Do you agree with that? > As far as "bias" is concerned, again, so what? I told a story about a revoke > where I got two tricks, and another where the NOS got nothing. This is the > way it goes sometimes. > Yes, but do you find it acceptable? In the revoke case - would you prefer a revoke law where the revoke always costs a trick over the one you describe? Sure you do! only there, there are other reasons why the revoke law has this less acceptable quality. In the DWS case - would you prefer a set of laws _with_ bias towards people who ask questions, or _without_ such bias? That is a simple question, and unless you are so stubborn as to refuse me even one small point, you will agree that my second argument "bias" constitutes a real advantage of DWS over MS. Which leaves six other advantages, each one I will gladly discuss with you. If at the end of that exercise, you are forced to admit that I am correct in all seven, I will ask you to name advantages "ONE" through "SEVEN" (or less) in favour of the MS. We will discuss those too. At the end, we will write down a list of arguments in favour of both schools. I won't even say "the longer list wins". But only then can we settle this issue. >>> you can choose to accept or not accept my reasons. They are >>> really none of your business anyway. >>> >> As are mine noty any of yours. >> > Good! I hope to hear no more about them. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 14:42:03 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:42:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <040901c86ca7$81326180$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be><047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AECAF7.6040300@skynet.be><08c601c86bed$94ae4810$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00CF2.60004@skynet.be><037701c86c9c$0d436e00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03763.9070709@skynet.be> <040901c86ca7$81326180$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B050AB.8000101@skynet.be> OK Stefanie, I'll bite Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> I have answered your question in full, out of politeness. I still >> believe your question is senseless since it takes some contrasting >> things from two different universes. OK? > > It doesn't, really. IF an option is legal, then there are no legitimate > reasons for not choosing it.* If the dWS were legal, there is absolutely no > reason that people could find following it to be "abhorrent". I have been > trying to tell you that the reason that people object to "lying" is because > it is illegal, not because of whatever reason you seem to think. > No, it is because people BELIEVE it to be illegal. That is why they don't do it. Those players that have asked me the question, and whom I've told DWS was legal (as I still believe it is) are not abhorred by their apparent "lying". Your argument is unsound, because you infer the illegality of DWS from the fact that many players don't do it. But the reason they don't do it is because you told them it was illegal. So you infer the illegality of DWS from your belief in the illegality of DWS. "I think, therefor It Is." > So you understand now? You have this thing about "lying", but if "lying" > were legal, no one would choose not to (at least, in a case like this, where > "lying" can improve one's score). And, as I have mentioned, if "lying" is > both legal and can improve one's score, then it would necessarily be an > infraction not to do it. So in effect, if the dWS were legal, failing to > practice it would be illegal. > Indeed it should be. But I'd be hung and quartered if that were my aim. > As it should be. Your notion that people should choose between two legal > options for reasons of, I don't know, aesthetics I guess, is not at all > consistent with the way the rules for a game are formulated. > But people should not be allowed to choose, as you yourself say. The WBF should make the choice. And they can choose whatever they want. But I would like them to look at the "aesthetics" before making their choice and not simply say "it's like this because we've believed for ten years that it was like this". > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > *Within reason. Once an old lady tried to alert, but took out the wrong dark > blue card. My husband's (ex- after that session) partner called the director > and had her penalised for making an illegal redouble out of turn. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 14:43:43 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:43:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be> <040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B0510F.8050109@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > HDW > >> I come by my ranking system through logical thought. You do as well, >> with some different thinking, but it would be wrong to say that I rank >> laws and you don't. You do as well. > > Keep saying it and maybe it will be true. What a bully you are! I do not > rank Laws. No Stefanie, of course you don't. You just pick one and choose to follow it, and pick another, and choose not to follow that one. But you don't rank them. You just act that way without need for ranking. Keep saying it and maybe it will make sense to more than one person. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 14:48:00 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:48:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be> <040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > Yes, yes, I know. Passing 3D will not protect your precious score. So NOW > L16 comes into play. I see now that this is just a coincidence; but how very > convenient! > Stefanie, I've just made the exact same bid as you. But in my case, it's a convenient way of telling my partner that he made a misexplanation. In your case, of course, you have already solved that particular problem in another convenient way: you've plain told him! > By the way, if 3H is an impossible bid in your system, how does your dWSist > partner explain it when asked? "Undiscussed"? > Well, if it really is impossible, he will probably say "I think I've misinterpreted the previous bid, it may well be that my partner intended 2NT to be 20-21". Your partner will not need to say the same thing, because you've already told him. My partner has no UI, yours has. But that is an unfair advantage, according to you. Well, we know what my reply is to that one. I have no advantage over any other table where the second question did not get asked, you just dug your own grave. I don't want to be compared to you, but to the players behind screens! > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 14:50:59 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:50:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <041501c86ca8$8c435e70$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred><47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net><014a01c869ea$f5b08830$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0F38.70100@skynet.be><08ce01c86bf2$c9b13270$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00E60.7070408@skynet.be><038101c86c9c$586bb1d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03D12.3010001@skynet.be> <041501c86ca8$8c435e70$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B052C3.90209@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> We've recently discovered two conflicts that the laws don't deal with: >> the second one being between L20F5 and L16. We both agree that L16 is >> the stronger one. Why are we argueing then? > > Because I don't agree, I have never said that I did. > L16 instructs you to bid 3He. L20F5 instructs you to pass over 3Di. What do you do? If you choose to bid 3He, that means that you believe L16 is stronger than L20F5. And if you believe that L20F5 contains yet another unwritten exception, it is the exception "except when L16 tells you not to make that call". Then it's the laws that make L16 stronger than L20F5. The length people go to to maintain their arguments. Even when they should be able to see the check-mate coming, they really want to argue it out. I'll obligingly move my queen yet another step towards your king. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 14:54:40 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:54:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred><47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net><014a01c869ea$f5b08830$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0F38.70100@skynet.be><08ce01c86bf2$c9b13270$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00E60.7070408@skynet.be><038101c86c9c$586bb1d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03D12.3010001@skynet.be><041501c86ca8$8c435e70$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B052C3.90209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <053e01c86cb5$a6114850$0100a8c0@stefanie> > L16 instructs you to bid 3He. > L20F5 instructs you to pass over 3Di. > > What do you do? > > If you choose to bid 3He, that means that you believe L16 is stronger > than L20F5. No. L20F5 does not instruct me to pass over 3D, nor to misexplain my agreements. This has been made clear by the WBFLC. > > And if you believe that L20F5 contains yet another unwritten > exception, it is the exception "except when L16 tells you not to make > that call". Then it's the laws that make L16 stronger than L20F5. Again, no. > > The length people go to to maintain their arguments. Even when they > should be able to see the check-mate coming, they really want to argue > it out. I'll obligingly move my queen yet another step towards your king. Whatever. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 14:56:27 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:56:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Well, if it really is impossible, he will probably say "I think I've > misinterpreted the previous bid, it may well be that my partner > intended 2NT to be 20-21". Your partner will not need to say the same > thing, because you've already told him. My partner has no UI, yours > has. But that is an unfair advantage, according to you. Well, we know > what my reply is to that one. I have no advantage over any other table > where the second question did not get asked, you just dug your own > grave. I don't want to be compared to you, but to the players behind > screens! Well, let's say you are playing in an event where there are no screens. Now you must be compared to the other tables where screens are not in effect. I have not said that your advantage was unfair. I have said that it is illegal. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 15:00:49 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:00:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B0510F.8050109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <054e01c86cb6$81cb6f60$0100a8c0@stefanie> HDW: > >>> I come by my ranking system through logical thought. You do as well, >>> with some different thinking, but it would be wrong to say that I rank >>> laws and you don't. You do as well. SR >> Keep saying it and maybe it will be true. What a bully you are! I do not >> rank Laws. HDW: > No Stefanie, of course you don't. You just pick one and choose to > follow it, and pick another, and choose not to follow that one. But > you don't rank them. You just act that way without need for ranking. > > Keep saying it and maybe it will make sense to more than one person. > I do not choose to follow or not to follow Laws. I obey them all. You can say that I break L20F5. But how am I to argue against this? The WBFLC has said that your "interpretation" is wrong. If you choose to cling to it, then your arguments are based on false premises. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 15:04:06 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:04:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be><047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AECAF7.6040300@skynet.be><08c601c86bed$94ae4810$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00CF2.60004@skynet.be><037701c86c9c$0d436e00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03763.9070709@skynet.be><040901c86ca7$81326180$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B050AB.8000101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <055401c86cb6$f73013f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > But people should not be allowed to choose, as you yourself say. The > WBF should make the choice. And they can choose whatever they want. > But I would like them to look at the "aesthetics" before making their > choice and not simply say "it's like this because we've believed for > ten years that it was like this". > Try 70 years. And I can't imagine why they would feel they should do what you "would like" them to do. If you ever had their respect or goodwill, I would guess that you have exhausted it by now. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 15:13:08 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:13:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be><042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be><08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00B97.6080706@skynet.be><03ef01c86ca4$83eb9570$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B04F25.7000804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <055c01c86cb8$3a757e60$0100a8c0@stefanie> HDW: >>> That is the main point of this whole discussion. If your opponent does >>> not ask a question, you are bound by law to leave him believing the MI >>> that he has received. And you don't even think twice about it (if you >>> did, you'd have agreed with this argument of mine decades ago). Yet >>> when he asks a question, suddenly it's a terrible crime to let the MI >>> grow by a minuscule amount. Is this so terribly hard to see? >> >> No, it is easy to understand. It is wrong, though. >> > > Please tell me why. Because Grattan says so? Because Grattan has conveyed the position of the DSC. > > > No Stefanie, I mean that it is true in the sense that, with MS, a > "lazy" opponent gets a benefit over an "active" one, and a "devious" > opponent (who always asks questions) gets a benefit over a "normal" > one (who only asks questions in order to know the answer). Do you > agree with that? Sure. Remember your bloody agreements next time. > > Which leaves six other advantages, each one I will gladly discuss with > you. If at the end of that exercise, you are forced to admit that I am > correct in all seven, I will ask you to name advantages "ONE" through > "SEVEN" (or less) in favour of the MS. We will discuss those too. At > the end, we will write down a list of arguments in favour of both > schools. I won't even say "the longer list wins". But only then can we > settle this issue. Why should you and I "settle this issue"? It is up to the DSC, and they have spoken. You keep talking to me about "winning points". What possible relevance can that have? Fine, take all the "points". Everything you say is accurate and true, and yet I disagree. OK? Enjoy your victory. Stefanie Rohan London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 15:34:46 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:34:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <055401c86cb6$f73013f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be><047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AECAF7.6040300@skynet.be><08c601c86bed$94ae4810$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00CF2.60004@skynet.be><037701c86c9c$0d436e00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03763.9070709@skynet.be><040901c86ca7$81326180$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B050AB.8000101@skynet.be> <055401c86cb6$f73013f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B05D06.7020804@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> But people should not be allowed to choose, as you yourself say. The >> WBF should make the choice. And they can choose whatever they want. >> But I would like them to look at the "aesthetics" before making their >> choice and not simply say "it's like this because we've believed for >> ten years that it was like this". >> > Try 70 years. No, I don't. I am fairly confident that in the earlier days, when the (current) L20F5 was still brand new, the implications would have been more easily understood. This problem first surfaced when I quite innocently answered in DWS style to someone who posed a problem like that. David Burn and John Probst were among those that most strongly objected to my solution. That has never changed. I doubt if anyone prior to 1998 had ever imagined that there was a problem that needed solving. > And I can't imagine why they would feel they should do what > you "would like" them to do. If you ever had their respect or goodwill, I > would guess that you have exhausted it by now. > Because I am here with good arguments. That they at least should read. So far, I've seen no replies to my seven arguments, other than one from David, who attacked all seven, but five of them with very weak, not-to-the point arguments. And of course your good self. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 15:37:41 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:37:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be> <054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> Well, if it really is impossible, he will probably say "I think I've >> misinterpreted the previous bid, it may well be that my partner >> intended 2NT to be 20-21". Your partner will not need to say the same >> thing, because you've already told him. My partner has no UI, yours >> has. But that is an unfair advantage, according to you. Well, we know >> what my reply is to that one. I have no advantage over any other table >> where the second question did not get asked, you just dug your own >> grave. I don't want to be compared to you, but to the players behind >> screens! > > Well, let's say you are playing in an event where there are no screens. Now > you must be compared to the other tables where screens are not in effect. > Did you not see the example I gave with 8 tables with the same bidding? My result (at table 5) was exactly the same as the one at table 1 (with screens) and tables 2-4 (where the question was not asked). And one of my arguments IS that bridge with or without screens ought to be as closely the same as possible. > I have not said that your advantage was unfair. I have said that it is > illegal. > Circular reasoning, Stefanie! Why is DWS illegal? Because DWS gets an illegal advantage! Which is the same as saying: because DWS is illegal! > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 15:44:48 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:44:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Did you not see the example I gave with 8 tables with the same > bidding? My result (at table 5) was exactly the same as the one at > table 1 (with screens) and tables 2-4 (where the question was not asked). Not at all. You were doubled after you revealed your misinformation. > > And one of my arguments IS that bridge with or without screens ought > to be as closely the same as possible. OK. You are welcome to your opinion. > >> I have not said that your advantage was unfair. I have said that it is >> illegal. >> > > Circular reasoning, Stefanie! Unfair and illegal are not the same thing at all. In fact, in the real world they are often in conflict. > > Why is DWS illegal? > Because DWS gets an illegal advantage! > Which is the same as saying: because DWS is illegal! I don't feel that the "advantage" is the main problem with the dWS, though I know that it is the main reason for it. But the rest of the paragraph above is of course correct. The dWS is illegal because the Laws are written so as not to allow it. So, yes, it is illegal because it is illegal. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 15:53:32 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:53:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be><047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AECAF7.6040300@skynet.be><08c601c86bed$94ae4810$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00CF2.60004@skynet.be><037701c86c9c$0d436e00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03763.9070709@skynet.be><040901c86ca7$81326180$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B050AB.8000101@skynet.be><055401c86cb6$f73013f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05D06.7020804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <058101c86cbd$ded68a80$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Because I am here with good arguments. That they at least should read. > So far, I've seen no replies to my seven arguments, other than one > from David, who attacked all seven, but five of them with very weak, > not-to-the point arguments. > > And of course your good self. > Everyone else is simply too bored. (And incidentally, your arguments are rubbish and not worth taking the time to refute them.) From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 16:01:27 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:01:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <053e01c86cb5$a6114850$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred><47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net><014a01c869ea$f5b08830$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0F38.70100@skynet.be><08ce01c86bf2$c9b13270$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00E60.7070408@skynet.be><038101c86c9c$586bb1d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03D12.3010001@skynet.be><041501c86ca8$8c435e70$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B052C3.90209@skynet.be> <053e01c86cb5$a6114850$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B06347.9020608@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> L16 instructs you to bid 3He. >> L20F5 instructs you to pass over 3Di. >> >> What do you do? >> >> If you choose to bid 3He, that means that you believe L16 is stronger >> than L20F5. > > No. L20F5 does not instruct me to pass over 3D, nor to misexplain my > agreements. This has been made clear by the WBFLC. Yet that is what you continuously (not you precisely, but others) try and make me admit; that by bidding 3He I also break L20F5. I create a coherent hierarchy of laws, and follow that one. You just make up exceptions to L20F5 as you see fit. But when I suggest that you are, in fact, also making up a hierarchy, you say that you do no such thing. No, of course it is better to blindly follow the line you have always thought of following, than to argue about which line you should be following. And of course there's always the "Grattan says" argument. The majority is always right. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Feb 11 16:04:19 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:04:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <055401c86cb6$f73013f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be><047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AECAF7.6040300@skynet.be><08c601c86bed$94ae4810$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00CF2.60004@skynet.be><037701c86c9c$0d436e00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03763.9070709@skynet.be><040901c86ca7$81326180$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B050AB.8000101@skynet.be> <055401c86cb6$f73013f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <001601c86cbf$61216130$23642390$@nl> Don't argue with a rock Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan Sent: maandag 11 februari 2008 15:04 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > But people should not be allowed to choose, as you yourself say. The > WBF should make the choice. And they can choose whatever they want. > But I would like them to look at the "aesthetics" before making their > choice and not simply say "it's like this because we've believed for > ten years that it was like this". > Try 70 years. And I can't imagine why they would feel they should do what you "would like" them to do. If you ever had their respect or goodwill, I would guess that you have exhausted it by now. Stefanie Rohan London, England _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 16:05:49 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:05:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <054e01c86cb6$81cb6f60$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B0510F.8050109@skynet.be> <054e01c86cb6$81cb6f60$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B0644D.6010704@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > HDW: >>>> I come by my ranking system through logical thought. You do as well, >>>> with some different thinking, but it would be wrong to say that I rank >>>> laws and you don't. You do as well. > > SR > >>> Keep saying it and maybe it will be true. What a bully you are! I do not >>> rank Laws. > > HDW: > >> No Stefanie, of course you don't. You just pick one and choose to >> follow it, and pick another, and choose not to follow that one. But >> you don't rank them. You just act that way without need for ranking. >> >> Keep saying it and maybe it will make sense to more than one person. >> > I do not choose to follow or not to follow Laws. I obey them all. No you don't. You reinterpret one law so as to be able to say that you obey that law, when in fact you are doing things that are explicitely and clearly prohibited by the language of that law. > You can > say that I break L20F5. Of course you do. That's not bad. What's bad is that you say you don't break it. You choose to interpret the hierarchy in one direction, I choose another one. > But how am I to argue against this? The WBFLC has > said that your "interpretation" is wrong. If you choose to cling to it, then > your arguments are based on false premises. > No, they are based on _other_ premises, not false ones. And again, Stefanie, we are argueing which laws would be better, not which laws are currently (apparently) valid. The argument that the WBF has decided that this is the interpretation does not make this the "better" interpretation, only the "official" one. And I yet have to see this "official" interpretation. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 16:13:53 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:13:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred><47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net><014a01c869ea$f5b08830$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0F38.70100@skynet.be><08ce01c86bf2$c9b13270$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00E60.7070408@skynet.be><038101c86c9c$586bb1d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03D12.3010001@skynet.be><041501c86ca8$8c435e70$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B052C3.90209@skynet.be><053e01c86cb5$a6114850$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B06347.9020608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <058b01c86cc0$b6acfcd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> HDW: > Yet that is what you continuously (not you precisely, but others) try > and make me admit; that by bidding 3He I also break L20F5.] Yes. If you believe that giving an accurate explanation of your agreements to your opponents is breaking L20F5, then bidding 3H also is. Is it not "indicating in any manner"? It is not clear at all why L20F5 is in force when RHO asks you a question, but then immediately it is your turn to bid and L16 kicks in. Why should that be? And why does L16 rank higher in the hierarchy anyway? > > I create a coherent hierarchy of laws, and follow that one. > You just make up exceptions to L20F5 as you see fit. No, I follow the guidance of the WBFLC DSC. Anyway, where is L20F4 in the hierarchy? Why does it not have equal status with 20F5? If it did, you would have to give your dWS explanation with the director at the table. > But when I suggest that you are, in fact, also making up a hierarchy, > you say that you do no such thing. Correct. > > No, of course it is better to blindly follow the line you have always > thought of following, than to argue about which line you should be > following. I have tirelessly been doing the latter. You could be a bit more grateful that I have indulged you! > And of course there's always the "Grattan says" argument. When Grattan speaks for the WBFLC, what choice do I have? To whom could I further appeal, if I wanted to. > > The majority is always right. If you say so. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 16:19:29 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:19:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be><047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AECAF7.6040300@skynet.be><08c601c86bed$94ae4810$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00CF2.60004@skynet.be><037701c86c9c$0d436e00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03763.9070709@skynet.be><040901c86ca7$81326180$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B050AB.8000101@skynet.be><055401c86cb6$f73013f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <001601c86cbf$61216130$23642390$@nl> Message-ID: <05e301c86cc1$7f45fc00$0100a8c0@stefanie> I know. I'm afraid the morbid fascination has got to me though. Stefanie Rohan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans van Staveren" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 3:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > Don't argue with a rock > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > Sent: maandag 11 februari 2008 15:04 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > >> But people should not be allowed to choose, as you yourself say. The >> WBF should make the choice. And they can choose whatever they want. >> But I would like them to look at the "aesthetics" before making their >> choice and not simply say "it's like this because we've believed for >> ten years that it was like this". >> > Try 70 years. And I can't imagine why they would feel they should do what > you "would like" them to do. If you ever had their respect or goodwill, I > would guess that you have exhausted it by now. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 11 16:43:31 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:43:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be> <7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <05A49C93-43E1-423F-8C94-A7A72EC69717@starpower.net> On Feb 10, 2008, at 5:04 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Stop it, Eric, you have made a factual error here: > > Eric Landau wrote: > >> The prohibition found in the DWS interpretation of L20F5(a) is >> sufficiently strong as to "outrank in the hierarchy of the laws" the >> obligation to fully disclose one's actual agreements found in L75. >> This justifies explaining 3D as "to play" even though that is an >> explicit violation. >> >> Despite this, that same prohibition is not sufficiently strong to >> warrant passing 3D, a perfectly legal action which would not violate >> any other law in any way at all. > > Stop it! In the original, 3D was, in the eyes of the 2NT bidder (20+ > hand) a transfer. That makes any action other than bidding 3He a > "suggested action" by L16. So this is not "a perfectly legal action". Let's start with the "normal" action, absent any confusion, misunderstanding, UI, or any kind of irregularity. 2NT is properly alerted, partner bids 3D, by agreement a transfer. Here it is clearly illegal to describe 3D as anything other than a transfer, but, obviously, perfectly legal to pass 3D. L16 forbids choosing an action which has been "suggested over" (i.e. made more attractive relative to) another by UI. If a player has been following the consensus (i.e. non-DWS) interpretation of the laws to this point, it will always be appropriate to ignore the UI and complete the transfer, or whatever one's action would have been. In that case, 3H will always be a "non-suggested" action, but it does not follow logically that any other action would be "suggested". That still requires that it have been made more attractive (or its alternatives less attractive) by the UI. (I don't want to get distracted by debating what calls are or are not made more attractive by the knowledge that partner has a preference for diamonds over clubs; save it for another thread and adjust the example to suit.) When the DWS is in action, though, the story is very different. The whole raison d'etre of the DWS is that the misexplanation of 3D "immunizes" partner from any constraint on his action due to UI, leaving him free to "wake up" to his misunderstanding upon hearing partner's 3H bid and do his best to recover without the restrictions that would affect a non-DWSist. Thanks to the DWS-inspired misexplanation, the player is now in a position where the UI he has (that partner has misunderstood his 2NT opening) obviously makes 3H more attractive, relative to passing, than it would have been otherwise. > I have stated, a few times already, that if there are more than one > "non-suggested" actions, then it would be wrong for the player to > select the one which most clearly clarifies the misunderstanding to > partner. It is Law 16 that supersedes Law 20F5. If there are no L16 > restrictions on a bid, then I do believe that L20F5 restricts other, > non-suggested bids. Herman uses the DWS, eschewing the normal disclosure protocol, to set himself up in a position where it is 100% clear that he will maximize his expected result by bidding 3H, then argues that he is obligated to bid 3H by citing prececent (or regulation, your RA may vary) based on non-DWS principles! He not only finds a legal obligation in L20F5 that few others see, but cleverly "weights" it arbitrarily relative to other laws for his convenience. When it works better for him to follow the same law (or precedent, or regulation) as the rest of us, that obligation manages to "outweigh" L20F5; when it works better for him to break it, it doesn't. > Does that solve your problem? I don't have a problem; it is not my reputation that is in danger here. It would go an awfully long way towards solving Herman's problem, however, if he could show us a single example in which his beloved DWS requires him to take some action that would patently be to his disadvantage. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 11 16:56:19 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:56:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing about the misunderstanding? In-Reply-To: <47AECEB6.1060208@skynet.be> References: <47AC2213.10802@skynet.be> <000001c86aa8$34737150$9d5a53f0$@com> <47AECEB6.1060208@skynet.be> Message-ID: <79FDC51B-83E4-476F-A915-041BFE3BCE0B@starpower.net> On Feb 10, 2008, at 5:15 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > David Burn wrote: > >> I am sure you didn't mean to do so, Herman, but you have concocted >> a case >> that shows very clearly what some of us have been telling you for >> some time. >> The dWS is a licence to cheat. Not that you personally are a cheat >> - I know >> you to be an honourable and intelligent man, a diligent worker for >> the game >> in a legal capacity, and a thoroughly nice fellow into the >> bargain. But the >> dWS in the hands of hoi polloi is high pollution. > > OK, I apologise for my rash response to the earlier message. > > What makes you think that at Sven's table there could not be seated > (instead, I emphasise) a cheat who has never heard of DWS, but who > explains 5Di as "one ace" nevertheless? If the player wants to cheat, > then he will. So even Herman recognizes that "a cheat who has never heard of DWS" but "wants to cheat" will invent the DWS on the spot! Need we then discuss the DWS any further? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Feb 11 17:15:04 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:15:04 -0600 Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing about the misunderstanding? In-Reply-To: <79FDC51B-83E4-476F-A915-041BFE3BCE0B@starpower.net> References: <47AC2213.10802@skynet.be> <000001c86aa8$34737150$9d5a53f0$@com> <47AECEB6.1060208@skynet.be> <79FDC51B-83E4-476F-A915-041BFE3BCE0B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802110815v3a36f36dmeb738a1086162f95@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 11, 2008 9:56 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > On Feb 10, 2008, at 5:15 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > David Burn wrote: > > > >> I am sure you didn't mean to do so, Herman, but you have concocted > >> a case > >> that shows very clearly what some of us have been telling you for > >> some time. > >> The dWS is a licence to cheat. Not that you personally are a cheat > >> - I know > >> you to be an honourable and intelligent man, a diligent worker for > >> the game > >> in a legal capacity, and a thoroughly nice fellow into the > >> bargain. But the > >> dWS in the hands of hoi polloi is high pollution. > > > > OK, I apologise for my rash response to the earlier message. > > > > What makes you think that at Sven's table there could not be seated > > (instead, I emphasise) a cheat who has never heard of DWS, but who > > explains 5Di as "one ace" nevertheless? If the player wants to cheat, > > then he will. > > So even Herman recognizes that "a cheat who has never heard of DWS" > but "wants to cheat" will invent the DWS on the spot! Need we then > discuss the DWS any further? > You misrepresent Herman. He never said that DWS was the only way to cheat. Quite the contrary. He has said several times that it is easier to cheat with the MS than with the DWS, becuase it is easier for use of UI to go undetected than for continuation of MI to go undetected. If your primary goal is to make cheating more difficult, switch to the DWS. Jerry Fusselman From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 17:18:29 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:18:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <055c01c86cb8$3a757e60$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be><042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be><08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00B97.6080706@skynet.be><03ef01c86ca4$83eb9570$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B04F25.7000804@skynet.be> <055c01c86cb8$3a757e60$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B07555.5040500@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> >> No Stefanie, I mean that it is true in the sense that, with MS, a >> "lazy" opponent gets a benefit over an "active" one, and a "devious" >> opponent (who always asks questions) gets a benefit over a "normal" >> one (who only asks questions in order to know the answer). Do you >> agree with that? > > Sure. Remember your bloody agreements next time. No Stefanie, neither of the NS's has remembered their agreements. Some NS's will have a reasonable results, and some will have a very bad result. And the reason is that their opponent is lazy or devious, rather than normal. >> Which leaves six other advantages, each one I will gladly discuss with >> you. If at the end of that exercise, you are forced to admit that I am >> correct in all seven, I will ask you to name advantages "ONE" through >> "SEVEN" (or less) in favour of the MS. We will discuss those too. At >> the end, we will write down a list of arguments in favour of both >> schools. I won't even say "the longer list wins". But only then can we >> settle this issue. > > Why should you and I "settle this issue"? It is up to the DSC, and they have > spoken. > But the DSC does not wish to argue with me - you do. > You keep talking to me about "winning points". What possible relevance can > that have? Fine, take all the "points". Everything you say is accurate and > true, and yet I disagree. OK? Enjoy your victory. > Yes, yes, yes, very good. Yes, Herman has found the better way to play bridge. Now we'll continue playing the worse way. Is that how you wish to play this beautiful game? Or is this you and all others merely not wishing to "lose face" by admitting that for ten years they were wrong and Herman was right. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 11 17:18:24 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:18:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47B05D06.7020804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c86cc9$ba692b60$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Try 70 years. > > No, I don't. > I am fairly confident that in the earlier days, when the (current) > L20F5 was still brand new, the implications would have been more > easily understood. > > This problem first surfaced when I quite innocently answered in DWS > style to someone who posed a problem like that. David Burn and John > Probst were among those that most strongly objected to my solution. > That has never changed. > > I doubt if anyone prior to 1998 had ever imagined that there was a > problem that needed solving. There wasn't. For at least sixty years everybody knew how to behave at the bridge table when opponents asked for an explanation of a call or a method. Then came Herman around and said that the laws wasn't what everybody (including the lawmakers) understood them to be, so for the last ten years we have apparently had this dispute about dWS going. As long as Herman claims to be the only authority on the laws worth listening to and ignores every message on the subject he receives from the lawmakers there is only one remedy left: To ignore Herman and pray to God that he does not succeed in misleading ignorant players with his dWS. I only wish we could see some comments from other authorities in Belgium? Do they keep silent for peace in the house? Sven From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 17:20:10 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:20:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <058101c86cbd$ded68a80$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be><047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AECAF7.6040300@skynet.be><08c601c86bed$94ae4810$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00CF2.60004@skynet.be><037701c86c9c$0d436e00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03763.9070709@skynet.be><040901c86ca7$81326180$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B050AB.8000101@skynet.be><055401c86cb6$f73013f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05D06.7020804@skynet.be> <058101c86cbd$ded68a80$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B075BA.5010503@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> Because I am here with good arguments. That they at least should read. >> So far, I've seen no replies to my seven arguments, other than one >> from David, who attacked all seven, but five of them with very weak, >> not-to-the point arguments. >> >> And of course your good self. >> > Everyone else is simply too bored. (And incidentally, your arguments are > rubbish and not worth taking the time to refute them.) > The final argument! After a month of careful argueing, Stefanie finds no more arguments, so she tells us: "We're bored, and we don't want to take time refuting Herman". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 17:24:58 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:24:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be> <057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B076DA.3090801@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> Did you not see the example I gave with 8 tables with the same >> bidding? My result (at table 5) was exactly the same as the one at >> table 1 (with screens) and tables 2-4 (where the question was not asked). > > Not at all. You were doubled after you revealed your misinformation. Not at all, I did not reveal the misinformation, I used DWS to keep it hidden. Tables 6-8 revealed the misinformation and were doubled. Tables 1-5 revealed nothing, West bid 5S and the TD returned it to 5D undoubled. I (the DWS one) got the same result as the tables where no question was asked. >> And one of my arguments IS that bridge with or without screens ought >> to be as closely the same as possible. > > OK. You are welcome to your opinion. No, that is not an opinion, that is an advantage. A clear one. You may not value it much, but it is an advantage. >>> I have not said that your advantage was unfair. I have said that it is >>> illegal. >>> >> Circular reasoning, Stefanie! > > Unfair and illegal are not the same thing at all. In fact, in the real world > they are often in conflict. > >> Why is DWS illegal? >> Because DWS gets an illegal advantage! >> Which is the same as saying: because DWS is illegal! > > I don't feel that the "advantage" is the main problem with the dWS, though I > know that it is the main reason for it. > > But the rest of the paragraph above is of course correct. The dWS is illegal > because the Laws are written so as not to allow it. So, yes, it is illegal > because it is illegal. > Which is not a very interesting result, is it? After a month of detailed and ever further discussion, the only thing you wish to remember is "it's illegal because we say it is?". And "DWS may well be better, but we don't care because we have cast our laws in stone and we don't want to reconsider" > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 11 17:40:06 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:40:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <05A49C93-43E1-423F-8C94-A7A72EC69717@starpower.net> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be> <7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be> <05A49C93-43E1-423F-8C94-A7A72EC69717@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47B07A66.4030908@skynet.be> Eric is getting difficult, let me see if I can parse through his meaning: Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 10, 2008, at 5:04 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Stop it, Eric, you have made a factual error here: >> >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> The prohibition found in the DWS interpretation of L20F5(a) is >>> sufficiently strong as to "outrank in the hierarchy of the laws" the >>> obligation to fully disclose one's actual agreements found in L75. >>> This justifies explaining 3D as "to play" even though that is an >>> explicit violation. >>> >>> Despite this, that same prohibition is not sufficiently strong to >>> warrant passing 3D, a perfectly legal action which would not violate >>> any other law in any way at all. >> Stop it! In the original, 3D was, in the eyes of the 2NT bidder (20+ >> hand) a transfer. That makes any action other than bidding 3He a >> "suggested action" by L16. So this is not "a perfectly legal action". > > Let's start with the "normal" action, absent any confusion, > misunderstanding, UI, or any kind of irregularity. 2NT is properly > alerted, partner bids 3D, by agreement a transfer. Here it is > clearly illegal to describe 3D as anything other than a transfer, > but, obviously, perfectly legal to pass 3D. > Yes, although rather silly, as a bid. > L16 forbids choosing an action which has been "suggested over" (i.e. > made more attractive relative to) another by UI. If a player has > been following the consensus (i.e. non-DWS) interpretation of the > laws to this point, it will always be appropriate to ignore the UI > and complete the transfer, or whatever one's action would have been. Yes, that is true. Every player must bid 3He over 3Di when partner has failed to explain 2NT as 20-21. > In that case, 3H will always be a "non-suggested" action, but it does > not follow logically that any other action would be "suggested". Well, I would think that bidding 4Di would be equally wrong. > That still requires that it have been made more attractive (or its > alternatives less attractive) by the UI. (I don't want to get > distracted by debating what calls are or are not made more attractive > by the knowledge that partner has a preference for diamonds over > clubs; save it for another thread and adjust the example to suit.) > OK, I think we agree so far. > When the DWS is in action, though, the story is very different. The > whole raison d'etre of the DWS is that the misexplanation of 3D > "immunizes" partner from any constraint on his action due to UI, > leaving him free to "wake up" to his misunderstanding upon hearing > partner's 3H bid and do his best to recover without the restrictions > that would affect a non-DWSist. OK, I would not say "whole raison d'?tre", but indeed one of the reasons for acting the way I do is to avoid giving UI to partner. > Thanks to the DWS-inspired > misexplanation, the player is now in a position where the UI he has > (that partner has misunderstood his 2NT opening) obviously makes 3H > more attractive, relative to passing, than it would have been otherwise. > Aha! this is a novel approach - I like it. >> I have stated, a few times already, that if there are more than one >> "non-suggested" actions, then it would be wrong for the player to >> select the one which most clearly clarifies the misunderstanding to >> partner. It is Law 16 that supersedes Law 20F5. If there are no L16 >> restrictions on a bid, then I do believe that L20F5 restricts other, >> non-suggested bids. > > Herman uses the DWS, eschewing the normal disclosure protocol, to set > himself up in a position where it is 100% clear that he will maximize > his expected result by bidding 3H, then argues that he is obligated > to bid 3H by citing prececent (or regulation, your RA may vary) based > on non-DWS principles! That last bit is not exactly true, but you do have a point. But on the other hand, so does a MS supporter. He first gives UI to his partner, and then adds AI (by bidding 3He) that he hopes will be strong enough to allow that partner to escape from a bad contract! If bidding 3He is based on UI (and I like the construction that says that it is) then that is true regardless of how 3Di is explained to the opponents (and to partner). If you want to rule that bidding 3He in this case breaks UI laws, then that must be the case both for the DWS adept AND the MS one! > He not only finds a legal obligation in L20F5 > that few others see, but cleverly "weights" it arbitrarily relative > to other laws for his convenience. When it works better for him to > follow the same law (or precedent, or regulation) as the rest of us, > that obligation manages to "outweigh" L20F5; when it works better for > him to break it, it doesn't. > That is not being fair. I say that one should always follow DWS principles. I don't allow players to choose when to follow it or not. The fact that I think L16 outweighs L20F5 is valid throughout. I don't sit and weigh up the arguments pro and contra before deciding how to explain 3Di - I always explain consistently. >> Does that solve your problem? > > I don't have a problem; it is not my reputation that is in danger > here. It would go an awfully long way towards solving Herman's > problem, however, if he could show us a single example in which his > beloved DWS requires him to take some action that would patently be > to his disadvantage. > How would that be possible? I have given enough arguments why the DWS gives a better result than the MS, how could I find an example where it doesn't. And what does that prove anyway? My actions are consistent, always the same. Why should they be illegal simply because they yield a better table result? The point about 3He being chosen because it clarifies things is valid though. Maybe in this example the 2NT bidder should not be bidding 3He. But that is valid regardless of how 3Di is explained. Good contribution, Eric! > > 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 Feb 11 17:42:01 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:42:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing about the misunderstanding? In-Reply-To: <79FDC51B-83E4-476F-A915-041BFE3BCE0B@starpower.net> References: <47AC2213.10802@skynet.be> <000001c86aa8$34737150$9d5a53f0$@com> <47AECEB6.1060208@skynet.be> <79FDC51B-83E4-476F-A915-041BFE3BCE0B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47B07AD9.1040800@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > So even Herman recognizes that "a cheat who has never heard of DWS" > but "wants to cheat" will invent the DWS on the spot! Need we then > discuss the DWS any further? > No he doesn't. He acts in the same manner as a DWS follower, but for totally different reasons. And his actions two minutes later will reveal what those reasons were. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 11 17:53:34 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:53:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <000701c86c1f$021a4080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000701c86c1f$021a4080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <2E1326C3-A467-4011-ACD8-90A02888E0A4@starpower.net> On Feb 10, 2008, at 2:56 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > For a definite answer to your questions we hall better await the > outcome of > the discussions currently in progress within WBFLC. > > But the main intention with the new Law 27C was (as I have > understood it) to > allow a normal contract to be reached in spite of an insufficient > bid during > the auction provided the contract should be reached without any > "assistance" > from the insufficient bid. L27C1 is pretty clear and straightforward. The WBFLC may choose to interpret it a bit differently from the most straightforward reading (as by defining "incorporates" in some looser than literal sense), but I don't think that will cause problems. It is L27C2 that is sufficiently non-specific as to require interpretation to be meaningful, as Sven suggests above. > In your case the IB "probably" shows opening strength. Say that > this is > sufficient for partner to go for a game contract. > > If South has available a legal call to replace his IB that > eventually will > allow the partnership to reach the same successful contract while > disregarding all special information no longer available from the > "opening > bid" in 1C then reaching this contract should be permissible. > > One example that was initially presented is the auction: > 1C - 1S - 1H where the IB (1H) is replaced by a negative double. > Both the IB > and the replacement call essentially show four hearts and some values. L27C2 applies when a player's replacement bid "passes the test" of L27C1, which depends entirely on the meanings of the insufficient and replacement bids. I do not anticipate problems applying L27C2 in those cases where the actual hand held by the IBer conforms the systemic "L27C1-test-passing" meaning of the replacement bid. Unfortunately, however, I see a great deal of confusion and inconsistency in the prospective jurisprudence in those cases where it does not. For starters, if a player chooses a misdescriptive call that "passes" the L27C1 test over a systemically mandated call that doesn't, do we measure the potential "assistance" relative to the latter, relative to a hypothetical auction in which there was no IB, or either way depending on "benefit of the doubt to the NOS"? Is the IBer's partner entitled to "recognize" the possibility of the IBer having chosen a deliberate misdescription over a bid that would bar him from the auction, or does taking that into account constitute potential "assistance from the IB"? How would that be affected by a regulation forbidding varying one's agreements due to an irregularity? I could go on and on. There is an awful lot of unexplored territory here, and I suspect we have yet to see the extent of it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 11 19:15:04 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:15:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 27C and mind reading the information content of the IB In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802102137r5d085474q3722f605bbc3d39b@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0802102137r5d085474q3722f605bbc3d39b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Feb 11, 2008, at 12:37 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > There is another part of law 27C that I find endlessly confusing. > Suppose North is dealer and opens 1NT. Suppose East now bids 1D, > insufficient. What is the information content? > > Did East mean to open 1D? > > Did East mean to overcall 1D thinking that 1C was what North opened? > > Did East mean to overcall 2D showing diamonds and forgot the system > over 1NT? > > Did East mean to overcall 2D showing the majors based on his > convention card? > > Did East mean to overcall 2D showing diamonds and a major based on > his partner's convention card? > > Did East think that West was the one who had opened 1NT and meant > to transfer to hearts? > > How does the director decide the information content of a mistake, > when the mistake might have happened in several different ways? > Indeed, who has agreements as to what 1D shows when it is an > overcall after 1NT? > > And how does the director decide if the information content of the > IB is the same for everyone at the table? Does he even care? > > And how does he explain the situation to East assuming law 27C > might come into play? > > Oh, and if law 27D comes into play, what are the lead penalties? > > If that's too many questions, just go with one: How does the > director decide the information content of a mistake, when the > mistake might have happened in several different ways? I don't have a problem with answering such questions by asking players what they were thinking at the time and accepting their answers as truthful. But Jerry raises a very difficult question here. What is "the information contained in the IB" [L27C1]? "Contained" where? In the mind of the bidder? In the mind of his partner? In the "balance of probabilities" given the actual system? As the IBer will know what was in his mind, while his partner won't, these will not generally be the same. Why should "the law" even care what the IBer thought he was doing when he made his IB, if the answer cannot be known by or affect the actions of anyone else at the table? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 19:27:12 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:27:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be><057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B076DA.3090801@skynet.be> Message-ID: <066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> Did you not see the example I gave with 8 tables with the same >>> bidding? My result (at table 5) was exactly the same as the one at >>> table 1 (with screens) and tables 2-4 (where the question was not >>> asked). >> >> Not at all. You were doubled after you revealed your misinformation. > > Not at all, I did not reveal the misinformation, I used DWS to keep it > hidden. Tables 6-8 revealed the misinformation and were doubled. What are you talking about? I thought tah the dWS informed the opponents of the MI during the correction period. > > Tables 1-5 revealed nothing, West bid 5S and the TD returned it to 5D > undoubled. Ah. Why in heaven's name would it be undoubled? > > I (the DWS one) got the same result as the tables where no question > was asked. Yes, against an EW who, even after seeing all the cords, couldn't work out that they should double. LOL > >>> And one of my arguments IS that bridge with or without screens ought >>> to be as closely the same as possible. >> >> OK. You are welcome to your opinion. > > No, that is not an opinion, that is an advantage. A clear one. You may > not value it much, but it is an advantage. Playing with screens solves a lot of problems. Playing "as if" there were screens may be an advantage. I do not know. I do know that it is not so just.because you say it is so! But in any case the dWS does not simulate screens. It uses UI from partner's explanations to choose a player's own explanations. It is the opposite of using screens. > >> But the rest of the paragraph above is of course correct. The dWS is >> illegal >> because the Laws are written so as not to allow it. So, yes, it is >> illegal >> because it is illegal. >> > > Which is not a very interesting result, is it? > After a month of detailed and ever further discussion, the only thing > you wish to remember is "it's illegal because we say it is?". It is good enough to guide our actions as players. > And "DWS may well be better, but we don't care because we have cast > our laws in stone and we don't want to reconsider" How much more strongly must I and others say that it is NOT better before you believe that we are telling the truth? You may not agree, but do you recognise the validity of other points of vuew? I know you are not clever, but are you not sane either? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 19:29:54 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:29:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be><042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be><08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00B97.6080706@skynet.be><03ef01c86ca4$83eb9570$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B04F25.7000804@skynet.be><055c01c86cb8$3a757e60$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B07555.5040500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <066e01c86cdc$191d1380$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> You keep talking to me about "winning points". What possible relevance >> can >> that have? Fine, take all the "points". Everything you say is accurate >> and >> true, and yet I disagree. OK? Enjoy your victory. >> > > Yes, yes, yes, very good. > > Yes, Herman has found the better way to play bridge. Now we'll > continue playing the worse way. > Is that how you wish to play this beautiful game? I give in completely, and you still twist my words? I said that you win all the "points", but that I still disagree. > Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 11 19:35:28 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:35:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be><042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be><08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B007E6.2010605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <068101c86cdc$dffcf100$0100a8c0@stefanie> SR: >> I so not have a copy of the Laws at hand. There might be a defninition of >> "suits", which defines them as hearts, spades, diamonds and clubs. Even >> if >> there is not, most bridge players I know are aware that those four >> comprise >> the suits. So this argument is specious. >> HDW: > It is not a very good argument, I agree. But I don't see why choices > should necessarily be "laid out" in the laws for them to exist. SR: As far as I know, it is the case everywhere a choice is given. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 11 19:56:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:56:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47B00B97.6080706@skynet.be> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be><042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be> <08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00B97.6080706@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2C981EEC-96CE-49D3-A3EE-57B091F84B02@starpower.net> On Feb 11, 2008, at 3:47 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> >>> Now please tell me, apart from the fact that you don't like there >>> being two acceptable courses of action, and apart from the fact that >>> you believe the laws prohibit the dws, what you find so abhorrant to >>> the DWS? >> >> I think that it is the wrong way to go. I think that the >> obligation to >> answer truthfully questions about system is fundamental to the >> game. I do >> not think that Laws should exist for the purpose of protecting >> offenders. > > Well Stefanie, that really does not answer my question. Why do you > think this is the wrong way to go? "Because I think this is the wrong > way to go". > We have talked at length about the two other sentences you write > above. As to "fundamental", I believe we have covered that one very > thoroughly. No, MI is _NOT_ the most fundamental to the game. As to > protecting offenders, as has often been shown, my offenders are no > worse off than any other offenders except those that dif their own > extra grave by handing the opponents information they are not > entitled to. > >> You should really stop this. Why do you think that anyone who not >> does agree >> with your very idiosyncratic view should provide reasons for not >> agreeing? > > Because it is easy to say "I don't agree". And my views may be > idiosyncratic (whatever you want to mean with that), but they are well > founded and internally consistent. "Idiosyncratic" describes anything associated with a single individual or small group that differs from the consensual norm, so, whether they are right or wrong, Herman's views are by definition "idiosyncratic". No, it is not a synonym for "idiotic", although in this context any such confusion might be understandable. > So if you want to continue to say > "I don't agree", without providing reasons, then YOU are the one with > the idiosyncratic views. If mine were the accepted notion, and you > would say "but I want to do it this way", then you would need to > provide reasons. Right! If Herman's were the accepted notion, Stefanie would need to provide reasons. But it isn't. So she doesn't. And if Herman's were the accepted notion, Herman could get away unchallenged with dismissing counterarguments on the basis of nothing more than "you haven't proven that to my satisfaction yet". But it isn't. So he doesn't. > But you can't. I keep asking you, and your only reply > is "because our views are the majoritary ones, and yours are > idiosyncratic". Don't you see that your only argument is "we're in the > majority"? And a very good argument it is! If Herman were to try to convince us that he has met with a group of aliens from Alpha Centauri in the kitchen of their UFO, I am sure even he would accept that he could do so only by providing some positive evidence of the encounter, not by merely repeating his story over and over while challenging us to come up with some positive evidence that it didn't happen. We would persist in refusing to believe in aliens from Alpha Centauri with kitchens in their UFOs, despite Herman's arguments, for *absolutely no other reason* beyond the fact that "'our views are the majority ones, and [his would be] idiosyncratic'". And we'd be 100% justified, and we'd be right. I'd be willing to be that the percentage of bridge players who believe the DWS to be legal and legitimate is smaller than the percentage of the population that believes we have been visited by aliens in UFOs. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 11 20:57:01 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:57:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be> <08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Feb 11, 2008, at 3:57 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> HDW: >> >>> Stop it, Eric, you have made a factual error here: >>> >>> Eric Landau wrote: >>>> The prohibition found in the DWS interpretation of L20F5(a) is >>>> sufficiently strong as to "outrank in the hierarchy of the laws" >>>> the >>>> obligation to fully disclose one's actual agreements found in L75. >>>> This justifies explaining 3D as "to play" even though that is an >>>> explicit violation. >>>> >>>> Despite this, that same prohibition is not sufficiently strong to >>>> warrant passing 3D, a perfectly legal action which would not >>>> violate >>>> any other law in any way at all. >>>> >>> Stop it! In the original, 3D was, in the eyes of the 2NT bidder (20+ >>> hand) a transfer. That makes any action other than bidding 3He a >>> "suggested action" by L16. So this is not "a perfectly legal >>> action". >>> >>> I have stated, a few times already, that if there are more than one >>> "non-suggested" actions, then it would be wrong for the player to >>> select the one which most clearly clarifies the misunderstanding to >>> partner. It is Law 16 that supersedes Law 20F5. If there are no L16 >>> restrictions on a bid, then I do believe that L20F5 restricts other, >>> non-suggested bids. >>> >>> Does that solve your problem? >> >> The "problem" of having an arbitrary hierarchy of Laws is more >> troublesome >> than just the dWS. > > Who says it's arbitrary? My hierarchy is well-founded in logic and > consistent. > > You also work off a hierarchy. You keep saying that "not lying about > agreements is fundamental to the game". Actually, Stefanie says no such thing. She says only that "not lying about agreements" is required by law, an assertion with which Herman does not disagree. > So YOU are the one that ranks L73 above L20F5. She does no such thing. She asserts that there is no need to "rank" them at all. The whole notion of one of those lawa "ranking above" or "ranking below" the other is entirely an artifact of DWS logic. The consensus position rejects the notion of "ranking" as unnecessary and the resulting "ranks" as meaningless. > I rank L73 below L20F5. > I rank L16 above L20F5. > > What do you do? And why should we call either of these arbitrary? Because they are. Any ranking is perforce arbitrary. If the majority were in fact trying to argue that Herman is wrong because "L73 ranks above L20F5" they would have given up and gone home long since, recognizing that their position is as just as arbitrary, hence no more defensible, than Herman's. But they don't, notwithstanding Herman's continued insistence on that particular straw man. They see no conflict that requires a "ranking" to resolve. They see the whole validity DWS relative to consensual practice as depending not on the particular ranking chosen, as Herman keeps insisting, but, at the more fundamental level, on the (in their view false) assertion that there is any conflict that needs to resolved by ranking. >> Please explain the mechanism by with L20F5 is discarded >> and L16 kicks in. Besides the fact that, by using it, you can >> continue to >> protect your score. > > Don't you believe that L16 ranks higher than L20F5? > If no question is asked, you are bound by L20F5. You say you would > remain quiet. Are you going to pass 3Di because bidding 3He would > "reveal that a mistake is being made". No you are not. You will also > rank L16 above L20F5. > > So why do you criticize me for making a ranking of the laws? Herman is not, as I see it, being criticized for "making a ranking" (although he may be, and has elsewhere, been criticized for failing to provide any justification for it), but rather for insisting that Stefanie (and I, and the rest of the majority here) are "making a ranking" that is different from his, when in fact her (our) argument depends on making no rankings of any kind whatsoever. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 11 21:51:05 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:51:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47B03763.9070709@skynet.be> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be><047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AECAF7.6040300@skynet.be><08c601c86bed$94ae4810$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00CF2.60004@skynet.be> <037701c86c9c$0d436e00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03763.9070709@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Feb 11, 2008, at 6:54 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > What I did say was that, if both options are acceptable, then the only > reason I can think of for a player to follow MS, is because he finds > it abhorrant to actively lie (while he doesn't find it abhorrant to > passibely lie, but that's his problem). Apparently, some people are > like this. I can think of a much better reason for a player to follow the MS: A player who follows the DWS will be seen to have broken the law that is most critical to defining one's ethical obligations, i.e. L72B2. He will lose whatever reputation he has has as an ethical player, will be labeled a cheat, will be ostracized by his ethical peers, and will be made a pariah in his former milieu. This will happen with absolutely no regard for the logical or legal merits of the DWS. It will happen whether Herman's views are, in theory, 100% right or 100% wrong or anywhere in between. It will happen without regard to whether he convinces me, or Stefanie, or anyone else except the leopard-loo-minute-writers of the WBF (whom he obviously will never convince if he can't manage to get his views past BLML, where everyone is already familiar with his case) that he is absolutely justified in every argument he makes. I would think that would be enough of a reason by itself to eschew the at-the-table advantage the DWS provides, but Herman's MMV. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 11 22:36:52 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:36:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing about the misunderstanding? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802110815v3a36f36dmeb738a1086162f95@mail.gmail.com> References: <47AC2213.10802@skynet.be> <000001c86aa8$34737150$9d5a53f0$@com> <47AECEB6.1060208@skynet.be> <79FDC51B-83E4-476F-A915-041BFE3BCE0B@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802110815v3a36f36dmeb738a1086162f95@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Feb 11, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Feb 11, 2008 9:56 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> >> On Feb 10, 2008, at 5:15 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> David Burn wrote: >>> >>>> I am sure you didn't mean to do so, Herman, but you have concocted >>>> a case >>>> that shows very clearly what some of us have been telling you for >>>> some time. >>>> The dWS is a licence to cheat. Not that you personally are a cheat >>>> - I know >>>> you to be an honourable and intelligent man, a diligent worker for >>>> the game >>>> in a legal capacity, and a thoroughly nice fellow into the >>>> bargain. But the >>>> dWS in the hands of hoi polloi is high pollution. >>> >>> OK, I apologise for my rash response to the earlier message. >>> >>> What makes you think that at Sven's table there could not be seated >>> (instead, I emphasise) a cheat who has never heard of DWS, but who >>> explains 5Di as "one ace" nevertheless? If the player wants to >>> cheat, >>> then he will. >> >> So even Herman recognizes that "a cheat who has never heard of DWS" >> but "wants to cheat" will invent the DWS on the spot! Need we then >> discuss the DWS any further? > > You misrepresent Herman. He never said that DWS was the only way to > cheat. Nor have I. Nor have I said he has. What have I misrepresented? Herman's words are right there, three paragraphs above. Am I wrong to read "what makes you think... there could not be" as an assertion that there "could be"? Am I wrong that "a cheat who explains 5D as 'one ace' nevertheless" will be giving the same explanation that a DWS follower would? Am I wrong that "if the player wants to cheat, then he will" means that if he does he is cheating? > Quite the contrary. He has said several times that it is > easier to cheat with the MS than with the DWS, becuase it is easier > for use of UI to go undetected than for continuation of MI to go > undetected. It must be a lot easier indeed to cheat with the MS, if "a cheat who has never heard of DWS" is cheating when he misdescribes his agreements but is not cheating by when he takes exactly the same action but justifies it by citing DWS principles! Just "subscribe to" the DWS and it's not cheating any more! Rather handy for the DWSists, ne? > If your primary goal is to make cheating more difficult, > switch to the DWS. If my primary goal were to make cheating more difficult, and I acted on that goal, I would break laws right and left and get myself drummed out of competitive bridge. Fortunately, the laws give priority to making the game easy and pleasant for the non-cheats over making it difficult and unpleasant for the cheats, recognizing that these goals may conflict, and, as my personal view is that they are right to do so, I am not conflicted on this point. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 12 00:42:33 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:42:33 +1100 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael, Thursday 14th November 2002: >But that MI is absolutely of no consequence, since you are >accurately describing the intention of your partner. The >actual system is of no interest to opponents at all, since that >was not what partner was saying, and you know it! Grattan Endicott, Friday 15th November 2002: +=+ Please consider this: Text of a letter from Edgar Kaplan to Mr. Krishnan, Oct 8, 1989. Dear Mr. Krishnan, Here is the explanation I promised you of that ruling in Perth. The facts are these. The eventual declarer explained to her screenmate, who would be the opening leader, that her response to Exclusion Blackwood promised one Ace;declarer did indeed hold one ace, but her Blackwood response, as correctly explained on the other side of the screen actually promised zero (or three) aces by partnership agreement. Slam was bid and opening leader chose not to lead a singleton, which would have defeated the contract. It is easy and tempting to reason that nothing was wrong - after all, opening leader was correctly told the number of aces in declarer's hand, so what harm was done? That reasoning may be common sense but it ignores bridge law. Common morality may require declarer to reveal, without deceit, what she holds, but bridge law requires something quite different: declarer must give her opponent an accurate explanation of the partnership agreement. She didn't, of course - it is inevitable that a player who forgets her agreement behind a screen will break the law by giving a mistaken explanation. She will be morally blameless, since she explains in all honesty and good faith, but what the law demands of the explanation is not good faith, the law demands accuracy. Declarer's inaccurate though honest explanation was, therefore, an infraction of law. That is enough to determine the director's ruling, since information about aces obviously might affect the decision whether or not to lead a singleton. The Committee's ruling is determined by its answer to this entirely unrealistic hypothetical question: how likely is it that the opening lead would have been different had the opening leader been given the accurate explanation (no aces) instead of the honest and inaccurate explanation (one ace)? The Committee in Perth was far from convinced that the one-ace explanation would have induced the singleton lead (had it been convinced, it would have adjusted the score to six down one), but it judged the change of lead to be a small but reasonable possibility. Accordingly the Committee awarded the adjusted score of 3 imps, "average plus" to the innocent team. Note that the strange circumstances of this case arose only because of a screen procedure, where a player explains her own bid: thus, the absurd requirement that she give an accurate explanation of an agreement she has honestly forgotten. The closest analogy in normal bridge, without screens, is the position in which you know that your partner has made a mistaken bid. Suppose he opens four clubs, which is supposed to show a strong heart opening with at least a semi-solid suit, when you hold S. A x x H. KQJ x x D. J 10 x.x.x C void. It is obvious from your cards that he has forgotten the agreement, so you intend to pass him right there. First though, your right-hand opponent asks about the four clubs bid. Your explanation must be "Strong four hearts opening with a very good heart suit". That is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe your partnership agreement, not your partner's hand. That legal obligation remains the same when, behind screens, you must explain your own action. I hope this now makes at least a little sense to you. Sincerely, Edgar Kaplan. Oct. 8th 1989. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 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 john at asimere.com Tue Feb 12 02:05:51 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:05:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question References: <000a01c86be7$f795b4a0$d3cd403e@Mildred><200802101821.AA12396@geller204.nifty.com> <47B0145E.3060403@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <008701c86d13$69e1efc0$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 9:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question > Fro TNLB, The WBFLC had the chance to make this law simpler and fairer, > along the lines suggested by David Burn. > > Instead, by leaving both sides with options, the WBFLC > - maximise unauthorised information and > - increase opportunities for special agreements contingent on the > option chosen. > > The new L27 opens up more cans of worms :( I suppose, at least, it has > been made consistent with all the other laws that encourage their own > infraction :) The new law gives a further boost to those who prepared to > economise on the truth -- here, about about information that a bid > includes. > > It would contravene so-called "equity" principles but it would be much > more simple and just to penalise the insufficient bid itself. I have no problem with the Burn doctrine. "take them out and shoot them", but sadly the law doesn't say this. John > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Tue Feb 12 02:08:07 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:08:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <000c01c86c48$c27d3610$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><026201c86c49$ff37ab70$0100a8c0@stefanie><2a1c3a560802101906s1553fff9t5ea853990b540dac@mail.gmail.com> <02d801c86c5f$a0ce32a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> Stef said: > > This is not to say that I believe, in theory, that this law is bad. I have > not yet formed an opinion one way or another, but am leaning slightly in > favour. Still, I shudder to think of how it will be implemented. Me too, I think it'll take us a few years to get it under control. In the interim, mayhem :) John > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Tue Feb 12 02:09:59 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:09:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS References: <000b01c86c47$76c551e0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <00b501c86d13$fd4d31c0$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 12:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS > Had the submission below come from Herman I would just have ignored it, > but > it worries me when such issues come from other sources. > > There is an established principle at least 75 years old that a partnership > shall always give their opponents full and correct description of any of > their methods. This is only crossed by the rule that a player may not > inform > his partner that he (the partner) has (in the player's opinion) given > incorrect information to opponents. Various laws for bridge have expressed > this principle essentially unchanged since 1932. > > Law 20F5 specifically states that correction of a partner's incorrect > explanation must not be given until the advantage to partner from > receiving > the corresponding unauthorized information is negligible. And the > safeguard > is that opponents are entitled to redress for any damage suffered. This > law > may seem to be in conflict with the main principle quoted above, but all > requests for clarification by WBFLC has to my knowledge been answered by > unambiguously confirming the main principle that giving correct answers to > whatever question asked takes precedence over any seeming prohibition > against giving partner UI. > > So anybody still claiming that Law 20F5 prevents a player who has heard > his > partner giving incorrect information to opponents from giving correct but > conflicting information is deliberately acting against what should be his > better knowledge. > > No player should ever worry about UI communicated to his partner when > answering questions from opponents. Such UI is partner's worry and nobody > else's. > > The activities by Herman who I understand is a senior officer in the > Belgian > NBOs are extremely dangerous just because of his position, as they can > mislead other players to deliberately violate some of the most essential > laws for bridge. Such players may claim ignorance of the laws, but that > ignorance is inexcusable and unforgivable, and Herman should really be the > first person to teach players the laws rather than promoting his own > conflicting ideas to them. Thank you, Sven. Amen. John. > > Sven > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 12 03:19:06 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:19:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>I think Victorians might pass :) >> >>Tony (Sydney) >+=+ And Edwardians? +=+ Swiss Teams with imps converted to WBF VPs (including difference of 0-10 = 0 imps) Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1S 3H(1) Pass 4H Pass(2) Pass 4S Pass Pass 5H Pass Pass Dble Pass Pass Pass (1) Weak jump overcall (2) Break in tempo Result: 5Hx by East, +500 to North-South The complete deal (note that North's hesitation was not a deceptive infraction of the 2007 Law 73F - North had full values for his pause): AK987 --- AT432 KQT QT J5 A974 KJT86532 KJ86 5 AJ7 62 6432 Q Q97 98543 The Director adjusts the score to 4H (not doubled) by East, +100 to North-South. North-South elect to appeal. As the Appeals Committee, what ruling would you make? As the Appeals Committee, what other ruling would you consider making? 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 Tue Feb 12 04:47:07 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:47:07 +0900 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question In-Reply-To: <000701c86c1f$021a4080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000701c86c1f$021a4080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <200802120347.AA12410@geller204.nifty.com> The more we think about L27C1/2 the more we can see what a can of worms has been opened. Just to refresh your memory, here's what L27 says. ************************************************************ 1. If the insufficient bid is replaced by a bid at the lowest legal level or double or pass that incorporates the information contained in the insufficient bid, the auction and play continues with the information arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides (Law 16D does not apply), but see 2 following. 2. At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he judges that without assistance from the insufficient bid the contract could well have been different*, and the non-offending side is damaged. ************************************************************ As innumerable discussions have pointed out "incorporates" can be interpreted in different ways. 2 eamples: EX1: W N E S 1H 1C* *replaced by 2C when insufficent bid is pointed out. Problem: 1C is 3(2)+ and opening bid strength. But 2C is a 5+ suit (almost always) but need not be opening bid strength and almost certainly is less than 20pts maximum (whereas in the case of the replaced IB it may be 20pts) Question: Should the floor director allow this substitution or not? Under what criteria? EX2: W N E S 1S 1H* *replaced by 2H when insufficent bid is pointed out. Problem: 1C is 5+ and opening bid strength (about 10-20pts). But a "real" 2H overcall is less than (say) 16 pts and with a stronger hand North would double. However, under the above circumstances South knows that 2H may be up to 20 pts. Question: Should the floor director allow this substitution or not? Under what criteria? EX3: W N E S P 1C 1S 1H* Scenario a: *replaced by NEGx when insufficent bid is pointed out. Scenario b: *replaced by 2H when insufficent bid is pointed out. Problem: 1H is 4+ and 6+ points. But 2H (scenario b) is 5+ and 10+ points. Whereas neg x (scenario a) is 4+ hearts with 6-9 points, but 4 hearts (exactly) with 10+ points. Question: Should the floor director allow either of these substitutions or not? Under what criteria? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I'm sure other people can come up with lots of better scenarios. But just thinking about the above 3 scenarios I'm beginning to think that the new laws have opened up a real can of worms. I know it would involve a certain amount of loss of face for all concerned, but is there anyone besides me who thinks it might be better to go back to the old laws with regard to insufficient bids, and spend the next 10 years further researching this question. -Bob . Sven Pran writes: >For a definite answer to your questions we hall better await the outcome of >the discussions currently in progress within WBFLC. > >But the main intention with the new Law 27C was (as I have understood it) to >allow a normal contract to be reached in spite of an insufficient bid during >the auction provided the contract should be reached without any "assistance" >from the insufficient bid. > >In your case the IB "probably" shows opening strength. Say that this is >sufficient for partner to go for a game contract. > >If South has available a legal call to replace his IB that eventually will >allow the partnership to reach the same successful contract while >disregarding all special information no longer available from the "opening >bid" in 1C then reaching this contract should be permissible. > >One example that was initially presented is the auction: >1C - 1S - 1H where the IB (1H) is replaced by a negative double. Both the IB >and the replacement call essentially show four hearts and some values. > >Regards Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] >> On Behalf Of Robert Geller >> Sent: 10. februar 2008 19:21 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question >> >> Sorry, my bad. I wasn't thinking or writing clearly. What I should >> have >> said was, if we change the circumstances of the actually example in >> several ways it can (perhaps) serve as the basis for a hypothetical >> question. Please delete the previous example and let me start over >> again. >> >> >> IMPS, Dlr E, None Vul >> South >> S Kxxx >> H KTxx >> D x >> CAQxx >> Q1. Let's look only at the South cards for a moment, >> Suppose East opens 1D and, not having seen it, South then makes >> an insufficient bid of 1C, not accepted by West. If he then changes this >> to 2C, should the 2C call be regarded as "incorporating the information >> contained in the insufficient bid" (1C)? >> >> If the answer to Q1 is no presumably 27D1 then applies and we can stop >> here. >> But if the answer to Q1 is yes then presumably the auction is allowed >> to continue for the moment. >> >> Suppose the North hand is >> North >> S AQx >> H 98x >> D KTxx >> C K9x. >> Q2a. If West passes, North bids 2NT and South raises to 3NT, which happens >> to make, should this result be rectified under 27C2? Does the answer >> depend on the quality of the EW defense? >> >> Q2b. If West passes, North bids 2NT and South passes, and 2NT happens >> to make, should this result be rectified under 27C2? Does the answer >> depend on the quality of the EW defense? >> >> Q2c. If West passes, North bids 3NT and South passes, and 3NT happens >> to make, should this result be rectified under 27C2? Does the answer >> depend on the quality of the EW defense? >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- >> 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 05:21:20 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:21:20 +1300 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> On 12/02/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >>I think Victorians might pass :) > >> > >>Tony (Sydney) > > >+=+ And Edwardians? +=+ > > Swiss Teams with imps converted to WBF VPs > (including difference of 0-10 = 0 imps) > > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1S 3H(1) Pass > 4H Pass(2) Pass 4S > Pass Pass 5H Pass > Pass Dble Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Weak jump overcall > (2) Break in tempo > > Result: 5Hx by East, +500 to North-South > > The complete deal (note that North's > hesitation was not a deceptive infraction of > the 2007 Law 73F - North had full values for > his pause): > > AK987 > --- > AT432 > KQT > QT J5 > A974 KJT86532 > KJ86 5 > AJ7 62 > 6432 > Q > Q97 > 98543 > > The Director adjusts the score to 4H (not > doubled) by East, +100 to North-South. > > North-South elect to appeal. > > As the Appeals Committee, what ruling would > you make? > As the Appeals Committee, what other ruling > would you consider making? > My view is that the slow pass does not suggest bidding. Rather it makes it more likely that partner has some extra values with some heart length which makes it more likely that the 4H contract will fail. Therefore I would allow the 4S bid. I did an interesting simulation that I posted on the forums at Bridge Base on this hand. Here is the relevant piece from that forum: "I just had a thought to do an interesting pair of simulations since I am fond of simulations. On the condition that partner had a fairly normal 1S opening but not extra values and shortish hearts suitable for some action over 4H with the opponents having a heart pre-empt and either great heart support of significant values. The second simulation was similar but you knew that partner had extra values (15+). In the first simulation bidding 4S gained around 5 IMPs on average and in the second bidding 4S lost 3 IMPs on average. This seems to clearly indicated that bidding 4S is right without additional information and that it is not indicated by the extra information that partner has extra values. Here are the exact conditions I put in the simulation: Partner has five or six spades (he is more likely to do something himself with more); Partner has 12-19 hcp (11-18 if a six-card suit); Partner either has three or more hearts or fewer than 16 hcp. RHO has 7 hearts; RHO has 6-9 hcp; LHO has 3+ hearts or 13+ hcp; We have the actual hand given. In the second simulation everything was the same except that Partner had shown (by the hesitation) say 15+ hcp but not a hand short in hearts that might have made a takeout double. I'd be happy to vary these parameters to see how they change the outcome." Wayne From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Feb 13 01:43:32 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:43:32 -0800 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47B03763.9070709@skynet.be> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be> <014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be> <047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AECAF7.6040300@skynet.be> <08c601c86bed$94ae4810$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00CF2.60004@skynet.be> <037701c86c9c$0d436e00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03763.9070709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080212164208.0c64f4b8@mail.optusnet.com.au> My wife sometimes sees my inbox. She says "who is this Herman De Wael lunatic". He keeps sending the same message 50 times. Someone should tell him how to use a computer! Regards, Tony (Sydney) At 03:54 AM 11/02/2008, you wrote: >Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > > > Would you please answer my question, which is, why would anyone find it > > abhorrent to follow the Laws as they are written? > > > >I am not one to shirk responsability, so when I twice cannot answer a >question, it is because the question does not make sense. > >Indeed, why should anyone find it abhorrant to follow the laws as >written? Who says I believe they do? > >What I did say was that, if both options are acceptable, then the only >reason I can think of for a player to follow MS, is because he finds >it abhorrant to actively lie (while he doesn't find it abhorrant to >passibely lie, but that's his problem). Apparently, some people are >like this. >This saying of mine came as a reply to your question what I would >advise people to do. That particular question only makes sense when >two options are acceptable. So your question as to following the >(single) law is in a different universe. Of course if the WBF >legislate that DWS is the only option (not my wish, I repeat) then >following the DWS should be what people should and they should not >believe it abhorrant. > >I have answered your question in full, out of politeness. I still >believe your question is senseless since it takes some contrasting >things from two different universes. OK? > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 12 07:05:23 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:05:23 +1100 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Edgar Kaplan (October 1989): >Declarer's inaccurate though honest explanation was, therefore, an >infraction of law. That is enough to determine the director's ruling, >since information about aces obviously might affect the decision >whether or not to lead a singleton. Richard Hills: Edgar writing "enough to determine the director's ruling" reflects his concept that the Director should automatically rule in favour of the non- offending side, even if such a ruling is incorrect. This concept of an autopilot Director passing the parcel to the Appeals Committee has now been superseded. WBF Code of Practice (revised November 2003): "The expectation is that each appeal committee will presume initially that the Director's ruling is correct. The ruling is overturned only on the basis of evidence presented. For this reason the Director must inform the committee if a ruling in favour of the non-offending side reflects a margin of doubt that continues to exist after the appropriate consultation procedure." Introduction to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge: "Directors have been given considerably more discretionary powers. There are fewer automatic penalties: they are replaced by the concept of rectification of a situation that unfortunately has arisen." * * * Edgar Kaplan (October 1989): >The Committee in Perth was far from convinced that the one-ace >explanation would have induced the singleton lead (had it been >convinced, it would have adjusted the score to six down one), but it >judged the change of lead to be a small but reasonable possibility. >Accordingly the Committee awarded the adjusted score of 3 imps, >"average plus" to the innocent team. Richard Hills: Nowadays this Venice Cup ruling would be resolved by a weighted score reflecting the assessed small possibility of a singleton lead on correct information. 1997 Law 12C3 / 2007 Law 12C1(c). Under the 1997 Lawbook it was arguably illegal to award Ave+/Ave- when a result had been obtained at the table. But the 2007 Lawbook gives TDs and ACs some scope to cut a Gordian knot. 2007 Law 12C1(d): "If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score." * * * Edgar Kaplan (October 1989): >The closest analogy in normal bridge, without screens, is the position >in which you know that your partner has made a mistaken bid. Suppose >he opens four clubs, which is supposed to show a strong heart opening >with at least a semi-solid suit, when you hold S Axx H KQJxx D J10xxx >C void. It is obvious from your cards that he has forgotten the >agreement, so you intend to pass him right there. First though, your >right-hand opponent asks about the four clubs bid. Your explanation >must be "Strong four hearts opening with a very good heart suit". That >is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe your partnership >agreement, not your partner's hand. Richard Hills: Just as Helmuth spoke for Boskone, so Kaplan spoke for the WBF LC. So, any statement by Edgar which has never been officially revised is still an official interpretation of Law: "That is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe your partnership agreement, not your partner's hand." 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 Tue Feb 12 09:54:15 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:54:15 +0900 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> Message-ID: <200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com> John Probst writes: >Me too, I think it'll take us a few years to get it under control. In the >interim, mayhem :) John Yes, how is it actually supposed to work at the table? Example: North bids 1C, East bids 1S, South bids 1H, West calls the director. The director confirms that West doesn't accept the IB, and tells East that 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 continue with the information arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides, but that at the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he judges that without assistance from the insufficient bid the contract could well have been different, and the non-offending side is damaged. We can imagine poor East having a hard time trying to understand exactly what is mean by this. But (as several earlier mails in this and other threads have pointed out), what is poor East to do? How is East to know before replacing the IB by a new call whether or not his new call will be regarded as incorporating the information contained in the insufficient bid? If he goes off to a corner with the director maybe the two of them can hash it out, but if the discussion is held in front of west UI will be transmitted, and maybe if East just replaces the IB by another call it won't be approved. And is the director supposed to make an on-the-spot adjucation "incorporation or no incorporation?" BEFORE deciding whether or not to let the auction and play to proceed normally? If the answer is no, what happens? What a real can of worms? Who were the guys who dreamed all this up in the first place? Did they actually think all these things through? -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 12 10:00:28 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:00:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47B1602C.5030508@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1S 3H(1) Pass > 4H Pass(2) Pass 4S > Pass Pass 5H Pass > Pass Dble Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Weak jump overcall > (2) Break in tempo > > Result: 5Hx by East, +500 to North-South > > The complete deal (note that North's > hesitation was not a deceptive infraction of > the 2007 Law 73F - North had full values for > his pause): > > AK987 > --- > AT432 > KQT > QT J5 > A974 KJT86532 > KJ86 5 > AJ7 62 > 6432 > Q > Q97 > 98543 > > The Director adjusts the score to 4H (not > doubled) by East, +100 to North-South. > > North-South elect to appeal. > > As the Appeals Committee, what ruling would > you make? > As the Appeals Committee, what other ruling > would you consider making? > > I'd rule no LA to bidding 4S, given the high number of total tricks (usually 19). As I said before (I mean, before I knew what was going on), the reason for passing 3H is the hope that they won't bid their game. When this fails to materialize, you bid 4S anyway. This is not "clever" reasoning (disallowed after the tempo), but rather a planned action, planned before the tempo. No adjustment. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 12 10:00:28 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:00:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47B1602C.5030508@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1S 3H(1) Pass > 4H Pass(2) Pass 4S > Pass Pass 5H Pass > Pass Dble Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Weak jump overcall > (2) Break in tempo > > Result: 5Hx by East, +500 to North-South > > The complete deal (note that North's > hesitation was not a deceptive infraction of > the 2007 Law 73F - North had full values for > his pause): > > AK987 > --- > AT432 > KQT > QT J5 > A974 KJT86532 > KJ86 5 > AJ7 62 > 6432 > Q > Q97 > 98543 > > The Director adjusts the score to 4H (not > doubled) by East, +100 to North-South. > > North-South elect to appeal. > > As the Appeals Committee, what ruling would > you make? > As the Appeals Committee, what other ruling > would you consider making? > > I'd rule no LA to bidding 4S, given the high number of total tricks (usually 19). As I said before (I mean, before I knew what was going on), the reason for passing 3H is the hope that they won't bid their game. When this fails to materialize, you bid 4S anyway. This is not "clever" reasoning (disallowed after the tempo), but rather a planned action, planned before the tempo. No adjustment. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 12 11:18:20 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:18:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <068101c86cdc$dffcf100$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be><042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be><08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B007E6.2010605@skynet.be> <068101c86cdc$dffcf100$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B1726C.2050702@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > SR: > >>> I so not have a copy of the Laws at hand. There might be a defninition of >>> "suits", which defines them as hearts, spades, diamonds and clubs. Even >>> if >>> there is not, most bridge players I know are aware that those four >>> comprise >>> the suits. So this argument is specious. >>> > > HDW: > >> It is not a very good argument, I agree. But I don't see why choices >> should necessarily be "laid out" in the laws for them to exist. > > SR: > > As far as I know, it is the case everywhere a choice is given. > Once again Stefanie, you make a logical error. You say that my interpretation makes for a choice, and that that choice is not in the lawbook. I ask why a choice should be in the lawbook. You reply that all choices are in the lawbook. That is not an answer to my question. Are all the choices in the lawbook? I don't know. Nowhere is it said that if there are no choices mentioned in the lawbook, there can be only one option. You draw conclusions where none can be taken. My counterexample of some choices not mentioned in the lawbook was probably a very lame one, but it did prove one thing: Not all choices are mentioned in the lawbook at the place you would expect them to be. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 12 11:26:44 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:26:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <2C981EEC-96CE-49D3-A3EE-57B091F84B02@starpower.net> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be><042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be> <08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00B97.6080706@skynet.be> <2C981EEC-96CE-49D3-A3EE-57B091F84B02@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47B17464.9040903@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > >> But you can't. I keep asking you, and your only reply >> is "because our views are the majoritary ones, and yours are >> idiosyncratic". Don't you see that your only argument is "we're in the >> majority"? > > And a very good argument it is! No it's not. When Galileo said "and yet she moves", the majority was about 1 billion to one. And yet Galileo was right. The least a majority could be doing would be to listen. I don't see a lot of that here. And when some people do listen, like Stefanie (thanks for that), at the end, they remain unconvinced and rather than change their minds, say "we're in the majority". If it soothes your egos so much to need an excuse for not changing your minds, that one will do. It's the only argument you have. > If Herman were to try to convince us > that he has met with a group of aliens from Alpha Centauri in the > kitchen of their UFO, I am sure even he would accept that he could do > so only by providing some positive evidence of the encounter, not by > merely repeating his story over and over while challenging us to come > up with some positive evidence that it didn't happen. Ah, what a load of bullshit. In terms of proof for DWS, I have come up with a live alien in a cage! > We would > persist in refusing to believe in aliens from Alpha Centauri with > kitchens in their UFOs, despite Herman's arguments, for *absolutely > no other reason* beyond the fact that "'our views are the majority > ones, and [his would be] idiosyncratic'". And we'd be 100% > justified, and we'd be right. > And if I come up with a live alien? You still bury your hands in the sand and shout "we all know there is no life on Alpha Centauri. But don't get me started on life in the universe. I can go on longer about that (there is no other intelligent in our galaxy - IMO) than about DWS. But the way you guys are acting, you'd start believing in aliens simply because it's me that says there aren't any. > I'd be willing to be that the percentage of bridge players who > believe the DWS to be legal and legitimate is smaller than the > percentage of the population that believes we have been visited by > aliens in UFOs. > And the percentage of people who believed the earth moved around the sun in Galileo's day was even less than than. But anyway, it would be a bet you would lose. When I tell my friends at the club that DWS is the correct way to handle these things (I always add that this view is not world-wide), they accept that and say they will act thusly in future. It is only on blml that my views are treated with the disrespect that you believe to be normal and acceptable behaviour between people who are here to discuss how the laws are. > > Eric Landau -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 12 11:31:53 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:31:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <000001c86cc9$ba692b60$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c86cc9$ba692b60$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47B17599.7080804@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >> I doubt if anyone prior to 1998 had ever imagined that there was a >> problem that needed solving. > > There wasn't. > > For at least sixty years everybody knew how to behave at the bridge table > when opponents asked for an explanation of a call or a method. > No they didn't. The question arose on blml in 1998, only two years after the start of this forum. The question has come up a few times since (I never started it). That means that directors and players in general recognise there is a problem and they don't know how to solve it. You guys in here have hurled so much shouting and abuse against me that some people have started believing you that mine is a heresy that needs sstamping out. This whole problem is due to a few hotheads on blml who have tried to shut me up. > Then came Herman around and said that the laws wasn't what everybody > (including the lawmakers) understood them to be, so for the last ten years > we have apparently had this dispute about dWS going. > Apparently? If this were simple, would it last this long? > As long as Herman claims to be the only authority on the laws worth > listening to and ignores every message on the subject he receives from the > lawmakers there is only one remedy left: I do not claim to be the only authority. I grant such status to a few others on this list, although probably not to every Dick, Sven and Harry who do not come up with arguments other than "it's like this because it's been like this for 70 years". > To ignore Herman and pray to God > that he does not succeed in misleading ignorant players with his dWS. > Yes, ignore what you cannot argue against. Ostriches, the lot of you. > I only wish we could see some comments from other authorities in Belgium? Do > they keep silent for peace in the house? > I don't know if you've counted, but among the supporters for DWS, there was one other Belgian? > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 12 11:32:39 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:32:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be><047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AECAF7.6040300@skynet.be><08c601c86bed$94ae4810$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00CF2.60004@skynet.be> <037701c86c9c$0d436e00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03763.9070709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47B175C7.8070809@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 11, 2008, at 6:54 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> What I did say was that, if both options are acceptable, then the only >> reason I can think of for a player to follow MS, is because he finds >> it abhorrant to actively lie (while he doesn't find it abhorrant to >> passibely lie, but that's his problem). Apparently, some people are >> like this. > > I can think of a much better reason for a player to follow the MS: A > player who follows the DWS will be seen to have broken the law that > is most critical to defining one's ethical obligations, i.e. L72B2. > He will lose whatever reputation he has has as an ethical player, > will be labeled a cheat, will be ostracized by his ethical peers, and > will be made a pariah in his former milieu. > Whereas of course a player who wilfully gives UI to his partner is seen by all to be a very ethical player! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 12 11:34:38 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:34:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be><057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B076DA.3090801@skynet.be> <066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B1763E.3010105@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>>> Did you not see the example I gave with 8 tables with the same >>>> bidding? My result (at table 5) was exactly the same as the one at >>>> table 1 (with screens) and tables 2-4 (where the question was not >>>> asked). >>> Not at all. You were doubled after you revealed your misinformation. >> Not at all, I did not reveal the misinformation, I used DWS to keep it >> hidden. Tables 6-8 revealed the misinformation and were doubled. > > What are you talking about? I thought tah the dWS informed the opponents of > the MI during the correction period. Yes, and then what happens? The TD arrives and tells the last passer that he can correct his call. The contract of 5Sp is bid and will be played. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 12 11:41:02 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:41:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be><057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B076DA.3090801@skynet.be> <066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B177BE.6050508@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > What are you talking about? I thought tah the dWS informed the opponents of > the MI during the correction period. >> Tables 1-5 revealed nothing, West bid 5S and the TD returned it to 5D >> undoubled. > > Ah. Why in heaven's name would it be undoubled? AHA, at last. Did you read the introduction to that thread, or were you just jumping in where you thought you could challenge me? My question was: what would the score correction be? I believe the majority of directors would rule it back to 5Di undoubled. If that is the correct ruling, then my actions in no way benefit my side. I will get the same ruling as at tabled 1-4, and tables 6-8 will get a worse score because of their own doing. If you believe that the score correction should be 5Di doubled, you belong to what I would like to start calling the Kooijman School. That school is also a consistent way of treating this problem, and I rate it far superior to the MS. Sadly, that school certainly has no majority in the WBFLC. Now Stefanie, will you do me the favour of taking back my original post in the thread "Are opponents entitled to knowing about the misunderstanding", and answer the questions I pose in that one. You will then understand that maybe your basic grasp of how the EBLAC deals with "the knowledge about misunderstandings" is deficient. Believe me, the EBL AC would rule table : "5Di undoubled". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 12 11:48:40 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:48:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be> <08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47B17988.5090006@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> You also work off a hierarchy. You keep saying that "not lying about >> agreements is fundamental to the game". > > Actually, Stefanie says no such thing. She says only that "not lying > about agreements" is required by law, an assertion with which Herman > does not disagree. > Indeed I don't. >> So YOU are the one that ranks L73 above L20F5. > > She does no such thing. She asserts that there is no need to "rank" > them at all. The whole notion of one of those lawa "ranking above" > or "ranking below" the other is entirely an artifact of DWS logic. > The consensus position rejects the notion of "ranking" as unnecessary > and the resulting "ranks" as meaningless. > But how then do you explain your breaking of L20F5. Despite what Grattan says, that law is still being broken. And even when Grattan gets his interpretation, that interpretation simply means that the WBF rate L73 stronger than L20F5. You ask me why I prefer to break L73 over L20F5, and I reply that I rank L20F5 stronger than L73. If you prefer to interpret that following L73 does not "break" L20F5, it means that you rank L73 higher than L20F5. This is symmetrical!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> I rank L73 below L20F5. >> I rank L16 above L20F5. >> >> What do you do? And why should we call either of these arbitrary? > > Because they are. Any ranking is perforce arbitrary. Of course they are. Yours as well as mine. > If the > majority were in fact trying to argue that Herman is wrong because > "L73 ranks above L20F5" they would have given up and gone home long > since, recognizing that their position is as just as arbitrary, hence > no more defensible, than Herman's. But they don't, Yes they do. > notwithstanding > Herman's continued insistence on that particular straw man. They see > no conflict that requires a "ranking" to resolve. Yes they do see a conflict, hence Grattan's text interpreting L20F5. It's just a different way of expressing a "ranking". A way that is not open to me, as I am not the secretary of the WBFLC. > They see the whole > validity DWS relative to consensual practice as depending not on the > particular ranking chosen, as Herman keeps insisting, but, at the > more fundamental level, on the (in their view false) assertion that > there is any conflict that needs to resolved by ranking. > Words words words. You are saying exactly the same thing as I am, but with words so different you believe you can refute what I am saying. >>> Please explain the mechanism by with L20F5 is discarded >>> and L16 kicks in. Besides the fact that, by using it, you can >>> continue to >>> protect your score. >> Don't you believe that L16 ranks higher than L20F5? >> If no question is asked, you are bound by L20F5. You say you would >> remain quiet. Are you going to pass 3Di because bidding 3He would >> "reveal that a mistake is being made". No you are not. You will also >> rank L16 above L20F5. >> >> So why do you criticize me for making a ranking of the laws? > > Herman is not, as I see it, being criticized for "making a > ranking" (although he may be, and has elsewhere, been criticized for > failing to provide any justification for it), but rather for > insisting that Stefanie (and I, and the rest of the majority here) > are "making a ranking" that is different from his, when in fact her > (our) argument depends on making no rankings of any kind whatsoever. > In one sentence you manage three mistakes: Yes, I am being criticized for making a ranking. What is this post about? Yes, I have provided ample justification for my "ranking" (ok you only say that I am being criticized for failing to do so) Yes, your arguments amount to exactly the same thing: ranking the laws. > > 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 Feb 12 11:54:57 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:54:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47B17B01.6040203@skynet.be> Yeah, so? Have I ever said that my opponents are not entitled to a correct information? Am I not in a somewhat similar situation to the one the lady was in, in Perth? She misexplained the agreement (even if correctly explaining the hand - what I am doing also), and this is MI, and that MI is corrected if it causes damage. The only difference between my case and that lady's is that I know I misinform, she doesn't. But that is just a different excuse. She misinforms because she doesn't know any better; I misinform because L20F5 tells me to. We both have an excuse. YOU don't accept my excuse, but could you not imagine a world in which this excuse IS acceptable? Yes, there is MI, and the laws deal with it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 12 11:56:17 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:56:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47B17B51.3040403@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > "That is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe your > partnership agreement, not your partner's hand." > Yes, and yet the lady did not do so. She had an excuse. Me too. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 12 11:59:48 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:59:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Are opponents entitled to knowing about the misunderstanding? In-Reply-To: References: <47AC2213.10802@skynet.be> <000001c86aa8$34737150$9d5a53f0$@com> <47AECEB6.1060208@skynet.be> <79FDC51B-83E4-476F-A915-041BFE3BCE0B@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802110815v3a36f36dmeb738a1086162f95@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47B17C24.4090208@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > It must be a lot easier indeed to cheat with the MS, if "a cheat who > has never heard of DWS" is cheating when he misdescribes his > agreements but is not cheating by when he takes exactly the same > action but justifies it by citing DWS principles! Just "subscribe > to" the DWS and it's not cheating any more! Rather handy for the > DWSists, ne? > No, of course not. Because it continues to be cheating if it is not revealed at the appropriate time. If a cheat were to subscribe to the DWS, and act as any DWS would (that is, call the TD at the appropriate time), he would not be a very effective cheat, would he? The actions of a cheat and a dwsist are the same at one stage, but totally different at the very next. You cannot call someone a dwsist merely on the basis of his actions at the first moment. And you cannot call a player a cheat merely because his first action is the same as that of a cheat. His second action will reveal whether he is a cheat or a dwsist. He cannot be both. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 12 13:11:40 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:11:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47B1763E.3010105@skynet.be> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be><057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B076DA.3090801@skynet.be> <066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B1763E.3010105@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47B18CFC.4090107@skynet.be> Herman De Wael wrote: > Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>>>> Did you not see the example I gave with 8 tables with the same >>>>> bidding? My result (at table 5) was exactly the same as the one at >>>>> table 1 (with screens) and tables 2-4 (where the question was not >>>>> asked). >>>> Not at all. You were doubled after you revealed your misinformation. >>> Not at all, I did not reveal the misinformation, I used DWS to keep it >>> hidden. Tables 6-8 revealed the misinformation and were doubled. >> What are you talking about? I thought tah the dWS informed the opponents of >> the MI during the correction period. > > Yes, and then what happens? The TD arrives and tells the last passer > that he can correct his call. The contract of 5Sp is bid and will be > played. > correct that to: the contract of 5Sp has already been bid and will be played. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 12 13:15:33 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:15:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47B00E60.7070408@skynet.be> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000601c86952$9f5d8480$de188d80$@com><47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com><000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred><47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net><014a01c869ea$f5b08830$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0F38.70100@skynet.be> <08ce01c86bf2$c9b13270$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00E60.7070408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47B18DE5.70209@NTLworld.com> [Herman de Wael] But an ethical DWS follower [=oxymoron] And most of your incomprehension is due to the fact that you assume it's an oxymoron. Do you really have that little respect for my ethics? [Stefanie Rohan] Yes, I'm afraid I do. [nige1] Stefanie, please don't. It's possible that Herman's interpretation of the law is wrong but an unethical person would not advertise and defend his actions and motivations on BLML. For years, BLMLers have drawn attention to ambiguities, inconsistencies and obscurities in the law-book, from the point of view of the ordinary player. The law committee have both the power and the responsibility to correct them. This new edition of the law book provides an ideal opportunity. If it rejects that opportunity then it's inevitable that many are unable to divine the WBFLC's intentions when reading what it wrote. It seems unfair to blame such people when it is clear where the main fault lies. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 12 14:37:28 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:37:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be><057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B076DA.3090801@skynet.be> <066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie><47B1763E.3010105@skynet.be> <47B18CFC.4090107@skynet.be> Message-ID: <07ff01c86d7c$6965ca30$0100a8c0@stefanie> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 12:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > Herman De Wael wrote: >> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>>> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>>>>> Did you not see the example I gave with 8 tables with the same >>>>>> bidding? My result (at table 5) was exactly the same as the one at >>>>>> table 1 (with screens) and tables 2-4 (where the question was not >>>>>> asked). >>>>> Not at all. You were doubled after you revealed your misinformation. >>>> Not at all, I did not reveal the misinformation, I used DWS to keep it >>>> hidden. Tables 6-8 revealed the misinformation and were doubled. >>> What are you talking about? I thought tah the dWS informed the >>> opponents of >>> the MI during the correction period. >> >> Yes, and then what happens? The TD arrives and tells the last passer >> that he can correct his call. The contract of 5Sp is bid and will be >> played. >> > > correct that to: the contract of 5Sp has already been bid and will be > played. > Yes, but the adjustment will be to 3D doubled. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 12 14:40:53 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:40:53 +0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Swiss Teams with imps converted to WBF VPs (including difference of 0-10 = 0 imps) Dlr: North Vul: East-West. You, South, hold: The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1S 3H(1) Pass 4H Pass(2) Pass 4S Pass Pass 5H Pass Pass Dble Pass Pass Pass (1) Weak jump overcall (2) Break in tempo Result: 5Hx by East, +500 to North-South The complete deal (note that North's hesitation was not a deceptive infraction of the 2007 Law 73F - North had full values for his pause): AK987 --- AT432 KQT QT J5 A974 KJT86532 KJ86 5 AJ7 62 6432 Q Q97 98543 The Director adjusts the score to 4H (not doubled) by East, +100 to North-South. North-South elect to appeal. As the Appeals Committee, what ruling would you make? As the Appeals Committee, what other ruling would you consider making? [Wayne Burrows] My view is that the slow pass does not suggest bidding. Rather it makes it more likely that partner has some extra values with some heart length which makes it more likely that the 4H contract will fail. Therefore I would allow the 4S bid. I did an interesting simulation that I posted on the forums at Bridge Base on this hand. Here is the relevant piece from that forum: "I just had a thought to do an interesting pair of simulations since I am fond of simulations. On the condition that partner had a fairly normal 1S opening but not extra values and shortish hearts suitable for some action over 4H with the opponents having a heart pre-empt and either great heart support of significant values. The second simulation was similar but you knew that partner had extra values (15+). In the first simulation bidding 4S gained around 5 IMPs on average and in the second bidding 4S lost 3 IMPs on average. This seems to clearly indicated that bidding 4S is right without additional information and that it is not indicated by the extra information that partner has extra values. Here are the exact conditions I put in the simulation: Partner has five or six spades (he is more likely to do something himself with more); Partner has 12-19 hcp (11-18 if a six-card suit); Partner either has three or more hearts or fewer than 16 hcp. RHO has 7 hearts; RHO has 6-9 hcp; LHO has 3+ hearts or 13+ hcp; We have the actual hand given. In the second simulation everything was the same except that Partner had shown (by the hesitation) say 15+ hcp but not a hand short in hearts that might have made a takeout double. I'd be happy to vary these parameters to see how they change the outcome." [nige1] IMO, the committee should uphold the director' ruling 4H-2 +100 to NS. As I explained in my original answers, I agree with Wayne's analysis. (Over RHO's 3H, I marked 3S=10 4S=9 P=8). In that context, my argument was that 3S would help partner to make an informed decision and that an immediate 4S would leave opponents with the last guess. But the actual South player chose to *pass* on the previous round. Apparently, he *disagreed* with my reasoning. The committee have to judge whether South deliberately intended to sandbag, passing earlier but now emerging with a unilateral 4S. On the evidence of the auction so far, pass seems to have been a logical alternative for this South. Hence the committee have to judge whether North's hesitation increased the chances that 4S might be profitable. I disagree with Wayne about the significance of the hesitation. IMO, double by North would *not* have been penalties in this auction. It would be *Cards* or *Action* or *Take-out*. Hence, with heart values, partner would have passed in sleep, unless he has a mountain. In fact, he was obviously thinking of bidding or doubling, so his values and length are overwhelmingly likely to be *outside* hearts. Hence North's hesitation *strongly* suggests that South bid 4S. An AWMW, fine or procedural penalty is inappropriate, however, because it is possible that South belatedly arrived at Wayne's analysis but forgot his legal obligation. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 12 15:09:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:09:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <07ff01c86d7c$6965ca30$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be><057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B076DA.3090801@skynet.be> <066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie><47B1763E.3010105@skynet.be> <47B18CFC.4090107@skynet.be> <07ff01c86d7c$6965ca30$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B1A88E.2000804@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 12:11 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > > >> Herman De Wael wrote: >>> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>>>> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>>>>>> Did you not see the example I gave with 8 tables with the same >>>>>>> bidding? My result (at table 5) was exactly the same as the one at >>>>>>> table 1 (with screens) and tables 2-4 (where the question was not >>>>>>> asked). >>>>>> Not at all. You were doubled after you revealed your misinformation. >>>>> Not at all, I did not reveal the misinformation, I used DWS to keep it >>>>> hidden. Tables 6-8 revealed the misinformation and were doubled. >>>> What are you talking about? I thought tah the dWS informed the >>>> opponents of >>>> the MI during the correction period. >>> Yes, and then what happens? The TD arrives and tells the last passer >>> that he can correct his call. The contract of 5Sp is bid and will be >>> played. >>> >> correct that to: the contract of 5Sp has already been bid and will be >> played. >> > Yes, but the adjustment will be to 3D doubled. > Well done, Stefanie, for a case that involves a Blackwood, 3Di is certainly a logical adjustment! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 12 15:15:15 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:15:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [nige1] > IMO, the committee should uphold the director' ruling 4H-2 +100 to NS. > As I explained in my original answers, I agree with Wayne's analysis. > (Over RHO's 3H, I marked 3S=10 4S=9 P=8). In that context, my argument > was that 3S would help partner to make an informed decision and that an > immediate 4S would leave opponents with the last guess. > > But the actual South player chose to *pass* on the previous round. > Apparently, he *disagreed* with my reasoning. > > The committee have to judge whether South deliberately intended to > sandbag, passing earlier but now emerging with a unilateral 4S. > > On the evidence of the auction so far, pass seems to have been a logical > alternative for this South. Hence the committee have to judge whether > North's hesitation increased the chances that 4S might be profitable. > > I feel bad about that. I'm a routine sandbagger (not long ago, I raised partner's 1S overcall to *two* on QJ?xxx / xxx / K10xx / void, only to bid 5S on the following round), and I woulnd't like them to disallow me this 4S bid, which is obvious within the frame of such tactics (good or bad, that's not the point). The question isn't "did the tempo make 4S better ?", because it's the next thing to an automatic bid anyway. > I disagree with Wayne about the significance of the hesitation. IMO, > double by North would *not* have been penalties in this auction. It > would be *Cards* or *Action* or *Take-out*. Hence, with heart values, > partner would have passed in sleep, unless he has a mountain. IBTD. Perhaps North wanted to make a semi-penalty double (remember he doesn't know about our amount of fit), then decided it would rather be taken as "action", so he passed. For this reason, the tempo is also compatible with a fairly balanced, fairly strong hand, in which case the simulation tells us 4S is bad. Please note that in Belgian style, one doesn't open 1S on high-ODR 1-suiters, so that 4S here would mean 60(43), take or give one minor card, and a double would be "transferable". Perhaps even "passing in sleep" should be disallowed, e.g. this should be a "stop" auction. As usual with stratospheric (ar at least tropospheric) auctions, a slow pass tells less than a quick pass. Best regards Alain From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 12 15:20:32 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:20:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be><057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B076DA.3090801@skynet.be> <066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie><47B1763E.3010105@skynet.be> <47B18CFC.4090107@skynet.be><07ff01c86d7c$6965ca30$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B1A88E.2000804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <086001c86d82$6d62d9b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> Yes, but the adjustment will be to 3D doubled. >> > > Well done, Stefanie, for a case that involves a Blackwood, 3Di is > certainly a logical adjustment! > 5 Diamonds. Why jump on a typo? From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 12 15:45:02 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:45:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47B17B01.6040203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005901c86d86$19a3f580$01d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > The only difference between my case and that > lady's is that I know I misinform, she doesn't. < +=+ She breaches the requirement of the laws inadvertently. You do it knowingly. Given the explanation of the law that Kaplan wrote, and which the appeal committee gave on site, your offence is the more culpable and would no doubt have attracted a procedural penalty, at the very least, in addition to the score adjustment. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 12 17:02:27 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:02:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <086001c86d82$6d62d9b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be><057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B076DA.3090801@skynet.be> <066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie><47B1763E.3010105@skynet.be> <47B18CFC.4090107@skynet.be><07ff01c86d7c$6965ca30$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B1A88E.2000804@skynet.be> <086001c86d82$6d62d9b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B1C313.7020500@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> Yes, but the adjustment will be to 3D doubled. >>> >> Well done, Stefanie, for a case that involves a Blackwood, 3Di is >> certainly a logical adjustment! >> > 5 Diamonds. Why jump on a typo? > Because there have been two cases. One has a bid of 3Di, the other of 5Di. OK. Typo corrected. Now would you please re-read the original and notice that we state that the AC decide that West would not have doubled 5Di if he only knows that it is South's choice of minor. West would only double 5Di if he knows, in addition, that South did not really intend this choice. Please do not criticise this decision, it's needed to make the particular point we are trying to make. Surely you can imagine that the cards are such that this decision by the AC is sensible. I can assure you then, Stefanie, that it is a quite normal ruling for the EBL AC, that the corrected score will be based on 5Di undoubled. If you disagree with that one, you align yourself with Ton Kooijman, who has been known to favour a change in law (he agrees that current practice is as I cite) towards a ruling of 5Di doubled. I am certain that Ton will correct me if I have misrepresented his views. It is certainly how I remember several exchanges, including some articles in Daily Bulletins of European Championships. Anyway, whether Ton favours this change or not, Stefanie, you can rest assured that your view in this is a minority one - but you are in good company. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 12 17:02:48 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:02:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] IBTD. Perhaps North wanted to make a semi-penalty double (remember he doesn't know about our amount of fit), then decided it would rather be taken as "action", so he passed. For this reason, the tempo is also compatible with a fairly balanced, fairly strong hand, in which case the simulation tells us 4S is bad. Please note that in Belgian style, one doesn't open 1S on high-ODR 1-suiters, so that 4S here would mean 60(43), take or give one minor card, and a double would be "transferable". Perhaps even "passing in sleep" should be disallowed, e.g. this should be a "stop" auction. As usual with stratospheric (ar at least tropospheric) auctions, a slow pass tells less than a quick pass. [nige1] "Semi-Penalty"? I suppose, the higher the level, the more likely South is to pass for penalties. but I think a double by North would be more "Action" or "Cards". I accept that North could double with some heart values but only if he has a mountain, delighted to hear a 4S bid on a hand like North's. In the UK, after LHO bid 3H, he would display a "Stop" card for 10 seconds. So South would have ample time to plan his action over RHO's likely simple raise. If he still had a problem it would not be wanting to make an anti-systemic penalty double :) From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 12 17:05:31 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:05:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005901c86d86$19a3f580$01d6403e@Mildred> References: <47B17B01.6040203@skynet.be> <005901c86d86$19a3f580$01d6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47B1C3CB.5040605@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************** > "There isn't much newness in man, > whatever his country.." > 'Kangaroo' > (D.H.Lawrence, 1923) > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:54 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the > DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> The only difference between my case and that >> lady's is that I know I misinform, she doesn't. > < > +=+ She breaches the requirement of the laws > inadvertently. You do it knowingly. Given the > explanation of the law that Kaplan wrote, and > which the appeal committee gave on site, your > offence is the more culpable and would no doubt > have attracted a procedural penalty, at the very > least, in addition to the score adjustment. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > But Grattan, we are not talking about the law as you would like it seen written in the near future. We are talking about a comparison between two sets of laws. In one of those sets of laws, DWS is accepted. In that case, there is no "knowingly" break of law, only a breach of the requirements of full disclosure. In the sense that some people believe the game is totally disrupted when DWS is in force, the comparison with the inadvertent infraction of this lady (and any other misinformation) is valid: what is so terrible about a bit of MI? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 12 17:04:12 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:04:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be><042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be><08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B007E6.2010605@skynet.be><068101c86cdc$dffcf100$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B1726C.2050702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <086801c86d90$e8f41e50$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Not all choices > are mentioned in the lawbook at the place you would expect them to be. In most cases the Laws mandate what you must do in a particular situation. Sometimes there are options, and those are given. I cannot imagine that the Laws would, especially after an irregularity, offer choices as to how to proceed and not set out what those choices are, or even indicate that a choice may be made. It is also inconceivable that the Laws should require a player to construct a hierarchy of them in order to decide how to proceed. In any case, Herman, you have been told that properly explaining your agreements is NOT a choice, and should really give up asserting that it is. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 12 17:22:59 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:22:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be><057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B076DA.3090801@skynet.be> <066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie><47B1763E.3010105@skynet.be> <47B18CFC.4090107@skynet.be><07ff01c86d7c$6965ca30$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B1A88E.2000804@skynet.be><086001c86d82$6d62d9b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B1C313.7020500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <088b01c86d93$88ccea90$0100a8c0@stefanie> HDW: > Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>>> Yes, but the adjustment will be to 3D doubled. >>>> >>> Well done, Stefanie, for a case that involves a Blackwood, 3Di is >>> certainly a logical adjustment! >>> >> 5 Diamonds. Why jump on a typo? >> > > Because there have been two cases. One has a bid of 3Di, the other of 5Di. > > OK. Typo corrected. > > Now would you please re-read the original and notice that we state > that the AC decide that West would not have doubled 5Di if he only > knows that it is South's choice of minor. West would only double 5Di > if he knows, in addition, that South did not really intend this > choice. But when the MI is corrected, South knows this. >Please do not criticise this decision, it's needed to make the > particular point we are trying to make. Surely you can imagine that > the cards are such that this decision by the AC is sensible. Well, the point you are trying to make is not valid, and the example is rubbish. Whenever West learns that 5D is the number of aces, he will double. At the table or at the AC. > > I can assure you then, Stefanie, that it is a quite normal ruling for > the EBL AC, that the corrected score will be based on 5Di undoubled. I really doubt this, and have no intention of taking your word for itl > > If you disagree with that one, you align yourself with Ton Kooijman, > who has been known to favour a change in law (he agrees that current > practice is as I cite) towards a ruling of 5Di doubled. > > I am certain that Ton will correct me if I have misrepresented his > views. He may well not bother. And with your history of misrepresenting people's views, I will *certainly* not take your word for it here. But if he agrees that current practice is as you cite, then I disagree with him. > It is certainly how I remember several exchanges, including > some articles in Daily Bulletins of European Championships. Anyway, > whether Ton favours this change or not, Stefanie, you can rest assured > that your view in this is a minority one - but you are in good company. Again, says you. No one else has offered an opinion on this case, but I think it most likely that a majority view would favour an adjustment to 5DX. In any case, what has being in a minority have to do with it? LOL Stefanie Rohan London, England From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Feb 12 17:25:36 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:25:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47B175C7.8070809@skynet.be> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be><047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AECAF7.6040300@skynet.be><08c601c86bed$94ae4810$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00CF2.60004@skynet.be> <037701c86c9c$0d436e00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03763.9070709@skynet.be> <47B175C7.8070809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47B1C880.1040409@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > > Whereas of course a player who wilfully gives UI to his partner is > seen by all to be a very ethical player! > > > Sure. Because he will be seen _not_ using the UI he got, namely that partner has forgotten, a wheel has come off, and disaster is nigh. Shit happens. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Feb 12 17:32:45 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:32:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47B17988.5090006@skynet.be> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be> <08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be> <47B17988.5090006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47B1CA2D.6040800@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > > But how then do you explain your breaking of L20F5. Despite what > Grattan says, that law is still being broken. Despite what Herman says, L20F5 is not broken. Grattan has the authority of WBFLC and DSC behind him, while you do not. What is it you do not understand about the concept of authority? From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Feb 12 17:37:40 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:37:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47B17988.5090006@skynet.be> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be> <08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be> <47B17988.5090006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47B1CB54.3070105@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > > > > You ask me why I prefer to break L73 over L20F5, and I reply that I > rank L20F5 stronger than L73. If you prefer to interpret that > following L73 does not "break" L20F5, it means that you rank L73 > higher than L20F5. > > Again, no. It just is the case that you do not break any law if your partner (who, having just displayed a lack of presence of mind, is only moderately likely to do so) picks up some more or less subtle inferences from your explanations that your interpretation of the system differs from his (which he is not allowed to use in any case). Since no law is broken, why should there be any hierarchy? From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Feb 12 17:44:00 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:44:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47B17988.5090006@skynet.be> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be> <08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be> <47B17988.5090006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47B1CCD0.2010105@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > Eric Landau wrote: > > >> If the >> majority were in fact trying to argue that Herman is wrong because >> "L73 ranks above L20F5" they would have given up and gone home long >> since, recognizing that their position is as just as arbitrary, hence >> no more defensible, than Herman's. But they don't, >> > > Yes they do. > > If you had taken the time actually to read and understand what Eric has written you would maybe have refrained from responding reflexively, which casts a rather dim light on your hundreds of "yes they do" and "no they don't"s in the past. Eric has said that nobody has packed it in and went home, having seen their position as arbitrary. At least I haven't, nor has any number of others, most of them are just too disgusted to continue arguing, and your "answer" above is one of the reasons why this is so. Herman sees "don't", so it must be "do", and vice versa.... From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 12 17:56:59 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:56:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be><042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be> <08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00B97.6080706@skynet.be><2C981EEC-96CE-49D3-A3EE-57B091F84B02@starpower.net> <47B17464.9040903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <089701c86d98$4855ac90$0100a8c0@stefanie> HDW: > But anyway, it would be a bet you would lose. When I tell my friends > at the club that DWS is the correct way to handle these things (I > always add that this view is not world-wide), they accept that and say > they will act thusly in future. GRATTAN DO YOU SEE THIS? Cannot you persuade the DSC accept that there is a real danger here? Yes, it seems degrading to have to clarify the Laws in order to satisfy one Herman De Wael, but he is promulgating his view and people are believing him. Maybe it seems like the problem is on a small enough now to ignore, but I am certain that this will not be the case in 2017! > > It is only on blml that my views are treated with the disrespect that > you believe to be normal and acceptable behaviour between people who > are here to discuss how the laws are. It seems to me that the people you speak to in real life are in the unfortunate position of believing that you speak with authority. This is why you are dangerous. And this is why people try to disabuse not only you but other present and potential readers of this mailing list of your outlandish viewpoint. Not because, as you seem to believe, that people are in any way inclined to accept it or be persuaded by you. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 12 18:06:50 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:06:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be> <08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be> <47B17988.5090006@skynet.be> Message-ID: <089a01c86d99$a8ea2440$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> Because they are. Any ranking is perforce arbitrary. > > Of course they are. Yours as well as mine. Well, if a ranking system were required or permitted, and all are by definition arbitrary, then we could have as many sets of Laws in effect as there are people playing bridge. Do you think *this* is "good for the game"? In any case Herman, when will you understand that you cannot tell other people what their beliefs are? Eric does not rank Laws and neither do I. Neither, as far as I know, does anyone except for you and your small band of acolytes. It really gets people's back up when you (or anyone) misrepresent their views and tell them what they think. It does keep people engaged with you in spite of themselves, so I guess that from your point of view it is a result. But I am going to ask you nicely once again, please stop it. Stefanie Rohan London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 12 18:07:43 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:07:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > > In the UK, after LHO bid 3H, he would display a "Stop" card for 10 > seconds. So South would have ample time to plan his action over RHO's > likely simple raise. If he still had a problem it would not be wanting > to make an anti-systemic penalty double :) > > To the contrary, it might be that he'd be wanting to make a penalty double and realize he couldn't make it. That would be a good reason not to have planned a single raise, because he didn't expect one. You see, players disagree about what the tempo suggests ; ergo it doens't "unmistakably" suggest anything. If I were playing pure T/O sdoubles there, I could have a problem with AQJxx - x - KJx - KQxxx (do I hold enough to risk a double ?) as well as with AKxxx - QJ10 - Axx - Kx (damn it, I can't double !) 4S would be a success facing the former, not facing the latter. Best regards Alain From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 12 18:31:52 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:31:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Demonstrably troubling References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be><47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <08e701c86d9d$27f3eed0$0100a8c0@stefanie> ****You see, players disagree about what the tempo suggests ; ergo it ****doesn't "unmistakably" suggest anything. I do not wish to comment on the case that is currently under discussion; rather I am interested in a trend I see in ACs and discussions on BLML. Often when a Pass (non-forcing) is made out of tempo, ACs or commentators have said that the player could have been thinking of doubling or of bidding on. Since partner cannot know which this is, neither option is contraindicated due to the UI. Sometimes people are more sympathetic to bidding on, as this option is less flexible. What troubles me is that I have seen decisions and opinions of this sort in cases where Pass has been a logical alternative. In such cases, any positive action is suggested by the UI; the only thing it definitely suggests is that partner does not want to defend the last contract bid undoubled. Surely Pass must be imposed in these cases. But it seems to me that often it is not. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 12 18:41:53 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:41:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lettuce drive a steak through the DWS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47B17B01.6040203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <08f201c86d9e$8e478010$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Am I not in a somewhat similar situation to the one the lady was in, > in Perth? She misexplained the agreement (even if correctly explaining > the hand - what I am doing also), and this is MI, and that MI is > corrected if it causes damage. > > The only difference between my case and that lady's is that I know I > misinform, she doesn't. But that is just a different excuse. It is not a "different" excuse. The *ONLY* excuse for breaking the Laws of bridge is that it was inadvertant. > She > misinforms because she doesn't know any better; I misinform because > L20F5 tells me to. We both have an excuse. Again, only she has an excuse. > YOU don't accept my excuse, > but could you not imagine a world in which this excuse IS acceptable? Any number of worlds can be imagined. You happen to be living in one in which your excuse is not acceptable. > Yes, there is MI, and the laws deal with it. An they deal much more harshly with deliberate infringement of them. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 12 18:42:31 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:42:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be><057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B076DA.3090801@skynet.be><066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B177BE.6050508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <08f301c86d9e$a4c7b170$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Believe me, the EBL AC would rule table : "5Di undoubled". As I have said in another post, I don't believe you. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 12 18:57:12 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:57:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Amended L27C1/27C2 question References: <000701c86c1f$021a4080$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200802120347.AA12410@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <08f501c86da0$b1b60470$0100a8c0@stefanie> Bob Geller: [3 Examples in which the insufficient bid contains more information than the substituted bid] It seems possible that the Law could potentially work if the information from the IB were considered unauthorised for the OS, as before. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > I'm sure other people can come up with lots of better scenarios. > But just thinking about the above 3 scenarios I'm beginning to think that > the new laws have opened up a real can of worms. I know it would > involve a certain amount of loss of face for all concerned, but is there > anyone besides me who thinks it might be better to go back to the old > laws with regard to insufficient bids, and spend the next 10 years > further researching this question. If only that were possible! Unfortunately it is not. I think that I am in favour of this law in theory. It is a good idea to allow bridge to continue to be played whenever possible. However, in practice this law will be entirely unworkable. Besides the fact that it will be impossible to implement, particularly at the club level, I am unconvinced that there is *any* substituted bid that incorporates the information contained in the sufficient bid. Stefanie Rohan London, England From adam at irvine.com Tue Feb 12 19:05:41 2008 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:05:41 -0800 Subject: [blml] Demonstrably troubling In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:31:52 GMT." <08e701c86d9d$27f3eed0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <200802121756.JAA02535@mailhub.irvine.com> Stefanie wrote: > I do not wish to comment on the case that is currently under discussion; > rather I am interested in a trend I see in ACs and discussions on BLML. > > Often when a Pass (non-forcing) is made out of tempo, ACs or commentators > have said that the player could have been thinking of doubling or of bidding > on. Since partner cannot know which this is, neither option is > contraindicated due to the UI. Sometimes people are more sympathetic to > bidding on, as this option is less flexible. > > What troubles me is that I have seen decisions and opinions of this sort in > cases where Pass has been a logical alternative. In such cases, any positive > action is suggested by the UI; the only thing it definitely suggests is that > partner does not want to defend the last contract bid undoubled. Surely Pass > must be imposed in these cases. But it seems to me that often it is not. I haven't followed the thread that this is in response to. However, the example you seem to be referring to is one that I've made some points about in the past, and I disagree with your conclusion (assuming I understand you correctly). I'm going to reiterate some of the arguments I've made in the past, and I believe the world of bridge tends to see things approximately the same way. My belief is that "positive action" isn't a legitimate way to categorize bids in this situation. Assuming that partner's double would be penalty, then if partner's hesitation means that he might have considered doubling, then it might show a defensive-oriented hand. On the other hand, if it means he was considering bidding on, then it might show a particularly offensive-oriented hand. To me, the two are polar opposites. A defensive hand is not the same as an offensive hand. So saying a bid demonstrably suggests "one or the other" isn't really saying anything at all. A double and a bid in this case would also be opposites; lumping them together by calling them "positive action" isn't particularly meaningful. The only thing the two calls have in common is that they are both "not pass". To look at it another way: Suppose that somehow we knew that the hesitation showed a defensive-oriented hand. Then we'd know not only that double is suggested over pass, but that pass is suggested over bidding on, since it's more likely to work (bidding would likely turn a plus into a minus). So if we knew this for sure, then both doubling and passing would be illegal for a hesitator's partner, if bidding on is a LA. Thus, the possible calls, ordered by how much they're suggested by the UI, are: Double >> Pass >> Bid Suppose that we knew that the hesitation showed an offensive-oriented hand. Then we'd know not only that bidding is suggested over passing, but that passing is suggested over a penalty double. Here I'm assuming that "offensive-oriented hand" means that we think they have a good shot at making it, and that we should bid on as a save (or possibly for a double game swing). So if we knew this for sure, then both bidding and passing would be illegal for hesitator's partner, if doubling is an LA. Bid >> Pass >> Double So now suppose that the hesitation could show either a defensive- or an offensive-oriented hand. This would mean that doubling is suggested over passing, passing is suggested over bidding, bidding is suggested over passing, and passing is suggested over doubling. How can this be? It's self-contradictory. To look at it yet another way: The point of the UI laws is that if a hesitation (say) suggests something about the hesitator's hand, then the partner needs to bend over backwards the other way, to assume the opposite inference about the hesitator's hand. If a hesitation probably shows extra values, partner must bid as if hesitator had a minimum for his bidding. And vice versa. But while it's clear that a recipient of UI must bend in the other direction, I don't see any reason to believe that the UI laws could require a recipient to "bend toward the middle", away from two opposite extremes. When the hesitation suggests two *opposite* types of information about the hesitator's hand, and both types seem about equally likely, then there's no constraint on the UI recipient. Anyway, that's been my position on this issue for a long time, and as far as I can tell, the committees who don't impose a pass in this sort of situation are relying on the same sort of thinking. -- Adam From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Feb 12 19:48:45 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:48:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] A good idea Message-ID: <47B1EA0D.5080506@aol.com> Herman wrote, in one of his postings, "if...I will not read any more of your...postings." I have purposely shortened that because the parts left out seem to me to be irrelevant to my idea/suggestion. I am not trying to alter the meaning. I think the idea/principle Herman mentions is very good. If we all should refuse to read (or respond to) the postings regarding a certain subject (you can choose at will) it might reduce the volume of the blml postings by at least 50% and thus save us all a good deal of time and, possibly, aggravation. After all, the way to get any new idea adopted (as has been often mentioned) is to send it through your NO (or whatever the national federation is called). So why are we discussing it at such length in blml? Send it in, and if it is not accepted try to talk to the appropriate people who decide such matters. That would seem much more effective than debating at such infinite length in blml. Ciao, JE From mustikka at charter.net Tue Feb 12 21:23:42 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:23:42 -0800 Subject: [blml] A good idea References: <47B1EA0D.5080506@aol.com> Message-ID: <008901c86db5$29680450$9d015e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:48 AM Subject: [blml] A good idea > Herman wrote, in one of his postings, "if...I will not read any more of > your...postings." > I have purposely shortened that because the parts left out seem to me to > be irrelevant to my idea/suggestion. I am not trying to alter the > meaning. > I think the idea/principle Herman mentions is very good. If we all > should refuse to read (or respond to) the postings regarding a certain > subject (you can choose at will) it might reduce the volume of the blml > postings by at least 50% and thus save us all a good deal of time and, > possibly, aggravation. After all, the way to get any new idea adopted > (as has been often mentioned) is to send it through your NO (or whatever > the national federation is called). So why are we discussing it at such > length in blml? Send it in, and if it is not accepted try to talk to > the appropriate people who decide such matters. That would seem much > more effective than debating at such infinite length in blml. Ciao, JE > A very good idea. Sven made this approach on February 7 and received Herman's answer same day. This is uncut quote of exchange between Herman and Sven: Sven Pran wrote on February 7, 2008: >> Herman: I miss one piece of information in your statement below; how does >> the Belgian bridge world consider DWS? >> >> Would you care to state whether or not the Belgian bridge federations (I >> understand there are two or three bridge federations in Belgium?) support >> your ideas on DWS? >> >> Is DWS officially recognized as legal in Belgium? Herman de Wael wrote: > In the sense that every Director I talk to, and explain my reasons, > they agree with me, there is no problem here. > > But then these people aren't tainted by David Burn's writings on blml. > > But you might ask Alain about this. > Not sure how many directors Herman has talked to because it is not clear from what he says, see the quote. Looking closely at what he says there, the number he has talked to could be zero or it could be any number of directors in Belgium. But what *is* clear is the following - direct and uncut quote - "In the sense that every Director I talk to, and explain my reasons, they agree with me, there is no problem here." If they indeed agreed, it is POSSIBLE they agreed because Herman is in a position of authority in law matters in Belgium and they choose to not disagree with a view held by the person in a position that has the authority to issue law interpretations in Belgium. However, *IF* there is such support for HdW interpretation in Belgium, *THEN* it is at least strange to me [an outsider, lurker on blml] that their NBO did nothing to contact the WBFLC to initiate law changes in that direction in the many years that the DWS debate has been going on. My knowledge on any facts around this is based on information from blml only. Obviously, I have recently had lots of free time to read the volumes posted here...LOL. Raija From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 12 21:46:14 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:46:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] A good idea References: <47B1EA0D.5080506@aol.com> <008901c86db5$29680450$9d015e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <095601c86db8$5121f890$0100a8c0@stefanie> > If they indeed agreed, it is POSSIBLE they agreed because Herman is in a > position of authority in law matters in Belgium and they choose to not > disagree with a view held by the person in a position that has the > authority > to issue law interpretations in Belgium. This is why I think it is so important for the DSC to publish something forceful enough to make it impossible to Herman to retain his "interpretation". No matter how resistant they are to playing monkey to Herman's organ grinder. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 12 21:51:33 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:51:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be><042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be><08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie><47B00B97.6080706@skynet.be> <2C981EEC-96CE-49D3-A3EE-57B091F84B02@starpower.net> Message-ID: <096201c86db9$0d1079a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > I'd be willing to be that the percentage of bridge players who > believe the DWS to be legal and legitimate is smaller than the > percentage of the population that believes we have been visited by > aliens in UFOs. > I'll bet it is smaller than those who believe they have been *abducted* by aliens! From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Feb 12 22:10:49 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:10:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] 7 whatever Message-ID: <47B20B59.4000804@aol.com> Herman writes, "I have never claimed superior wisdom." He then writes, "You keep losing sub-arguments...." This intrigues me because I have not noticed that anyone (objectively) has been losing sub- (or other) arguments. But Herman seems to know this. What is his basis for the statement if not "superior wisdom"? (I'll refrain from suggesting arrogance.) Ciao, JE From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Feb 12 22:21:08 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:21:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] A good idea In-Reply-To: <095601c86db8$5121f890$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47B1EA0D.5080506@aol.com> <008901c86db5$29680450$9d015e47@DFYXB361> <095601c86db8$5121f890$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0802121321t1e08378eq1e7971a6fc662fbc@mail.gmail.com> > On 2/12/08, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > This is why I think it is so important for the DSC to publish something > forceful enough to make it impossible to Herman to retain his > "interpretation". No matter how resistant they are to playing monkey to > Herman's organ grinder. Alternatively, they can simply choke off his air supply. Yank Herman's credentials to act in any official capacity at WBF events. Don't use him as a scribe Don't let him serve on appeals committees Don't use his analysis of appeals decisions Make sure that no one has any reason to believe that his opinions represent anything other than his own personal whim. I suspect that this would be a far more effective mechanism to effect change. It would also deprive Herman of the attention that he so craves... -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Feb 12 22:22:15 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:22:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman Message-ID: <47B20E07.8040607@aol.com> "...when I twice cannot answer a question, it is because the question does not make sense." Not a claim of superior wisdom? JE From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 12 22:30:19 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:30:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] A good idea References: <47B1EA0D.5080506@aol.com><008901c86db5$29680450$9d015e47@DFYXB361><095601c86db8$5121f890$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2da24b8e0802121321t1e08378eq1e7971a6fc662fbc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0a1a01c86dbe$77c8eed0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Richard Willey: > > Alternatively, they can simply choke off his air supply. Yank > Herman's credentials to act in any official capacity at WBF events. > > Don't use him as a scribe > Don't let him serve on appeals committees > Don't use his analysis of appeals decisions > > Make sure that no one has any reason to believe that his opinions > represent anything other than his own personal whim. > > I suspect that this would be a far more effective mechanism to effect > change. It would also deprive Herman of the attention that he so > craves... > But he would still have whatever power he has in Belgium. Stefanie Rohan London, England From mustikka at charter.net Tue Feb 12 23:06:33 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:06:33 -0800 Subject: [blml] A good idea References: <47B1EA0D.5080506@aol.com><008901c86db5$29680450$9d015e47@DFYXB361> <095601c86db8$5121f890$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000f01c86dc3$89af8190$9d015e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A good idea >> If they indeed agreed, it is POSSIBLE they agreed because Herman is in a >> position of authority in law matters in Belgium and they choose to not >> disagree with a view held by the person in a position that has the >> authority >> to issue law interpretations in Belgium. > > This is why I think it is so important for the DSC to publish something > forceful enough to make it impossible to Herman to retain his > "interpretation". No matter how resistant they are to playing monkey to > Herman's organ grinder. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England Grattan has included the following in many recent posts, as a preface. It could not be said more clearly. And this response has been graciously repeated over the years but HdW is not accepting it. I believe Richard Willey has the best solution. "In situations where a misexplanation has been given by partner a player must not indicate that partner has made a mistake. However, in his own explanations the player is obliged to state the partnership agreement correctly. Knowing this, it is the gravest possible violation of law to deceive opponent by not doing so." ~ Grattan Endicott, 2002 (paraphrase) From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 13 00:22:35 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:22:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <089701c86d98$4855ac90$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be><042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be> <08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00B97.6080706@skynet.be><2C981EEC-96CE-49D3-A3EE-57B091F84B02@starpower.net> <47B17464.9040903@skynet.be> <089701c86d98$4855ac90$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B22A3B.4090303@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > HDW: > >> But anyway, it would be a bet you would lose. When I tell my friends >> at the club that DWS is the correct way to handle these things (I >> always add that this view is not world-wide), they accept that and say >> they will act thusly in future. > > GRATTAN DO YOU SEE THIS? Cannot you persuade the DSC accept that there is a > real danger here? Yes, it seems degrading to have to clarify the Laws in > order to satisfy one Herman De Wael, but he is promulgating his view and > people are believing him. Maybe it seems like the problem is on a small > enough now to ignore, but I am certain that this will not be the case in > 2017! >> It is only on blml that my views are treated with the disrespect that >> you believe to be normal and acceptable behaviour between people who >> are here to discuss how the laws are. > > It seems to me that the people you speak to in real life are in the > unfortunate position of believing that you speak with authority. This is why > you are dangerous. And this is why people try to disabuse not only you but > other present and potential readers of this mailing list of your outlandish > viewpoint. Not because, as you seem to believe, that people are in any way > inclined to accept it or be persuaded by you. > But it does illustrate that you were wrong in imagining that "the whole world" believes that MS is the natural and only way of playing bridge. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 13 00:27:44 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:27:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47B1C880.1040409@t-online.de> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be><02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC480F.5070504@skynet.be><047701c86a94$c37332f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AECAF7.6040300@skynet.be><08c601c86bed$94ae4810$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00CF2.60004@skynet.be> <037701c86c9c$0d436e00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03763.9070709@skynet.be> <47B175C7.8070809@skynet.be> <47B1C880.1040409@t-online.de> Message-ID: <47B22B70.10501@skynet.be> Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Whereas of course a player who wilfully gives UI to his partner is >> seen by all to be a very ethical player! >> >> >> > > Sure. Because he will be seen _not_ using the UI he got, namely that > partner has forgotten, a wheel has come off, and disaster is nigh. Shit > happens. > No, sorry Matthias. It's his partner that will be seen not to be using the UI. Only sometimes the partner will use the UI. And then the ignorants will blame the player who gave the UI in the first place. But in fact I was not talking about giving UI. I was talking about "wilfuly" giving UI. As in shouting "you imbecile, this was not Blackwood!". Do you agree that this last behaviour is indefensible? The why do you go so;lightly over someone who does the same thing, but come down like a ton of bricks on someone who chooses the other alternative of acting commendably? I can understand that you prefer one action over another one, but I cannot fathom why you are so hard on the one action, while being so light on the other! What I do is give small incremental MI. What you do is give huge UI. You may believe that my crime is worse than yours, but you should not be using the harsh words that you do. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 13 00:28:22 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:28:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <08f301c86d9e$a4c7b170$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be><057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B076DA.3090801@skynet.be><066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B177BE.6050508@skynet.be> <08f301c86d9e$a4c7b170$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B22B96.4050306@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> Believe me, the EBL AC would rule table : "5Di undoubled". > > As I have said in another post, I don't believe you. Look Stefanie, I have been a member of the EBL AC for the past ten years. You should believe me. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 13 00:33:20 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:33:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <088b01c86d93$88ccea90$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be><057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B076DA.3090801@skynet.be> <066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie><47B1763E.3010105@skynet.be> <47B18CFC.4090107@skynet.be><07ff01c86d7c$6965ca30$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B1A88E.2000804@skynet.be><086001c86d82$6d62d9b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B1C313.7020500@skynet.be> <088b01c86d93$88ccea90$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B22CC0.1080006@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > HDW: > > >> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>>>> Yes, but the adjustment will be to 3D doubled. >>>>> >>>> Well done, Stefanie, for a case that involves a Blackwood, 3Di is >>>> certainly a logical adjustment! >>>> >>> 5 Diamonds. Why jump on a typo? >>> >> Because there have been two cases. One has a bid of 3Di, the other of 5Di. >> >> OK. Typo corrected. >> >> Now would you please re-read the original and notice that we state >> that the AC decide that West would not have doubled 5Di if he only >> knows that it is South's choice of minor. West would only double 5Di >> if he knows, in addition, that South did not really intend this >> choice. > > But when the MI is corrected, South knows this. > Stefanie, I am saying that South would, in the opinion of the AC, not double if he does not know of the misunderstanding. No need to counter this with "but he does know it". >> Please do not criticise this decision, it's needed to make the >> particular point we are trying to make. Surely you can imagine that >> the cards are such that this decision by the AC is sensible. > > Well, the point you are trying to make is not valid, and the example is > rubbish. Whenever West learns that 5D is the number of aces, he will double. > At the table or at the AC. But he cannot. He has bid 5Sp in the meanwhile. >> I can assure you then, Stefanie, that it is a quite normal ruling for >> the EBL AC, that the corrected score will be based on 5Di undoubled. > > I really doubt this, and have no intention of taking your word for itl Well, then ask Grattan, or Ton, or even David, who will confirm that this is the way the AC currently work. And you should take my word for it, this is something I am actually quite an expert on. I have assisted on and written up over 500 appeals of European AC's in the past decade. >> If you disagree with that one, you align yourself with Ton Kooijman, >> who has been known to favour a change in law (he agrees that current >> practice is as I cite) towards a ruling of 5Di doubled. >> >> I am certain that Ton will correct me if I have misrepresented his >> views. > > He may well not bother. And with your history of misrepresenting people's > views, I will *certainly* not take your word for it here. But if he agrees > that current practice is as you cite, then I disagree with him. > You disagree that current practice is as I describe? You know better how the AC has ruled in the past decade than us? >> It is certainly how I remember several exchanges, including >> some articles in Daily Bulletins of European Championships. Anyway, >> whether Ton favours this change or not, Stefanie, you can rest assured >> that your view in this is a minority one - but you are in good company. > > Again, says you. No one else has offered an opinion on this case, but I > think it most likely that a majority view would favour an adjustment to 5DX. > In any case, what has being in a minority have to do with it? LOL > Well, you would be wrong. Very wrong. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 13 00:48:11 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:48:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be><014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie><47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie><02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be><042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be> <08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00B97.6080706@skynet.be><2C981EEC-96CE-49D3-A3EE-57B091F84B02@starpower.net> <47B17464.9040903@skynet.be><089701c86d98$4855ac90$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B22A3B.4090303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001801c86dd1$b9f6f0a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> It seems to me that the people you speak to in real life are in the >> unfortunate position of believing that you speak with authority. This is >> why >> you are dangerous. And this is why people try to disabuse not only you >> but >> other present and potential readers of this mailing list of your >> outlandish >> viewpoint. Not because, as you seem to believe, that people are in any >> way >> inclined to accept it or be persuaded by you. >> > > But it does illustrate that you were wrong in imagining that "the > whole world" believes that MS is the natural and only way of playing > bridge. OK. The whole world except for those who are misled into believing that what you say has the imprimatur of the WBFLC. But it is not their fault. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 13 00:48:57 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:48:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be><057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B076DA.3090801@skynet.be><066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B177BE.6050508@skynet.be><08f301c86d9e$a4c7b170$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B22B96.4050306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002201c86dd1$d5c3cab0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> Believe me, the EBL AC would rule table : "5Di undoubled". >> >> As I have said in another post, I don't believe you. > > Look Stefanie, I have been a member of the EBL AC for the past ten > years. You should believe me. > Whatever. I don't know what the AC decision would have been. It is neither here nor there. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 13 00:57:51 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:57:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Herman In-Reply-To: <47B20E07.8040607@aol.com> References: <47B20E07.8040607@aol.com> Message-ID: <000001c86dd3$13eb64a0$3bc22de0$@com> [JE] "...when I twice cannot answer a question, it is because the question does not make sense." Not a claim of superior wisdom? [Lewis Carroll] "Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice - What I tell you three times is true." [DALB] What was good enough for the Bellman ought to be tolerated in Herman's case. After all, he has been arguing a minority position at long odds, and the fact that he continues to do so almost without rancour is a tribute to [a] his sincerity; [b] his integrity and [c] his grasp through thick and thin of the difficulties involved. I don't deny that L20F5 creates a serious problem (just as L27 in the new code is about to do, and the infamous L25 in the 1997 code did). I think that Herman has been unresponsive to the arguments advanced, especially by those in positions of authority, to resolve the problem (which is to say that I can well understand why Grattan Endicott and Ton Kooijman are a bit fed up with him). I think, as I have said many times, that he is wrong to rely on the "principle" that creation of UI is more to be avoided than creation of MI; and that he is wrong to say that the Laws are somehow "hierarchically" based on that principle. But if the anti-dWS amendment, or appendix, or whatever, actually makes its way into the Laws, then Herman will have done the game a great service by recognising that there was a difficulty in the first place. If it does not - well, he will continue to do the game a great service by insisting that the matter should be resolved one way or another. Of one thing I am sure: it is not good enough for those who make the Laws to say, ex cathedra, that it is obvious what those Laws mean. In truth, that wasn't good enough even when Kaplan was Archbishop; as recent correspondence has made clear, if bridge really is to be a global game, the Lawmakers ought to listen very hard to people such as Robert Geller, who does not know how to translate the Laws into Japanese because he does not know what they mean in English. And the Lawmakers ought also to listen to Herman de Wael. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 13 02:27:05 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:27:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] Herman [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c86dd3$13eb64a0$3bc22de0$@com> Message-ID: David Burn, 13th February 2008: >I don't deny that L20F5 creates a serious problem [snip] >But if the anti-dWS amendment, or appendix, or whatever, >actually makes its way into the Laws, then Herman will have >done the game a great service by recognising that there was >a difficulty in the first place. If it does not - well, he >will continue to do the game a great service by insisting >that the matter should be resolved one way or another. Grattan Endicott, 29th November 2002: +=+ I agree with the general proposition that Herman is given to bizarre attitudes to the laws. But in the matter of conflict between 75C and 75D2 [2007 Laws 20F1 and 20F5(a)] I think he has identified something of an impediment that should be ironed out eventually. It is not any kind of disaster and I am satisfied the absolute requirement is to give opponents the explanation to which they are entitled at the expense of any communication of extraneous matter - and for the present this is what should happen. Herman should not go on arguing about it any longer; no-one should. Anyone encountering such a situation should ignore Herman's suggestions for the resolution of the problem; he is not remotely any kind of authority. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ WBF Code of Practice, revised 27th November 2003, page 7: A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws. 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 Wed Feb 13 02:37:52 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:37:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AAC1F4.50806@skynet.be> <000f01c8696e$037d4700$0a77d500$@com> <2b1e598b0802070205od1642e9pff80ce93a848f82@mail.gmail.com> <000801c86981$715e1cf0$22c9403e@Mildred> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be> <08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47B249F0.3050008@verizon.net> Herman De Wael wrote: [snip] >>> >>> I have stated, a few times already, that if there are more than one >>> "non-suggested" actions, then it would be wrong for the player to >>> select the one which most clearly clarifies the misunderstanding to >>> partner. It is Law 16 that supersedes Law 20F5. If there are no L16 >>> restrictions on a bid, then I do believe that L20F5 restricts other, >>> non-suggested bids. >>> [snip] > Who says it's arbitrary? My hierarchy is well-founded in logic and > consistent. > > You also work off a hierarchy. You keep saying that "not lying about > agreements is fundamental to the game". > So YOU are the one that ranks L73 above L20F5. > I rank L73 below L20F5. > I rank L16 above L20F5. > > What do you do? And why should we call either of these arbitrary? > [snip] > > Don't you believe that L16 ranks higher than L20F5? > If no question is asked, you are bound by L20F5. You say you would > remain quiet. Are you going to pass 3Di because bidding 3He would > "reveal that a mistake is being made". No you are not. You will also > rank L16 above L20F5. > > So why do you criticize me for making a ranking of the laws? > > The only "hierarchy" of Laws that actually means anything is the Introduction to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. In the Introduction, the wording used in the Laws is explained, so that TD's and players may have some idea of the "strength" of a Law. For example, a Law using the word "may" is actually optional. It describes an action that the player can choose to take, or not. The word "should" is stronger, etc. Any Law using "must" is a very strong imperative, subject to major penalties if violated. To summarize what is said in that paragraph of the Introduction, in order of increasing severity of a violation, the Laws are written with the words "may", "does", "should", "shall" and "must". In the negative, the Laws are written with the words "does not", "should not", "shall not", "may not", and "must not", again in order of increasing severity of a violation. L73C uses the word "must", while L20F5a uses the language "may not". Violation of 73C is to be considered more severe than violation of 20F5a, regardless of your own ranking. Since your ranking is not in agreement with the language written into the Introduction, it can only be considered arbitrary. L16B1a and L20F5a both use the "may not" language, which would indicate that in terms of severity of a violation, the Lawmakers rated them roughly equal. Saying that one "supercedes" the other is simply creating a fictional set of Laws, rather than understanding the ones we've got. So, you get criticized because whatever "hierarchy" the Lawmakers intended is already there, and spelled out in the Introduction. There is no need to introduce your own, and arbitrarily overriding the language written into the Laws is going to get you criticized, as it should. Hirsch From geller at nifty.com Wed Feb 13 03:09:29 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:09:29 +0900 Subject: [blml] Herman In-Reply-To: <000001c86dd3$13eb64a0$3bc22de0$@com> References: <000001c86dd3$13eb64a0$3bc22de0$@com> Message-ID: <200802130209.AA12425@geller204.nifty.com> David Burn writes: >the Lawmakers ought >to listen very hard to people such as Robert Geller, who does not know how >to translate the Laws into Japanese because he does not know what they mean >in English. And the Lawmakers ought also to listen to Herman de Wael. 1. There are a few (but only a few) places where the laws literally are untranslatable because they are ambiguous. 55A is one such, because "next hand" could be either next to the LOOT or next to the correct leader. 2. There are a much larger number of places where even an experienced and bridge-knowledgable translator (a native speaker of Japanese with very good English-as-a-foreign-language ability) has trouble with the current English version of the laws, because the English is too convoluted or obscure, or the word choices are not consistent. This leads to mistranslations. I suspect the translations into many other languages may contain significant numbers of errors. I submit that the English version of the laws should be drafted by the WBF with the specific intention of allowing ease of translation by using simple English. 3. Herman's interminable mails could be stopped by adding the COP statement (honest answers to questions are required, etc) to the Laws themselves. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Feb 13 03:20:06 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:20:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] If I were playing pure T/O sdoubles there, I could have a problem with AQJxx - x - KJx - KQxxx (do I hold enough to risk a double ?) as well as with AKxxx - QJ10 - Axx - Kx (damn it, I can't double !) [Nige1] In the UK, most players play double as "Action" whether or not RHO raises LHO's jump overcall. Hence, provided LHO used the "Stop" card, there would be no more to think about over 4H than 3H -- except with hands like Alain's first example. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Feb 13 23:48:52 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:48:52 -0800 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <089701c86d98$4855ac90$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be> <014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be> <042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be> <08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00B97.6080706@skynet.be> <2C981EEC-96CE-49D3-A3EE-57B091F84B02@starpower.net> <47B17464.9040903@skynet.be> <089701c86d98$4855ac90$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080213144653.0c644a80@mail.optusnet.com.au> > sr: >It seems to me that the people you speak to in real life are in the >unfortunate position of believing that you speak with authority. This is why >you are dangerous. And this is why people try to disabuse not only you but >other present and potential readers of this mailing list of your outlandish >viewpoint. Not because, as you seem to believe, that people are in any way >inclined to accept it or be persuaded by you. At least Bridge is only a game. Thankfully Herman is not a "creationist" (I sincerely hope) Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 13 05:54:59 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:54:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>I think Victorians might pass :) >> >>Tony (Sydney) >+=+ And Edwardians? +=+ Swiss Teams with imps converted to WBF VPs (including difference of 0-10 = 0 imps) Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1S 3H(1) Pass 4H Pass(2) Pass 4S Pass Pass 5H Pass Pass Dble Pass Pass Pass (1) Weak jump overcall (2) Break in tempo Result: 5Hx by East, +500 to North-South The complete deal (note that North's hesitation was not a deceptive infraction of the 2007 Law 73F - North had full values for his pause): AK987 --- AT432 KQT QT J5 A974 KJT86532 KJ86 5 AJ7 62 6432 Q Q97 98543 The Director adjusts the score to 4H (not doubled) by East, +100 to North-South. North-South elect to appeal. As the Appeals Committee, what ruling would you make? As the Appeals Committee, what other ruling would you consider making? The actual Appeals Committee upheld the director's ruling and determined that the appeal was "without merit". A 1 VP penalty was applied to the North-South team. International-class expert Michael Prescott (writing in the Oz Nationals daily bulletin of Thursday 24th January 2008): "How could the Appeal Committee make this ruling and ping the pair 1VP for a frivolous appeal? 20 odd top players polled on the hand said that they would bid 4S. When asked to sit on this committee, I declined because the players involved were my friends. The committee chair then asked me if the appeal had merit. I said 100% so. The committee seems to think that if partner tanks and then passes, you should do something different from what you would have done without the tank. This is incorrect. When partner breaks tempo, it does not mean you must pass. (If screens were in use we would not know which party was thinking.) To me this ruling suggests that if partner thinks 4S will fail, then they can tank and force you to pass. This is 100% incorrect and when some 90% of top players bid 4S without the break in tempo then it seems to me that the AC has made the wrong ruling. To penalise the team for an appeal without merit is nothing short of appalling. That a so-called high class committee could even think of giving a penalty, after ruling incorrectly, is a disgrace." Richard Hills: Homework for blmlers; what errors of Law has Prescott's polemic perpetrated? 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Feb 14 02:01:56 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:01:56 -0800 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com> References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> <200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080213165416.039173a8@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 12:54 AM 12/02/2008, you wrote: >John Probst writes: > >Me too, I think it'll take us a few years to get it under control. In the > >interim, mayhem :) John > >Yes, how is it actually supposed to work at the table? Had another one today. I must say to see their looks of incredulity as I allow an insufficient reply to Blackwood to be corrected without penalty is worth the price of admission. But I digress 1D (1C) I didn't see her opening bid. I know from Wayne's analysis that there are doubles that are too strong to be incorporated in 1C, but I am a free spirit. If your 1C just means you have sorted your hand and don't have a 5 card major, I will allow a double. If you really have clubs, you can bid 2C also without penalty. I say "if you get a really good result out of this, call me back and I will have to examine the entrails". I know that this is what the law makers intend and that it is good for bridge. I would like to call this interpretation the Musgrove school (MS), but if Grattan should say "Musgrove is wrong", I promise to immediately recant. At present I am awaiting the official intent of the lawmakers from the DWS. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 07:47:56 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:47:56 +1300 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080213165416.039173a8@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> <200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080213165416.039173a8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802122247x239f3bc8l7f523de20550fead@mail.gmail.com> On 14/02/2008, Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 12:54 AM 12/02/2008, you wrote: > >John Probst writes: > > >Me too, I think it'll take us a few years to get it under control. In the > > >interim, mayhem :) John > > > >Yes, how is it actually supposed to work at the table? > > Had another one today. I must say to see their looks of incredulity > as I allow an insufficient reply to Blackwood to be corrected without > penalty is worth the price of admission. But I digress > > 1D (1C) I didn't see her opening bid. I know from Wayne's > analysis that there are doubles that are too strong to be incorporated > in 1C, but I am a free spirit. If your 1C just means you have sorted > your hand and don't have a 5 card major, I will allow a double. If > you really have clubs, you can bid 2C also without penalty. I > say "if you get a really good result out of this, call me back and I > will have to examine the entrails". I know that this is what the > law makers intend and that it is good for bridge. I would like > to call this interpretation the Musgrove school (MS), but if Grattan > should say "Musgrove is wrong", I promise to immediately recant. > At present I am awaiting the official intent of the lawmakers from > the DWS. > I find it hard to believe that the law makers would have thought you can get an advantage from your insufficient bid. Such an advantage comes from exchanging a 1C opening for a 2C overcall. Now partner knows that your 2C overcall is based on sound opening values and not marginal competitive values as it might have been without the insufficient bid. This advantage is real even when it does not translate into a really good result. I may get a normal result rather than the really bad result I was destined for without the aid of the insufficient bid. It could be very hard to determine this advantage. It is much easier to disallow the free change to a call that has a meaning that is enhanced by the insufficient bid. Wayne From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Feb 14 02:59:55 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:59:55 -0800 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560802122247x239f3bc8l7f523de20550fead@mail.gmail.co m> References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> <200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080213165416.039173a8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <2a1c3a560802122247x239f3bc8l7f523de20550fead@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080213175811.03917180@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 10:47 PM 12/02/2008, you wrote: >On 14/02/2008, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > At 12:54 AM 12/02/2008, you wrote: > > >John Probst writes: > > > >Me too, I think it'll take us a few years to get it under control. > In the > > > >interim, mayhem :) John > > > > > >Yes, how is it actually supposed to work at the table? > > > > Had another one today. I must say to see their looks of incredulity > > as I allow an insufficient reply to Blackwood to be corrected without > > penalty is worth the price of admission. But I digress > > > > 1D (1C) I didn't see her opening bid. I know from Wayne's > > analysis that there are doubles that are too strong to be incorporated > > in 1C, but I am a free spirit. If your 1C just means you have sorted > > your hand and don't have a 5 card major, I will allow a double. If > > you really have clubs, you can bid 2C also without penalty. I > > say "if you get a really good result out of this, call me back and I > > will have to examine the entrails". I know that this is what the > > law makers intend and that it is good for bridge. I would like > > to call this interpretation the Musgrove school (MS), but if Grattan > > should say "Musgrove is wrong", I promise to immediately recant. > > At present I am awaiting the official intent of the lawmakers from > > the DWS. > > Warren: >I find it hard to believe that the law makers would have thought you >can get an advantage from your insufficient bid. > >Such an advantage comes from exchanging a 1C opening for a 2C >overcall. Now partner knows that your 2C overcall is based on sound >opening values and not marginal competitive values as it might have >been without the insufficient bid. Yes but that is the change that is allowed under some circumstances by the current rules. I think the new L27 is supposed to by a slacker version of the old L27 (MS) Cheers Tony (Sydney) From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 08:26:21 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:26:21 +1300 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080213175811.03917180@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> <200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080213165416.039173a8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <2a1c3a560802122247x239f3bc8l7f523de20550fead@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080213175811.03917180@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802122326y7a40be88vae2341910955313d@mail.gmail.com> On 14/02/2008, Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 10:47 PM 12/02/2008, you wrote: > >On 14/02/2008, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > At 12:54 AM 12/02/2008, you wrote: > > > >John Probst writes: > > > > >Me too, I think it'll take us a few years to get it under control. > > In the > > > > >interim, mayhem :) John > > > > > > > >Yes, how is it actually supposed to work at the table? > > > > > > Had another one today. I must say to see their looks of incredulity > > > as I allow an insufficient reply to Blackwood to be corrected without > > > penalty is worth the price of admission. But I digress > > > > > > 1D (1C) I didn't see her opening bid. I know from Wayne's > > > analysis that there are doubles that are too strong to be incorporated > > > in 1C, but I am a free spirit. If your 1C just means you have sorted > > > your hand and don't have a 5 card major, I will allow a double. If > > > you really have clubs, you can bid 2C also without penalty. I > > > say "if you get a really good result out of this, call me back and I > > > will have to examine the entrails". I know that this is what the > > > law makers intend and that it is good for bridge. I would like > > > to call this interpretation the Musgrove school (MS), but if Grattan > > > should say "Musgrove is wrong", I promise to immediately recant. > > > At present I am awaiting the official intent of the lawmakers from > > > the DWS. > > > > > > Warren: > > >I find it hard to believe that the law makers would have thought you > >can get an advantage from your insufficient bid. > > > >Such an advantage comes from exchanging a 1C opening for a 2C > >overcall. Now partner knows that your 2C overcall is based on sound > >opening values and not marginal competitive values as it might have > >been without the insufficient bid. > > Yes but that is the change that is allowed under some circumstances > by the current rules. I think the new L27 is supposed to by a slacker > version of the old L27 (MS) > If this is really intended then I think it is open to much abuse. Hence I doubt this was intended. Of course someone might tell me that this really was the intention. If so it seems that a good strategy is to always bid 1C when you intend to overcall 2C with a sound overcall as you might get an undectable advantage and the worst that can happen is that you is that you will be allowed to make your 2C overcall. Wayne From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Feb 14 03:30:43 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:30:43 -0800 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560802122326y7a40be88vae2341910955313d@mail.gmail.co m> References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> <200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080213165416.039173a8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <2a1c3a560802122247x239f3bc8l7f523de20550fead@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080213175811.03917180@mail.optusnet.com.au> <2a1c3a560802122326y7a40be88vae2341910955313d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080213182750.03898a30@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 11:26 PM 12/02/2008, you wrote: >On 14/02/2008, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > At 10:47 PM 12/02/2008, you wrote: > > >On 14/02/2008, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > > At 12:54 AM 12/02/2008, you wrote: > > > > >John Probst writes: > > > > > >Me too, I think it'll take us a few years to get it under control. > > > In the > > > > > >interim, mayhem :) John > > > > > > > > > >Yes, how is it actually supposed to work at the table? > > > > > > > > Had another one today. I must say to see their looks of incredulity > > > > as I allow an insufficient reply to Blackwood to be corrected without > > > > penalty is worth the price of admission. But I digress > > > > > > > > 1D (1C) I didn't see her opening bid. I know from Wayne's > > > > analysis that there are doubles that are too strong to be incorporated > > > > in 1C, but I am a free spirit. If your 1C just means you have sorted > > > > your hand and don't have a 5 card major, I will allow a double. If > > > > you really have clubs, you can bid 2C also without penalty. I > > > > say "if you get a really good result out of this, call me back and I > > > > will have to examine the entrails". I know that this is what the > > > > law makers intend and that it is good for bridge. I would like > > > > to call this interpretation the Musgrove school (MS), but if Grattan > > > > should say "Musgrove is wrong", I promise to immediately recant. > > > > At present I am awaiting the official intent of the lawmakers from > > > > the DWS. > > > > > > > > > > Warren: > > > > >I find it hard to believe that the law makers would have thought you > > >can get an advantage from your insufficient bid. > > > > > >Such an advantage comes from exchanging a 1C opening for a 2C > > >overcall. Now partner knows that your 2C overcall is based on sound > > >opening values and not marginal competitive values as it might have > > >been without the insufficient bid. > > > > Yes but that is the change that is allowed under some circumstances > > by the current rules. I think the new L27 is supposed to by a slacker > > version of the old L27 (MS) > > > >If this is really intended then I think it is open to much abuse. > >Hence I doubt this was intended. Of course someone might tell me that >this really was the intention. > >If so it seems that a good strategy is to always bid 1C when you >intend to overcall 2C with a sound overcall as you might get an >undectable advantage and the worst that can happen is that you is that >you will be allowed to make your 2C overcall. Aha, that is what I call cheating. I always tell my punters that if they make an insufficient bid in order to silence partner I will be assembling the firing squad even as we speak. I think I could make up the same spiel under your scenario. Regards Tony (Sydney) From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 13 09:30:59 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:30:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080213144653.0c644a80@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be> <014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be> <042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be> <08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00B97.6080706@skynet.be> <2C981EEC-96CE-49D3-A3EE-57B091F84B02@starpower.net> <47B17464.9040903@skynet.be> <089701c86d98$4855ac90$0100a8c0@stefanie> <6.1.0.6.2.20080213144653.0c644a80@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <47B2AAC3.4070708@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > > sr: > >> It seems to me that the people you speak to in real life are in the >> unfortunate position of believing that you speak with authority. This is why >> you are dangerous. And this is why people try to disabuse not only you but >> other present and potential readers of this mailing list of your outlandish >> viewpoint. Not because, as you seem to believe, that people are in any way >> inclined to accept it or be persuaded by you. > > At least Bridge is only a game. Thankfully Herman is not a "creationist" > > (I sincerely hope) > > Tony (Sydney) I vowed to stop replying to silly posts - but this is too much even for me. I am not a creationist. Although I resent, in name of all creationists, that you write "sincerely" in that sentence, indicating a negative view on such people. Creationists are like MSists. They believe so strongly in something that reasonable arguments slide off them like off a duck's back. I feel sorry for creationists. If only they'd had a better start in life ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 13 09:32:14 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:32:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <002201c86dd1$d5c3cab0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be><057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B076DA.3090801@skynet.be><066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B177BE.6050508@skynet.be><08f301c86d9e$a4c7b170$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B22B96.4050306@skynet.be> <002201c86dd1$d5c3cab0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B2AB0E.3020905@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>>> Believe me, the EBL AC would rule table : "5Di undoubled". >>> As I have said in another post, I don't believe you. >> Look Stefanie, I have been a member of the EBL AC for the past ten >> years. You should believe me. >> > Whatever. I don't know what the AC decision would have been. It is neither > here nor there. > Of course it is important. Since it will be the final outcome at tables 1-5. Comparing it with tables 6-8 tells us that table 5 has done nothing "wrong". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Feb 14 04:38:04 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:38:04 -0800 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080213185545.03945fe0@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 08:54 PM 12/02/2008, you wrote: > >>I think Victorians might pass :) > >> > >>Tony (Sydney) > > >+=+ And Edwardians? +=+ > >Swiss Teams with imps converted to WBF VPs >(including difference of 0-10 = 0 imps) > >Dlr: North >Vul: East-West > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1S 3H(1) Pass >4H Pass(2) Pass 4S >Pass Pass 5H Pass >Pass Dble Pass Pass >Pass > >(1) Weak jump overcall >(2) Break in tempo > >Result: 5Hx by East, +500 to North-South > >The complete deal (note that North's >hesitation was not a deceptive infraction of >the 2007 Law 73F - North had full values for >his pause): > > AK987 > --- > AT432 > KQT >QT J5 >A974 KJT86532 >KJ86 5 >AJ7 62 > 6432 > Q > Q97 > 98543 > >The Director adjusts the score to 4H (not >doubled) by East, +100 to North-South. > >North-South elect to appeal. > >As the Appeals Committee, what ruling would >you make? >As the Appeals Committee, what other ruling >would you consider making? > >The actual Appeals Committee upheld the >director's ruling and determined that the >appeal was "without merit". A 1 VP penalty >was applied to the North-South team. > >International-class expert Michael Prescott >(writing in the Oz Nationals daily bulletin >of Thursday 24th January 2008): > >"How could the Appeal Committee make this >ruling and ping the pair 1VP for a frivolous >appeal? 20 odd top players polled on the hand >said that they would bid 4S. When asked to sit >on this committee, I declined because the >players involved were my friends. I think this was correct >The >committee chair then asked me if the appeal >had merit. I said 100% so. I think this was correct >The committee >seems to think that if partner tanks and then >passes, you should do something different from >what you would have done without the tank. >This is incorrect. This is incorrect. L73 (guessing) >When partner breaks tempo, it >does not mean you must pass. correct >(If screens were >in use we would not know which party was >thinking.) To me this ruling suggests that if >partner thinks 4S will fail, then they can tank >and force you to pass. incorrect Tony (Sydney) From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Feb 13 09:42:36 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:42:36 +1300 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080213182750.03898a30@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> <200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080213165416.039173a8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <2a1c3a560802122247x239f3bc8l7f523de20550fead@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080213175811.03917180@mail.optusnet.com.au> <2a1c3a560802122326y7a40be88vae2341910955313d@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080213182750.03898a30@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802130042s5edafb16leff32c6a15863e71@mail.gmail.com> On 14/02/2008, Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 11:26 PM 12/02/2008, you wrote: > >On 14/02/2008, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > At 10:47 PM 12/02/2008, you wrote: > > > >On 14/02/2008, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > > > At 12:54 AM 12/02/2008, you wrote: > > > > > >John Probst writes: > > > > > > >Me too, I think it'll take us a few years to get it under control. > > > > In the > > > > > > >interim, mayhem :) John > > > > > > > > > > > >Yes, how is it actually supposed to work at the table? > > > > > > > > > > Had another one today. I must say to see their looks of incredulity > > > > > as I allow an insufficient reply to Blackwood to be corrected without > > > > > penalty is worth the price of admission. But I digress > > > > > > > > > > 1D (1C) I didn't see her opening bid. I know from Wayne's > > > > > analysis that there are doubles that are too strong to be incorporated > > > > > in 1C, but I am a free spirit. If your 1C just means you have sorted > > > > > your hand and don't have a 5 card major, I will allow a double. If > > > > > you really have clubs, you can bid 2C also without penalty. I > > > > > say "if you get a really good result out of this, call me back and I > > > > > will have to examine the entrails". I know that this is what the > > > > > law makers intend and that it is good for bridge. I would like > > > > > to call this interpretation the Musgrove school (MS), but if Grattan > > > > > should say "Musgrove is wrong", I promise to immediately recant. > > > > > At present I am awaiting the official intent of the lawmakers from > > > > > the DWS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Warren: > > > > > > >I find it hard to believe that the law makers would have thought you > > > >can get an advantage from your insufficient bid. > > > > > > > >Such an advantage comes from exchanging a 1C opening for a 2C > > > >overcall. Now partner knows that your 2C overcall is based on sound > > > >opening values and not marginal competitive values as it might have > > > >been without the insufficient bid. > > > > > > Yes but that is the change that is allowed under some circumstances > > > by the current rules. I think the new L27 is supposed to by a slacker > > > version of the old L27 (MS) > > > > > > >If this is really intended then I think it is open to much abuse. > > > >Hence I doubt this was intended. Of course someone might tell me that > >this really was the intention. > > > >If so it seems that a good strategy is to always bid 1C when you > >intend to overcall 2C with a sound overcall as you might get an > >undectable advantage and the worst that can happen is that you is that > >you will be allowed to make your 2C overcall. > > Aha, that is what I call cheating. I always tell my punters that if they > make an insufficient bid in order to silence partner I will be assembling > the firing squad even as we speak. I think I could make up the same spiel > under your scenario. > Sure but prove it. It would be much easier to not allow th advantage in the first instance. Wayne From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Feb 14 04:43:34 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:43:34 -0800 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <47B2AAC3.4070708@skynet.be> References: <000801c869ca$4e8a0ec0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47AB8114.4070408@skynet.be> <014c01c869eb$524ce020$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC0E53.8000308@skynet.be> <02a501c86a45$7481a400$0100a8c0@stefanie> <02f801c86a48$dffa1fc0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AC698F.7030400@skynet.be> <042e01c86a8f$b5b1b8d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47AEC773.90208@skynet.be> <08ca01c86bf1$5ffc26b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00B97.6080706@skynet.be> <2C981EEC-96CE-49D3-A3EE-57B091F84B02@starpower.net> <47B17464.9040903@skynet.be> <089701c86d98$4855ac90$0100a8c0@stefanie> <6.1.0.6.2.20080213144653.0c644a80@mail.optusnet.com.au> <47B2AAC3.4070708@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080213194236.03917180@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 12:30 AM 13/02/2008, you wrote: >Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > > sr: > > > >> It seems to me that the people you speak to in real life are in the > >> unfortunate position of believing that you speak with authority. This > is why > >> you are dangerous. And this is why people try to disabuse not only you but > >> other present and potential readers of this mailing list of your > outlandish > >> viewpoint. Not because, as you seem to believe, that people are in any way > >> inclined to accept it or be persuaded by you. > > > > At least Bridge is only a game. Thankfully Herman is not a "creationist" > > > > (I sincerely hope) > > > > Tony (Sydney) > >I vowed to stop replying to silly posts - but this is too much even >for me. >I am not a creationist. > >Although I resent, in name of all creationists, that you write >"sincerely" in that sentence, indicating a negative view on such people. > >Creationists are like MSists. They believe so strongly in something >that reasonable arguments slide off them like off a duck's back. Exactement mon cher T From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 13 10:15:16 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:15:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Demonstrably troubling In-Reply-To: <200802121756.JAA02535@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200802121756.JAA02535@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <47B2B524.5090801@ulb.ac.be> Adam Beneschan a ?crit : AG : This analysis by Adam is very useful and interesting. As a specialist in political mathematics, I'd just like to add one little thing : > My belief is that "positive action" isn't a legitimate way to > categorize bids in this situation. Assuming that partner's double > would be penalty, then if partner's hesitation means that he might > have considered doubling, then it might show a defensive-oriented > hand. On the other hand, if it means he was considering bidding on, > then it might show a particularly offensive-oriented hand. To me, the > two are polar opposites. A defensive hand is not the same as an > offensive hand. So saying a bid demonstrably suggests "one or the > other" isn't really saying anything at all. A double and a bid in > this case would also be opposites; lumping them together by calling > them "positive action" isn't particularly meaningful. The only thing > the two calls have in common is that they are both "not pass". > > So now suppose that the hesitation could show either a defensive- or > an offensive-oriented hand. This would mean that doubling is > suggested over passing, passing is suggested over bidding, bidding is > suggested over passing, and passing is suggested over doubling. How > can this be? It's self-contradictory. > > AG : it can well be that bidding is better, on long run, than passing, passing better than doubling and doubling better than bidding. One could well see cases where X > B > P 40% of the time, B > P > X 35% of the time, and P > X > B 25% of the time. This is called "Condorcet's paradox". Paradoxal, but not contradictory. It has happened before. In that case, the winner can't be adjudged on the basis of pure ranking methods. Which translates into "no action is clearly better". Of course, one could make weighted evaluations of the score and get an evaluation of each option's expectations (Borda's answer to Condorcet's problem). However, the mere fact that this is quite subjective and rather intricated seems enough to say that "no option is clearly and unmistakably suggested over another". Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 13 10:28:18 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:28:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080213185545.03945fe0@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080213185545.03945fe0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <47B2B832.8010902@ulb.ac.be> Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > >> (If screens were >> in use we would not know which party was >> thinking.) To me this ruling suggests that if >> partner thinks 4S will fail, then they can tank >> and force you to pass. >> > > incorrect > AG : of course that would be incorrect (mild wording ;-) but it's true that, if one knew the TD's and AC's state of mind was the same as in said case, than it would be possible for a dishonest player to take advantage of one's partner's honest behaviour. If you think this is appalling, well, then the AC's decision is. (BTW there was a similar case yesterday evening, where a partner thought for quite a while before passing over 3D after having been raised to 2S ; his partner refused to bid 3S, of course, and it appeared that it helped them a little, as 3S would have lost 2 IMPs) I can't agree more with Mr. Prescott. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 13 10:29:47 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:29:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560802130042s5edafb16leff32c6a15863e71@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001c86e22$fa4ddf50$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows .................. > Sure but prove it. By pattern. " Mr Bond, they have saying in Chicago: 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action.' " (Ian Fleming: Goldfinger) > It would be much easier to not allow th advantage in the first instance. In the early years of (rubber) bridge the standard remedy for most irregularities was that the non-offending side could demand a redeal. This is of course of little use in duplicate bridge. Here we try to get the most out of every deal while maintaining a fair competition. Regards Sven From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 13 13:13:16 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:13:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY><200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080213165416.039173a8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <01b401c86e39$d0875360$0100a8c0@stefanie> Tony Musgrove: > 1D (1C) I didn't see her opening bid. I know from Wayne's > analysis that there are doubles that are too strong to be incorporated What Wayne said was that there were 1C openings too strong to be incorporated in a double. > in 1C, but I am a free spirit. If your 1C just means you have sorted > your hand and don't have a 5 card major, I will allow a double. If > you really have clubs, you can bid 2C also without penalty. I hope you are joking! Steafnie Rohan London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 13 13:29:25 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:29:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <01b401c86e39$d0875360$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY><200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080213165416.039173a8@mail.optusnet.com.au> <01b401c86e39$d0875360$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B2E2A5.3070406@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > Tony Musgrove: > >> 1D (1C) I didn't see her opening bid. I know from Wayne's >> analysis that there are doubles that are too strong to be incorporated >> > > What Wayne said was that there were 1C openings too strong to be > incorporated in a double. > > >> in 1C, but I am a free spirit. If your 1C just means you have sorted >> your hand and don't have a 5 card major, I will allow a double. I'd say the new criterion of "all info given by the IB is given by the replacement bid, too" is 99,9% met, so I'd allow the double. The fact that the double is more precise than the 1C bid (you'll not hold a minimal opening bid without 7 major cards) isn't a handicap if I read the law correctly. Note that 100% adequation is impossible, and that the old version of the rules allowed some cases of rather fuzzy adequation, e.g. 1NT -> 1S corrected to 2S : you know partner holds opening values. Best regards Alain From geller at nifty.com Wed Feb 13 13:33:56 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:33:56 +0900 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <47B2E2A5.3070406@ulb.ac.be> References: <47B2E2A5.3070406@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200802131233.AA12443@geller204.nifty.com> Alain Gottcheiner writes: >Note that 100% adequation is impossible, and that the old version of the >rules allowed some cases of rather fuzzy adequation, e.g. 1NT -> 1S >corrected to 2S : you know partner holds opening values. Yes, but then the offender's partner had to pass once. So this ("must pass once") was a kind of rough and ready rectification. Whereas the new laws no longer impose any such requirement, and are thus, IMO, entirely too favorable to the OS. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 13 14:00:43 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:00:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be><057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B076DA.3090801@skynet.be><066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B177BE.6050508@skynet.be><08f301c86d9e$a4c7b170$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B22B96.4050306@skynet.be><002201c86dd1$d5c3cab0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B2AB0E.3020905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301c86e40$79449840$45d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws >>> Look Stefanie, I have been a member of the >>> EBL AC for the past ten years. You should >>> believe me. >>> +=+ The brochures I hold for EBL Championships of recent years show Mr De Wael was appointed as scribe for the Toutnament Appeals Committee on each occasion but not as a member of the committee. He is Secretary to, but not a member of, the Standing Appeals Committee. That aside, his view as to what the committee might decide in given circumstances is unauthorized and purely speculative. ~ Grattan Endicott Member EBL Standing Appeals Committee. +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 13 12:51:51 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:51:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Herman [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001201c86e40$77e88ab0$45d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 1:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Herman [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > WBF Code of Practice, revised 27th November 2003, > page 7: > > A player who, without design, makes unauthorized > information available to his partner does not commit > an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that > information that is a breach of the laws. > +=+ To be observed as a regulation wherever the tournament Rules and Regulations incorporate the WBF Code of Practice. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 13 14:11:00 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:11:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AB075D.7020905@skynet.be> <005e01c8699a$1ba1d590$f8d2403e@Mildred> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be><057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B076DA.3090801@skynet.be><066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B177BE.6050508@skynet.be><08f301c86d9e$a4c7b170$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B22B96.4050306@skynet.be><002201c86dd1$d5c3cab0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B2AB0E.3020905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <01f101c86e41$e15d0b00$0100a8c0@stefanie> HDW >>>>> Believe me, the EBL AC would rule table : "5Di undoubled". SR >>>> As I have said in another post, I don't believe you. HDW >>> Look Stefanie, I have been a member of the EBL AC for the past ten >>> years. You should believe me. Indeed. When I cannot believe even this. >>> >> Whatever. I don't know what the AC decision would have been. It is >> neither >> here nor there. >> > > Of course it is important. Since it will be the final outcome at > tables 1-5. Comparing it with tables 6-8 tells us that table 5 has > done nothing "wrong". I accept that I may be wrong, as there is no way of knowing, in my belief that the AC decision would be 5D doubled. But even if I am mistaken, it has nothing to do with whether table 5 has done something wrong. You cannot construct a chain of causality backwards! In any case, the PP you receive will have a far more detrimental effect on your score than would -800. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Feb 13 14:18:01 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:18:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com> References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] If I were playing pure T/O sdoubles there, I could have a problem with AQJxx - x - KJx - KQxxx (do I hold enough to risk a double ?) as well as with AKxxx - QJ10 - Axx - Kx (damn it, I can't double !) [Richard] Richard tells us that the auction ended up ... WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1S 3H(1) Pass 4H Pass(2) Pass 4S Pass Pass 5H Pass Pass Dble Pass Pass Pass (1) Weak jump overcall (2) Break in tempo Result: 5Hx by East, +500 to North-South [Nigei] Double would *not* be penalty whether you are protecting against 3H *or* deciding what to do over the simple raise to 4H. In the UK, the "stop" after the 3H jump overcall gives you time to work that out. IMO if you cunningly "tank" with a penalty double, in North's position and that seems to inhibit partner from taking a phantom sacrifice, then the director should provide your opponents with redress. Suppose, however, that you really would hesitate with *either* a shapely hand short in opponents suit *or* a massive penalty double. Which kind of hand is more common in this auction? Which kind of hand is the hesitation more likely to indicate? Arguably the former. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 13 14:57:10 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:57:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz In-Reply-To: <47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com> References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com> <47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <3642E884-1518-47C2-BFE3-5B8A8FE35BA8@starpower.net> On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:18 AM, Guthrie wrote: > [Alain Gottcheiner] > If I were playing pure T/O sdoubles there, I could have a problem with > AQJxx - x - KJx - KQxxx (do I hold enough to risk a double ?) > as well as with > AKxxx - QJ10 - Axx - Kx (damn it, I can't double !) > > [Richard] > Richard tells us that the auction ended up ... > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1S 3H(1) Pass > 4H Pass(2) Pass 4S > Pass Pass 5H Pass > Pass Dble Pass Pass > Pass > (1) Weak jump overcall > (2) Break in tempo > > Result: 5Hx by East, +500 to North-South > > [Nigei] > Double would *not* be penalty whether you are protecting against 3H > *or* deciding what to do over the simple raise to 4H. In the UK, the > "stop" after the 3H jump overcall gives you time to work that out. > > IMO if you cunningly "tank" with a penalty double, in North's position > and that seems to inhibit partner from taking a phantom sacrifice, > then > the director should provide your opponents with redress. > > Suppose, however, that you really would hesitate with *either* a > shapely > hand short in opponents suit *or* a massive penalty double. Which kind > of hand is more common in this auction? Which kind of hand is the > hesitation more likely to indicate? Arguably the former. Isn't "arguably" an antonym of "demonstrably"? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Wed Feb 13 15:06:54 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:06:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <001301c86e40$79449840$45d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <005601c86e49$afed1f80$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************** > "There isn't much newness in man, > whatever his country.." > 'Kangaroo' > (D.H.Lawrence, 1923) > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:32 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > > >>>> Look Stefanie, I have been a member of the >>>> EBL AC for the past ten years. You should >>>> believe me. >>>> > +=+ The brochures I hold for EBL Championships > of recent years show Mr De Wael was appointed > as scribe for the Toutnament Appeals Committee > on each occasion but not as a member of the committee. > He is Secretary to, but not a member of, the Standing > Appeals Committee. > That aside, his view as to what the committee might > decide in given circumstances is unauthorized and > purely speculative. That said, Grattan, Herman does have a pretty good idea of the way this cttee functions. I'd not belittle his ultra opinion. John > ~ Grattan Endicott > Member > EBL Standing Appeals Committee. +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Feb 13 15:07:44 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:07:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz In-Reply-To: <3642E884-1518-47C2-BFE3-5B8A8FE35BA8@starpower.net> References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com> <47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com> <3642E884-1518-47C2-BFE3-5B8A8FE35BA8@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47B2F9B0.1040705@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] Isn't "arguably" an antonym of "demonstrably"? [Nige1] Nearer synonyms than antonyms :) From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 13 15:33:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:33:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws In-Reply-To: <001301c86e40$79449840$45d5403e@Mildred> References: <47A97F18.6060308@skynet.be> <47AB2FC4.9010609@skynet.be> <47AB462B.4070408@t-online.de> <035B0CB2-9981-4886-95C9-E660BDF90230@starpower.net> <2b1e598b0802071111g50bba505p65473f6303c6f742@mail.gmail.com> <2E1BF17E-BE2F-4550-8048-A7C3C431A6A1@starpower.net> <47AB82D2.1070708@skynet.be><7EF2B340-77B4-4718-857F-248B0234E791@starpower.net> <47AECC20.5000605@skynet.be><08cc01c86bf2$765dde20$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B00DF9.3090606@skynet.be><036f01c86c9b$36d10da0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B03961.2070200@skynet.be><040f01c86ca8$55a8f1e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05210.1090401@skynet.be><054801c86cb5$e56f34d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B05DB5.7070606@skynet.be><057101c86cbc$a700d440$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B076DA.3090801@skynet.be><066001c86cdb$b8929170$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B177BE.6050508@skynet.be><08f301c86d9e$a4c7b170$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B22B96.4050306@skynet.be><002201c86dd1$d5c3cab0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B2AB0E.3020905@skynet.be> <001301c86e40$79449840$45d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47B2FFAE.9050405@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************** > "There isn't much newness in man, > whatever his country.." > 'Kangaroo' > (D.H.Lawrence, 1923) > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:32 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > > >>>> Look Stefanie, I have been a member of the >>>> EBL AC for the past ten years. You should >>>> believe me. >>>> > +=+ The brochures I hold for EBL Championships > of recent years show Mr De Wael was appointed > as scribe for the Toutnament Appeals Committee > on each occasion but not as a member of the committee. > He is Secretary to, but not a member of, the Standing > Appeals Committee. And as such equally, if not better, qualified to speak of AC practice. > That aside, his view as to what the committee might > decide in given circumstances is unauthorized and > purely speculative. Grattan, this is not speculation. Speculation is the fact that the AC would decide that West would not double if he only knows that 5Di shows diamond preference, without the added knowledge that South thought he was giving aces. But I make my own example, don't I? But the resulting ruling that the score is returned to 5Di undoubled is _not_ speculation, and you know it. > ~ Grattan Endicott > Member > EBL Standing Appeals Committee. +=+ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 13 15:43:57 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:43:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Please MS answer these three questions Message-ID: <47B3022D.4060904@skynet.be> I am about to shut up about this problem. But not before I ask the MS adepts to ask themselves the following three questions, and realize that they don't care about the game of bridge. The bidding goes: W N E S 1He 4Sp 4NT pas 5Di 5Sp Dbl all pass Before bidding 5Sp, West asks what 4NT is, and South says "Blackwood". West then asks how many aces South has shown, and North says "one". It turns out North has a minor two-suiter, and North admits having intended 4NT as showing this. When asked why he replied "one", North states that South is always better in the system than he is. If South says it's Blackwood, then it is. South concurs that 4NT to him is always Blackwood. North/South cannot show any system card or system notes that confirm this. North is not from Belgium, nor does he have an H, D or W among his initials. Four questions: 1) Provided that the story is true (South is always right), was North correct in replying one ace? 2) How should the Director establish that the story is true? 3) If the Director decides to believe North, what is the score correction going to be (assume that West would not bid 5Sp if told that 4NT shows minors, but not double either) 4) If the Director suspects that North is less certain about the system than he's letting on, is the score correction any different (you may assume that West would double if he knows the full story) As a side question: does it matter why West asks the question? As a teaser: are you happy with all these rulings you may have to make? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Feb 13 15:52:51 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:52:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] Herman In-Reply-To: <200802130209.AA12425@geller204.nifty.com> References: <000001c86dd3$13eb64a0$3bc22de0$@com> <200802130209.AA12425@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47B30443.3090903@NTLworld.com> [David Burn] ... the Lawmakers ought to listen very hard to people such as Robert Geller, who does not know how to translate the Laws into Japanese because he does not know what they mean in English. And the Lawmakers ought also to listen to Herman de Wael. {Robert Geller] 1. There are a few (but only a few) places where the laws literally are untranslatable because they are ambiguous. 55A is one such, because "next hand" could be either next to the LOOT or next to the correct leader. 2. There are a much larger number of places where even an experienced and bridge-knowledgable translator (a native speaker of Japanese with very good English-as-a-foreign-language ability) has trouble with the current English version of the laws, because the English is too convoluted or obscure, or the word choices are not consistent. This leads to mistranslations. I suspect the translations into many other languages may contain significant numbers of errors. I submit that the English version of the laws should be drafted by the WBF with the specific intention of allowing ease of translation by using simple English. 3. Herman's interminable mails could be stopped by adding the COP statement (honest answers to questions are required, etc) to the Laws themselves. [Nige1] I advocate radical simplifications to the law book, that the law committee seem reluctant to consider. It is harder to understand why law-makers won't implement the obvious corrections that David and Robert suggest. The lawmakers should help players and directors understand the law-book by correcting some of the ommissions, ambiguities, inconsistencies, obscurities and solecisms to which BLMLers have drawn the WBFLC's attention. It would be churlish not to praise law-makers for the good work that they have already accomplished in this area. For example, the new law book clarifies the role of spectators. Nevertheless, there are still many trivial ambiguities (real or imagined), that the law-committee could clarify for the benefit of players. For example ... [A] Is it legal to lead to the next trick while cards are still exposed to the current trick? what if this is likely cause a mistake by a harassed declarer? I contend that *independent* legal opinion would be that the effect of about 12 different laws is to make such a lead illegal. In any cae, IMO, this needs clarification. [B] Must declarer hold/maintain a card *stationary*, before it is deemed played. For example, if declarer simply sweeps a card in one continuous action, face-up, touching the table, replacing it in his hand, is it played? This storm in a tea-cup has not been resolved on RGB or BLML. From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 13 17:02:20 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:02:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Please MS answer these three questions In-Reply-To: <47B3022D.4060904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c86e59$d0bcadb0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > I am about to shut up about this problem. Thanks heaven for that! In response I shall for once offer my answers below. > But not before I ask the MS adepts to ask themselves the following > three questions, and realize that they don't care about the game of > bridge. The last sentence is an insult, but I shall ignore it this time. > > The bidding goes: > > W N E S > 1He > 4Sp 4NT pas 5Di > 5Sp Dbl all pass > > Before bidding 5Sp, West asks what 4NT is, and South says "Blackwood". > West then asks how many aces South has shown, and North says "one". It > turns out North has a minor two-suiter, and North admits having > intended 4NT as showing this. > > When asked why he replied "one", North states that South is always > better in the system than he is. If South says it's Blackwood, then it > is. South concurs that 4NT to him is always Blackwood. > > North/South cannot show any system card or system notes that confirm this. > North is not from Belgium, nor does he have an H, D or W among his > initials. > > Four questions: Above you announced three questions, but never mind. > > 1) Provided that the story is true (South is always right), was North > correct in replying one ace? North must select one of the following options: He must either answer "Diamond preference" or he must summon the Director (Law 20F4). North must absolutely not answer "one ace" without first summoning the Director. This answer qualifies for an automatic procedural penalty. > > 2) How should the Director establish that the story is true? Which story? He should apply Laws 84 and 85 and establish the facts to his own satisfaction. > 3) If the Director decides to believe North, what is the score > correction going to be (assume that West would not bid 5Sp if told > that 4NT shows minors, but not double either) He should analyze the board and (preferably after consultation with other players) determine the likely result on the board absent any irregularity. > 4) If the Director suspects that North is less certain about the > system than he's letting on, is the score correction any different > (you may assume that West would double if he knows the full story) The score correction should normally not be influenced by such conditions. But the amount of the procedure penalty could possibly. > As a side question: does it matter why West asks the question? > As a teaser: are you happy with all these rulings you may have to make? Why should it matter except if West asks his questions in violation of Law 20G1? I cannot remember ever having made a ruling with which I was not happy. I would definitely suggest an appeal if I were. Sven From mustikka at charter.net Wed Feb 13 18:31:58 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:31:58 -0800 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com><47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com><3642E884-1518-47C2-BFE3-5B8A8FE35BA8@starpower.net> <47B2F9B0.1040705@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <002501c86e66$56090390$9d015e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 6:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Return to Oz > [Eric Landau] > Isn't "arguably" an antonym of "demonstrably"? > [Nige1] > Nearer synonyms than antonyms :) Then, if I have understood Nigel correctly, he is not willing to go all the way and say it in the terms of the law, demonstrably. The choice of a different word to me expresses doubt whether the *demonstrably could suggest* is true in the case. If there is that much doubt, then it would be difficult or impossible to demonstrate how the chosen call was suggested over another LA. I hope I am not splitting hairs. Raija From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 13 18:31:03 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:31:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Please MS answer these three questions In-Reply-To: <000001c86e59$d0bcadb0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000001c86e59$d0bcadb0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47B32957.2030208@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> I am about to shut up about this problem. > > Thanks heaven for that! In response I shall for once offer my answers below. > Thank you Sven. >> But not before I ask the MS adepts to ask themselves the following >> three questions, and realize that they don't care about the game of >> bridge. > > The last sentence is an insult, but I shall ignore it this time. > No it's not - if you answer the (indeed) four questions sensibly, you will notice that a problem is there that you don't seem to care about. Your answers demonstrate this. >> The bidding goes: >> >> W N E S >> 1He >> 4Sp 4NT pas 5Di >> 5Sp Dbl all pass >> >> Before bidding 5Sp, West asks what 4NT is, and South says "Blackwood". >> West then asks how many aces South has shown, and North says "one". It >> turns out North has a minor two-suiter, and North admits having >> intended 4NT as showing this. >> >> When asked why he replied "one", North states that South is always >> better in the system than he is. If South says it's Blackwood, then it >> is. South concurs that 4NT to him is always Blackwood. >> >> North/South cannot show any system card or system notes that confirm this. >> North is not from Belgium, nor does he have an H, D or W among his >> initials. >> >> Four questions: > > Above you announced three questions, but never mind. > >> 1) Provided that the story is true (South is always right), was North >> correct in replying one ace? > > North must select one of the following options: > > He must either answer "Diamond preference" or he must summon the Director > (Law 20F4). > > North must absolutely not answer "one ace" without first summoning the > Director. This answer qualifies for an automatic procedural penalty. > Why? North believes that South is correct in stating that 4NT was Blackwood. Have you never made a call, heard partner explain differently, and realize that he was right? How then do you explain his next call? So to qualify this as "absolutely not", or to ask that he call the TD, are, IMO (and I hope many of you agree with me) totally wrong. >> 2) How should the Director establish that the story is true? > > Which story? He should apply Laws 84 and 85 and establish the facts to his > own satisfaction. > The story that North believes South to be correct in describing 4NT as Blackwood. >> 3) If the Director decides to believe North, what is the score >> correction going to be (assume that West would not bid 5Sp if told >> that 4NT shows minors, but not double either) > > He should analyze the board and (preferably after consultation with other > players) determine the likely result on the board absent any irregularity. > Sven, please try to be helpful. I've given you most of the elements that this consultation will reveal. I'm asking for a real answer here. Don't you notice that your sentence "absent any irregularity" is open to interpretation? At the very least you and I have a different opinion about it. Please bear with me here, I'm trying to make you notice something! >> 4) If the Director suspects that North is less certain about the >> system than he's letting on, is the score correction any different >> (you may assume that West would double if he knows the full story) > > The score correction should normally not be influenced by such conditions. > Aha! > But the amount of the procedure penalty could possibly. > >> As a side question: does it matter why West asks the question? >> As a teaser: are you happy with all these rulings you may have to make? > > Why should it matter except if West asks his questions in violation of Law > 20G1? > > I cannot remember ever having made a ruling with which I was not happy. I > would definitely suggest an appeal if I were. > That means Sven, that you have never really thought about the laws of bridge. If I give a revoke ruling that unduly punishes one side or unduly rewards another, then I am not happy. I console myself with different considerations. But I'm not happy. If you are always happy with the outcome of what (you think) the laws say, then you ought not to feature in discussions about future laws. But anyway, that was only the teaser. Are you confident that you will get this ruling always the same way as your colleagues - are you satisfied that the WBF has given you enough rules to work with? > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 13 19:05:29 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:05:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com><47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com><3642E884-1518-47C2-BFE3-5B8A8FE35BA8@starpower.net><47B2F9B0.1040705@NTLworld.com> <002501c86e66$56090390$9d015e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <028d01c86e6b$045e3ce0$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> [Eric Landau] >> Isn't "arguably" an antonym of "demonstrably"? >> [Nige1] >> Nearer synonyms than antonyms :) Well, no. While it seems on the surface that to "argue" something and to "demonstrate" something are similar, "arguably" means that there may well be good arguments *against* it. Stefanie Rohan London, England From adam at irvine.com Wed Feb 13 19:11:56 2008 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:11:56 -0800 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:05:29 GMT." <028d01c86e6b$045e3ce0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <200802131802.KAA18921@mailhub.irvine.com> Stefanie wrote: > >> [Eric Landau] > >> Isn't "arguably" an antonym of "demonstrably"? > >> [Nige1] > >> Nearer synonyms than antonyms :) > > Well, no. While it seems on the surface that to "argue" something and to > "demonstrate" something are similar, "arguably" means that there may well be > good arguments *against* it. No, it doesn't. Not in my dictionary, anyway. Merriam-Webster Online (www.merriam-webster.com) gives this definition: as may be argued or shown by argument This definition says nothing about the quality of arguments against the proposition. M-W is an American English dictionary, though. Maybe it means something else in British usage. What does Chambers or OED say? -- Adam From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 13 20:38:49 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:38:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz References: <200802131802.KAA18921@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <030301c86e78$0e654d70$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> Well, no. While it seems on the surface that to "argue" something and to >> "demonstrate" something are similar, "arguably" means that there may well >> be >> good arguments *against* it. > > No, it doesn't. Not in my dictionary, anyway. Merriam-Webster Online > (www.merriam-webster.com) gives this definition: > > as may be argued or shown by argument strategy> > > This definition says nothing about the quality of arguments against > the proposition. > > M-W is an American English dictionary, though. Maybe it means > something else in British usage. What does Chambers or OED say? What I had been thinking was that "arguably" meant that there were arguments for AND against, so that you could not just state it were true, ie that you could make a case for it but knew that there would be valid arguments against. Chambers: Arguable: capable of being maintained; capable of being disputed. Stefanie Rohan London, England From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 13 21:46:31 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:46:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Please MS answer these three questions In-Reply-To: <47B32957.2030208@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c86e81$8407a830$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .................. > >> 1) Provided that the story is true (South is always right), was North > >> correct in replying one ace? > > > > North must select one of the following options: > > > > He must either answer "Diamond preference" or he must summon the > Director > > (Law 20F4). > > > > North must absolutely not answer "one ace" without first summoning the > > Director. This answer qualifies for an automatic procedural penalty. > > > > Why? North believes that South is correct in stating that 4NT was > Blackwood. Have you never made a call, heard partner explain > differently, and realize that he was right? How then do you explain > his next call? I am definitely not going to pretend that I made a deliberate misbid so I realize that what I am about to do is changing my understanding of the partnership agreements. Consequently, in order to protect both myself and my opponents I must abide by Law 20F4 and summon the Director even though I technically haven't yet given any explanation (that I now understand is incorrect) to opponents. > > So to qualify this as "absolutely not", or to ask that he call the TD, > are, IMO (and I hope many of you agree with me) totally wrong. I am of the opinion that it is never wrong to summon the Director if one feels that there might be a reason to do so. > > >> 2) How should the Director establish that the story is true? > > > > Which story? He should apply Laws 84 and 85 and establish the facts to > his > > own satisfaction. > > > > The story that North believes South to be correct in describing 4NT as > Blackwood. The Director shall not "establish that" the story is true; he shall in case "establish whether" that story is true. (There is a very important difference!) And he shall apply Laws 84 and 85 to do so. > > >> 3) If the Director decides to believe North, what is the score > >> correction going to be (assume that West would not bid 5Sp if told > >> that 4NT shows minors, but not double either) > > > > He should analyze the board and (preferably after consultation with > other > > players) determine the likely result on the board absent any > irregularity. > > > > Sven, please try to be helpful. I've given you most of the elements > that this consultation will reveal. I'm asking for a real answer here. > Don't you notice that your sentence "absent any irregularity" is open > to interpretation? At the very least you and I have a different > opinion about it. I referred to the prescribed procedure, and that is the procedure the Director is supposed to apply. > Please bear with me here, I'm trying to make you notice something! > > >> 4) If the Director suspects that North is less certain about the > >> system than he's letting on, is the score correction any different > >> (you may assume that West would double if he knows the full story) > > > > The score correction should normally not be influenced by such > conditions. > > > > Aha! > > > But the amount of the procedure penalty could possibly. > > > >> As a side question: does it matter why West asks the question? > >> As a teaser: are you happy with all these rulings you may have to make? > > > > Why should it matter except if West asks his questions in violation of > Law > > 20G1? > > > > I cannot remember ever having made a ruling with which I was not happy. > I > > would definitely suggest an appeal if I were. > > > > That means Sven, that you have never really thought about the laws of > bridge. Oh, I think I have indeed! As a matter of fact I even have an impression that I may have had some influence on the final version of the 2007 laws. > If I give a revoke ruling that unduly punishes one side or > unduly rewards another, then I am not happy. Unduly? Revoke rulings are some of the easiest in the laws and there is nothing unfair about them; they are the rules. Don't tell me you are the kind of a Director that bends the rules according to your own sympathies and antipathies? > I console myself with > different considerations. But I'm not happy. If you are always happy > with the outcome of what (you think) the laws say, then you ought not > to feature in discussions about future laws. But anyway, that was only > the teaser. Are you confident that you will get this ruling always the > same way as your colleagues - are you satisfied that the WBF has given > you enough rules to work with? As long as I feel that my ruling is according to the laws I have no reason to feel unhappy. I may have pity for one (or even both) side(s) but that is an entirely different matter. This is not to say that I could not wish the "correction" for irregularities in certain situations being different from what the current laws prescribe (I have no examples), but it could seem as if you need a reminder of Laws 12B2 and 81B2? And that will conclude my contributions to this thread. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 13 22:44:20 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:44:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz In-Reply-To: <002501c86e66$56090390$9d015e47@DFYXB361> References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com><47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com><3642E884-1518-47C2-BFE3-5B8A8FE35BA8@starpower.net> <47B2F9B0.1040705@NTLworld.com> <002501c86e66$56090390$9d015e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: On Feb 13, 2008, at 12:31 PM, raija wrote: > From: "Guthrie" > >> [Eric Landau] >> Isn't "arguably" an antonym of "demonstrably"? >> [Nige1] >> Nearer synonyms than antonyms :) > > Then, if I have understood Nigel correctly, he is not willing to go > all the > way and say it in the terms of the law, demonstrably. The choice of a > different word to me expresses doubt whether the *demonstrably could > suggest* is true in the case. If there is that much doubt, then it > would be > difficult or impossible to demonstrate how the chosen call was > suggested > over another LA. > > I hope I am not splitting hairs. American Heritage Dictionary gives: "Demonstrable: Capable of being shown or proved." "Arguable: That can be argued about." Of course, BLMLers know quite well from experience that even that which is proven can be argued about anyhow, but I'll stick by "antonym". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 13 22:54:56 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:54:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz In-Reply-To: <200802131802.KAA18921@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200802131802.KAA18921@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <8506DEFC-536E-457D-A34D-3FFA102FE939@starpower.net> On Feb 13, 2008, at 1:11 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Stefanie wrote: > >>>> [Eric Landau] >>>> Isn't "arguably" an antonym of "demonstrably"? >>>> [Nige1] >>>> Nearer synonyms than antonyms :) >> >> Well, no. While it seems on the surface that to "argue" something >> and to >> "demonstrate" something are similar, "arguably" means that there >> may well be >> good arguments *against* it. > > No, it doesn't. Not in my dictionary, anyway. Merriam-Webster Online > (www.merriam-webster.com) gives this definition: > > as may be argued or shown by argument strategy> > > This definition says nothing about the quality of arguments against > the proposition. > > M-W is an American English dictionary, though. Maybe it means > something else in British usage. What does Chambers or OED say? IME, "arguably" is used in American idiom to describe something which the speaker asserts to be true, but recognizes is a matter of opinion with which others might reasonably differ. The examples Adam cites from M-W/O are typical American usages. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 13 23:37:41 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:37:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] A new fun game Message-ID: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Dear all, I have thought of a fun game we can play. Here is how it works: 1. Anyone who can think of a substitution they would allow under new 27C2 can post details about it. 2. Others ask questions and provide arguments for and against. 3. Send votes to me so we can see if there is broad agreement in favour of any substitution. 4. Post under headings fun game1 fun game 2, etc 5. This is not just for fun actually. Stefanie Rohan London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 13 23:16:48 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:16:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] seven arguments for dws References: <001301c86e40$79449840$45d5403e@Mildred> <005601c86e49$afed1f80$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> Message-ID: <00a301c86e91$2bbc1980$e1d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] seven arguments for dws > > That said, Grattan, Herman does have a pretty good idea > of the way this cttee functions. I'd not belittle his ultra > opinion. John > +=+ Of course I do not object to his expressing an opinion of what might happen. I do not think he should bolster his opinion with a misrepresentation of his status. Personally, as a regular member of EBL TACs (again for Pau) and a member of the standing AC, I am less confident than he of what an EBL TAC might decide in the circumstances cited. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 14 00:17:31 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:17:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: International-class expert Michael Prescott (writing in the Oz Nationals daily bulletin of Thursday 24th January 2008): >How could the Appeal Committee make this >ruling and ping the pair 1VP for a frivolous >appeal? 20 odd top players polled on the hand >said that they would bid 4S. Richard Hills: Error number one. The TDs also polled peers of South before arriving at their ruling. A larger poll is not necessarily more accurate than a smaller poll - the mega-large Literary Digest poll in 1936 predicted Landon would defeat Roosevelt in a landslide, with the only correct datum in that poll being a landslide. The 1936 Literary Digest poll failed due to sample bias. Perhaps Prescott's poll had a similar problem; he may have subconsciously approached overbidders, or his pollees may have been subconsciously biased by knowing the full deal from the hand records (the TD poll was conducted before the hand records were released). But the previous paragraph is superfluous to Prescott's error. Prescott was a player (not a Director), and the first sentence of the 2007 Law 81C states: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage." Michael Prescott: >When asked to sit on this committee, I >declined because the players involved were my >friends. WBF Code of Practice, page 4: "A committee member who has prior knowledge of the subject matter of an appeal, of a kind that may affect his objective participation, should recuse himself from the committee and will preferably be substituted." Michael Prescott: >The committee chair then asked me if the appeal >had merit. I said 100% so. Richard Hills: Interesting. If this question was asked by the future committee chair in the absence of the other (perhaps not yet selected) committee members, it seems to me that the committee chair committed two errors. Firstly, prejudging that the appeal's merit would be an issue. And then secondly seeking advice from a player who had no status once Prescott had declined membership of the committee. Michael Prescott: >The committee seems to think that if partner >tanks and then passes, you should do something >different from what you would have done without >the tank. This is incorrect. When partner breaks >tempo, it does not mean you must pass. Richard Hills: No, Prescott has constructed a straw man. When partner gives UI, your logical alternatives may be restricted. Under Law 16 and Law 73C, if: (a) logical alternatives X and Y exist, and (b) without UI from pard you would select X, and (c) partner does create UI, and (d) pard's UI demonstrably suggests X, then (e) you must change your selection from X to Y. Michael Prescott: >To me this ruling suggests that if partner >thinks 4S will fail, then they can tank and >force you to pass. Richard Hills: A major error by Prescott and Jeff Rubens (who dubbed this the "Briar Patch Coup", after the Uncle Remus Br'er Rabbit stories). Hesitating without design because you have a real problem is legal. 2007 Law 73D1: ".....Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction....." Richard Hills: But deliberately hesitating when you do not have a problem in order to bar an ethical partner is a clearcut case of cheating. 2007 Law 73A2: "Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste....." 2007 Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Feb 14 19:23:07 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:23:07 -0800 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802131233.AA12443@geller204.nifty.com> References: <47B2E2A5.3070406@ulb.ac.be> <200802131233.AA12443@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080214102134.01dc3318@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 04:33 AM 13/02/2008, you wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner writes: > >Note that 100% adequation is impossible, and that the old version of the > >rules allowed some cases of rather fuzzy adequation, e.g. 1NT -> 1S > >corrected to 2S : you know partner holds opening values. > >Yes, but then the offender's partner had to pass once. So this ("must >pass once") >was a kind of rough and ready rectification. Whereas the new laws >no longer impose any such requirement, and are thus, IMO, entirely >too favorable to the OS. > >-Bob I think you may be thinking of the BOOT rectification. Not so for an insufficient bid so long as neither the IB or the correction could have been conventional Tony (Sydney) From geller at nifty.com Thu Feb 14 00:31:56 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:31:56 +0900 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080214102134.01dc3318@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080214102134.01dc3318@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <200802132331.AA12455@geller204.nifty.com> Tony Musgrove ????????: >At 04:33 AM 13/02/2008, you wrote: >>Alain Gottcheiner writes: >> >Note that 100% adequation is impossible, and that the old version of the >> >rules allowed some cases of rather fuzzy adequation, e.g. 1NT -> 1S >> >corrected to 2S : you know partner holds opening values. >> >>Yes, but then the offender's partner had to pass once. So this ("must >>pass once") >>was a kind of rough and ready rectification. Whereas the new laws >>no longer impose any such requirement, and are thus, IMO, entirely >>too favorable to the OS. >> >>-Bob >I think you may be thinking of the BOOT rectification. Not so for an >insufficient bid so long as neither the IB or the correction could have >been conventional Yes, sorry about that. Here in Japan insufficient bids have ceased to occur since now all players just tell the director they pulled the wrong card from the bidding box and they are allowed to change it without penalty. So I forgot the (now obsolete) rule that once applied to what were called "insufficient bids." :-) -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 14 01:07:09 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:07:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> <200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <017c01c86e9e$87886450$e1d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The new L27C2 < > how is it actually supposed to work at the table? > > Example: > North bids 1C, East bids 1S, South bids 1H, West calls the director. > The director confirms that West doesn't accept the IB, and tells > East that 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 continue with the > information arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides, > but that at the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted > score if he judges that without assistance from the insufficient bid the > contract could well have been different, and the non-offending side > is damaged. > > We can imagine poor East having a hard time trying to understand > exactly what is mean by this. But (as several earlier mails in this > and other threads have pointed out), what is poor East to do? > How is East to know before replacing the IB by a new call whether > or not his new call will be regarded as incorporating the information > contained in the insufficient bid? If he goes off to a corner with the > director maybe the two of them can hash it out, but if the discussion > is held in front of west UI will be transmitted, and maybe if East just > replaces the IB by another call it won't be approved. > > And is the director supposed to make an on-the-spot adjucation > "incorporation or no incorporation?" BEFORE deciding whether > or not to let the auction and play to proceed normally? If the > answer is no, what happens? > +=+ Committee confidentiality bars me from joining this discussion for the time being. I can, however, speak as to one question of fact (beyond which I can add nothing until the DSC answers questions put to it on this law). Information conveyed by a call is what it shows and what it excludes. For 27C1 to apply the substituted call must therefore convey the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than, the withdrawn bid. (a balanced 15-19 may be replaced by a balanced 15-17, but not vice versa.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 14 01:21:37 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:21:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz References: <200802131802.KAA18921@mailhub.irvine.com> <8506DEFC-536E-457D-A34D-3FFA102FE939@starpower.net> Message-ID: <018d01c86e9f$97dc45f0$e1d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Return to Oz > On Feb 13, 2008, at 1:11 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> Stefanie wrote: >> >>>>> [Eric Landau] >>>>> Isn't "arguably" an antonym of "demonstrably"? >>>>> [Nige1] >>>>> Nearer synonyms than antonyms :) >>> >>> Well, no. While it seems on the surface that to "argue" something >>> and to >>> "demonstrate" something are similar, "arguably" means that there >>> may well be >>> good arguments *against* it. >> >> No, it doesn't. Not in my dictionary, anyway. Merriam-Webster Online >> (www.merriam-webster.com) gives this definition: >> >> as may be argued or shown by argument > strategy> >> >> This definition says nothing about the quality of arguments against >> the proposition. >> >> M-W is an American English dictionary, though. Maybe it means >> something else in British usage. What does Chambers or OED say? > > IME, "arguably" is used in American idiom to describe something which > the speaker asserts to be true, but recognizes is a matter of opinion > with which others might reasonably differ. The examples Adam cites > from M-W/O are typical American usages. > +=+ Chambers happens to be sitting on the desk in front of me. 'arguable' = capable of being disputed; capable of being maintained. 'arguable' = adverb from 'arguable'. ~ G ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Thu Feb 14 01:23:58 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:23:58 +0900 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <017c01c86e9e$87886450$e1d5403e@Mildred> References: <017c01c86e9e$87886450$e1d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200802140023.AA12457@geller204.nifty.com> gesta at tiscali.co.uk ????????: > Information conveyed by a call is what it shows and >what it excludes. For 27C1 to apply the substituted call >must therefore convey the same meaning as, or a more >precise meaning than, the withdrawn bid. (a balanced >15-19 may be replaced by a balanced 15-17, but not >vice versa.) This means that in the process of replacing the insufficient bid by a legal bid the OS actually benefit by providing a more precise delineation of their hand (a thus more information) than the IB provided. Of course in some sense this can be argued to be restoration of equity, I suppose. But this means that a 1H IB (6+ points, 4 or more hearts) after 1D-(1S) may be replaced by either NegX(4 or more hearts, 6-9 or exactly 4 hearts, 10+) or 2H (5+ hearts, 10+ points). I suppose this restores equity but...... -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 14 01:33:49 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:33:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> <200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <03b301c86ea1$444e47b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Bob Geller: > We can imagine poor East having a hard time trying to understand exactly > what is mean by this. But (as several earlier mails in this and other > threads have pointed out), what is poor East to do? How is East to know > before replacing the IB by a new call whether or not his new call will > be regarded as incorporating the information contained in > the insufficient bid? If he goes off to a corner with the director maybe > the > two of them can hash it out, but if the discussion is held in front of > west UI > will be transmitted, and maybe if East just replaces the IB by another > call > it won't be approved. > > And is the director supposed to make an on-the-spot adjucation > "incorporation > or no incorporation?" BEFORE deciding whether or not to let the auction > and play to proceed normally? If the answer is no, what happens? I think that it is essential that East knows, before he tries a penalty-free substitution, whether it will be accepted. If it won't be, he might want to take his chances with a bid that bars his partner from the auction, rather than getting the worst of both worlds in the Committee room. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 14 01:52:57 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:52:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] Please RJH answer this one question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B3022D.4060904@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >The bidding goes: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- 1H >4S 4NT Pass 5D >5S Dble Pass Pass >Pass > >Before bidding 5S, West asks what 4NT is, and South says "Blackwood". >West then asks how many aces South has shown, and North says "one". >It turns out North has a minor two-suiter, and North admits having >intended 4NT as showing this. > >When asked why he replied "one", North states that South is always >better in the system than he is. If South says it's Blackwood, then >it is. South concurs that 4NT to him is always Blackwood. > >North/South cannot show any system card or system notes that confirm >this. North is not from Belgium, nor does he have an H, D or W among >his initials. > >One question: > >1) Provided that the story is true (South is always right), was North >correct in replying one ace? Richard Hills: Yes, North must not deliberately give MI. 2007 Law 72B1. Sven Pran: >>North must select one of the following options: >> >>He must either answer "Diamond preference" Richard Hills: Which is deliberately giving MI, thus contrary to the 2007 Law 72B1. Sven Pran: >>or he must summon the Director (Law 20F4). Richard Hills: Law 20F4 requires a previous erroneous _explanation_ by North, not merely a previous erroneous _bid_ by North. Sven Pran: >>North must absolutely not answer "one ace" without first summoning >>the Director. Richard Hills: Since Law 20F4 does not apply, North should not create UI by an unnecessary summoning of the Director. Sven Pran: >>This answer qualifies for an automatic procedural penalty. Richard Hills: Rubbish. Why PP a correct description of partnership agreement? On the other hand, North has UI from South (2007 Law 75A), so it is possible that that UI demonstrably suggested North's double. If so, a Law 16 adjusted score may be required. 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 Thu Feb 14 01:56:01 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:56:01 -0600 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <017c01c86e9e$87886450$e1d5403e@Mildred> References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> <200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com> <017c01c86e9e$87886450$e1d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802131656r342f545p6d058b87989b4fc2@mail.gmail.com> > +=+ Committee confidentiality bars me from joining this > discussion for the time being. I can, however, speak as > to one question of fact (beyond which I can add nothing > until the DSC answers questions put to it on this law). > Information conveyed by a call is what it shows and > what it excludes. For 27C1 to apply the substituted call > must therefore convey the same meaning as, or a more > precise meaning than, the withdrawn bid. (a balanced > 15-19 may be replaced by a balanced 15-17, but not > vice versa.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ But, like I asked a few days ago , how does everyone know that the withdrawn bid meant? What auction do we assume was in the insufficient bidder's mind? One BLMLer gave my question this answer: "A novel approach you could try asking the bidder." Well, okay, do we ask at the table? Away from the table? Suppose away from the table, and now: What if the meaning the IBer states would come as a complete surprise to the other three at the table? Will the director state that meaning so that everyone is on the same page? Every discussion in BLML that I recall has assumed that the meaning of the IB is common knowledge, but it aint necessarily so. Is Eric Landau the only one who can comprehend the problem? There should be at least some little hint as to the procedure. Jerry Fusselman From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 14 04:00:55 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 03:00:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY><200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com><017c01c86e9e$87886450$e1d5403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0802131656r342f545p6d058b87989b4fc2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001e01c86eb5$d316c580$41cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 12:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The new L27C2 >> +=+ Committee confidentiality bars me from joining this >> discussion for the time being. I can, however, speak as >> to one question of fact (beyond which I can add nothing >> until the DSC answers questions put to it on this law). >> Information conveyed by a call is what it shows and >> what it excludes. For 27C1 to apply the substituted call >> must therefore convey the same meaning as, or a more >> precise meaning than, the withdrawn bid. (a balanced >> 15-19 may be replaced by a balanced 15-17, but not >> vice versa.) >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > But, like I asked a few days ago , how does everyone know that the > withdrawn bid meant? What auction do we assume was in the > insufficient bidder's mind? One BLMLer gave my question this answer: > "A novel approach you could try asking the bidder." Well, okay, do we > ask at the table? Away from the table? Suppose away from the table, > and now: What if the meaning the IBer states would come as a complete > surprise to the other three at the table? Will the director state > that meaning so that everyone is on the same page? > > Every discussion in BLML that I recall has assumed that the meaning of > the IB is common knowledge, but it aint necessarily so. Is Eric > Landau the only one who can comprehend the problem? There should be > at least some little hint as to the procedure. > > Jerry Fusselman < +=+ Last year, how did TDs find out whether a bid was conventional ? +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 14 04:03:22 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:03:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802131656r342f545p6d058b87989b4fc2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >But, like I asked a few days ago , how does everyone know that the >withdrawn bid meant? What auction do we assume was in the >insufficient bidder's mind? One BLMLer gave my question this answer: >"A novel approach you could try asking the bidder." Well, okay, do >we ask at the table? Away from the table? Suppose away from the >table, and now: What if the meaning the IBer states would come as a >complete surprise to the other three at the table? Will the >director state that meaning so that everyone is on the same page? [snip] Richard Hills: What's the problem? The other three at the table merely need to know the meaning of the Law 27C1 replacement call, which being legal does have an agreed partnership meaning. Unless, of course, an undiscussed IB is replaced by an undiscussed legal call. 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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 14 04:09:18 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 03:09:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Return to Oz - correction. Message-ID: <003f01c86eb7$1817c2a0$41cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 12:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Return to Oz > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:54 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Return to Oz > > >>> >>> M-W is an American English dictionary, though. >>> Maybe it means something else in British usage. >>> What does Chambers or OED say? >> >> > +=+ Chambers happens to be sitting on the desk in front of me. > 'arguable' = capable of being disputed; capable of being > maintained. > 'arguably' = adverb from 'arguable'. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Feb 14 04:24:59 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:24:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802131836.m1DIa9he016044@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200802131836.m1DIa9he016044@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47B3B48B.4090206@nhcc.net> > From: Tony Musgrove > Had another one today. I must say to see their looks of incredulity > as I allow an insufficient reply to Blackwood to be corrected without > penalty is worth the price of admission. It's hard for me to imagine what agreements make such a correction possible. > 1D (1C) I didn't see her opening bid. I know from Wayne's > analysis that there are doubles that are too strong to be incorporated > in 1C, but I am a free spirit. This seems backwards to me. The problem is that, for most people, a 2C overcall can be made on a hand too weak to open. That is, the message "I have opening strength" is not incorporated in the 2C correction. If the pair can convince you that their two-level overcalls are always sound, this won't be a problem, but it will for most. The exclusion of hands "too strong to overcall" is no problem. That information comes from the legal 2C bid, not the illegal 1C. > At present I am awaiting the official intent of the lawmakers from > the DWS. As are we all! From: Robert Geller > North bids 1C, East bids 1S, South bids 1H, West calls the director. > The director confirms that West doesn't accept the IB, and tells > East that ... > We can imagine poor East having a hard time trying to understand exactly > what is meant by this. ... How is East to know > before replacing the IB by a new call whether or not his new call will > be regarded as incorporating the information As noted, we'll have to wait for the official interpretation, but I can see two possible procedures. One is, as Sven suggested, let East make his own decision, subject to later review. (Notice that _East_ is the one who rules whether or not West is barred!) The other possibility is for the TD to have an extensive system discussion with East and then rule. (I'd expect such discussion to be conducted away from the table.) This is probably more logical, but a thorough discussion of the sort needed for a strict interpretation is likely to take a long time. The problem with a loose interpretation, as someone else mentioned long ago, is that the effect on the _play_ is not subject to redress. > What a real can of worms? Who were the guys who dreamed all this up > in the first place? They are the same guys (more or less) who ten years ago gave us L25B. Also the same ones who now insist that dWS is illegal. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 14 05:01:50 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:01:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my God Message-ID: <045501c86ebe$53a9fcf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Removed from 64A: [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] Is this a massive typo? Why would the DSC want to create so many more penalty-free revokes? "Saving a card until later" is now at worst a break-even proposition. Do we now feel that following suit is too much to ask? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 14 05:10:27 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:10:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <017c01c86e9e$87886450$e1d5403e@Mildred> <200802140023.AA12457@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <045601c86ebf$881251d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Bob Geller: > > This means that in the process of replacing the insufficient > bid by a legal bid the OS actually benefit by providing a more > precise delineation of their hand (a thus more information) > than the IB provided. Of course in some sense this can > be argued to be restoration of equity, I suppose. > Yes, I think the idea is to proceed as if the IB never happened. You do often give more information, but you would have had to do this if you had made a sufficient bid in the first place. > But this means that a 1H IB (6+ points, 4 or more hearts) > after 1D-(1S) may be replaced by either NegX(4 or more hearts, > 6-9 or exactly 4 hearts, 10+) or 2H (5+ hearts, 10+ points). > > I suppose this restores equity but...... The player would have done one or other of these things if he had bid legally in the first place. He now gets another chance. Assuming that the negative double carries an ironclad guarantee of four hearts, I guess this is all OK. I agree that it doesn't "feel" right, but maybe as we get used to it it will seem quite natural. Still... suppose a player responded 1H with 4 or 5 points because he had some shape. Now he makes a negative double in order to let the auction proceed normally. Everything is authorised, so partner can take into account that the player might have this hand. I think? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 14 05:13:36 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:13:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my God References: <045501c86ebe$53a9fcf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <045e01c86ebf$f8cef220$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Removed from 64A: > > [also, if an additional trick was subsequently won by the offending player > with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick, one > such > trick is transferred to the non-offending side] > > Is this a massive typo? Why would the DSC want to create so many more > penalty-free revokes? "Saving a card until later" is now at worst a > break-even proposition. > > Do we now feel that following suit is too much to ask? > Sorry, posted too quickly. The revoke laws are simple to apply (except when there is a question of restoring equity). Directors understand them. Players are familiar with them, and cheerfully take their lumps when they revoke. Why on earth would anyone want to make a change? Stefanie Rohan London, England From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Feb 14 05:22:43 2008 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:22:43 -0600 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY><200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com><017c01c86e9e$87886450$e1d5403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0802131656r342f545p6d058b87989b4fc2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 18:56 Subject: Re: [blml] The new L27C2 >> +=+ Committee confidentiality bars me from joining this >> discussion for the time being. I can, however, speak as >> to one question of fact (beyond which I can add nothing >> until the DSC answers questions put to it on this law). >> Information conveyed by a call is what it shows and >> what it excludes. For 27C1 to apply the substituted call >> must therefore convey the same meaning as, or a more >> precise meaning than, the withdrawn bid. (a balanced >> 15-19 may be replaced by a balanced 15-17, but not >> vice versa.) >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > But, like I asked a few days ago , how does everyone know that the > withdrawn bid meant? What auction do we assume was in the > insufficient bidder's mind? One BLMLer gave my question this answer: > "A novel approach you could try asking the bidder." Well, okay, do we > ask at the table? Away from the table? Suppose away from the table, > and now: What if the meaning the IBer states would come as a complete > surprise to the other three at the table? Will the director state > that meaning so that everyone is on the same page? > > Every discussion in BLML that I recall has assumed that the meaning of > the IB is common knowledge, but it aint necessarily so. Is Eric > Landau the only one who can comprehend the problem? There should be > at least some little hint as to the procedure. > > Jerry Fusselman If I ever should be so unfortunate to be mixed up with L27 I'll take a piece of paper from my back pocket and read something like... If the IB is not accepted then the call is canceled and a legal call is to be substituted. Offender may make any legal bid, or, [double or redouble that incorporates the information of the canceled call], or, pass. The TD will not investigate prior to the completion of the board as to whether a particular call incorporates the meaning of the canceled call. If the substituted call is C,D,H,S,NT at the minimum legal level, and, incorporates the meaning of the canceled call, information from the canceled call is AI to both sides [otherwise, information from the canceled call is authorized only to the NOS]. Such auction continues and the partner calls as they wish without penalty. But, If the bid is C,D,H,S,NT not at the minimum legal level, the TD will clarify immediately that the partner must pass for the remainder of the auction and L23 applies as may L26 lead penalties. However, even if the substituted call is C,D,H,S,NT at the minimum legal level [or legal double or redouble], and, incorporates the meaning of the canceled call,and, information from the canceled call is AI to both sides, and, such auction continues and the partner calls as they wish without penalty: then,at the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he judges that without assistance from the insufficient bid the contract could well have been different*, and the non-offending side is damaged. However and additionally, if the OS defend then if the substituted call did not incorporate the meaning of the canceled call the TD must be so informed prior to the opening lead to apply L26] However, if the substituted call was a Double or redouble that the TD knows without investigation does not incorporate the meaning of the canceled call he cancels it forthwith [L27D2], enforces the substitution of a pass,, and, the partner must pass for the duration where L23 applies and L26 lead penalties may apply. However, if the partner subsequently does other than pass and [upon complaint after the board] when in fact the substituted call does not incorporate the meaning of the canceled call {judged by the TD] a full board PP will be assessed and the board is subject to an adjusted score. The players are warned that UI they make available to partner may restrict [L16] the actions of their partner. Note- remain at the table for the duration of the board to gather facts concerning the availability of UI and be ready to deal with breaches of L16 and disputes over the meaning of the canceled bid. It would indeed be good fortune to repeat as little as once. regards roger pewick From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Feb 15 00:49:30 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:49:30 -0800 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <47B3B48B.4090206@nhcc.net> References: <200802131836.m1DIa9he016044@cfa.harvard.edu> <47B3B48B.4090206@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080214154627.038c9ec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 07:24 PM 13/02/2008, you wrote: > > From: Tony Musgrove > > Had another one today. I must say to see their looks of incredulity > > as I allow an insufficient reply to Blackwood to be corrected without > > penalty is worth the price of admission. > >It's hard for me to imagine what agreements make such a correction possible. This has me really worried. 4NT .. 4D meant to show 1ace. I thought this was a no brainer under the new rules, disallowed under the 1997 rules, and alllowed (nay mandated in Oz) before 1997 because 4D (unsufficient) has no meaning as a reply to 4NT. Please Steve, let me at least have this correction, Tony (Sydney) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Feb 15 00:53:11 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:53:11 -0800 Subject: [blml] Oh my God In-Reply-To: <045501c86ebe$53a9fcf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <045501c86ebe$53a9fcf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080214155055.01d60910@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 08:01 PM 13/02/2008, you wrote: >Removed from 64A: > >[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] > >Is this a massive typo? Why would the DSC want to create so many more >penalty-free revokes? "Saving a card until later" is now at worst a >break-even proposition. This is another good one to give the punters. They think I am making it up..a view I like to foster. Sorry it would have been two tricks before but now I am going to used a new rule which makes it only 1 trick penalty. Tony (Sydney) >Do we now feel that following suit is too much to ask? > >Stefanie Rohan >London, England > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Feb 14 05:58:50 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:58:50 +1300 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <47B3B48B.4090206@nhcc.net> References: <200802131836.m1DIa9he016044@cfa.harvard.edu> <47B3B48B.4090206@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802132058o502cf11fiabae291962e05fd9@mail.gmail.com> On 14/02/2008, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Tony Musgrove > > Had another one today. I must say to see their looks of incredulity > > as I allow an insufficient reply to Blackwood to be corrected without > > penalty is worth the price of admission. > > It's hard for me to imagine what agreements make such a correction possible. > > > 1D (1C) I didn't see her opening bid. I know from Wayne's > > analysis that there are doubles that are too strong to be incorporated > > in 1C, but I am a free spirit. > > This seems backwards to me. The problem is that, for most people, a 2C > overcall can be made on a hand too weak to open. That is, the message > "I have opening strength" is not incorporated in the 2C correction. If > the pair can convince you that their two-level overcalls are always > sound, this won't be a problem, but it will for most. > > The exclusion of hands "too strong to overcall" is no problem. That > information comes from the legal 2C bid, not the illegal 1C. > Not if the replacement is double. The message "I have less than 20 hcp" is not incorporated in the meaning of a takeout double. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 14 06:00:49 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:00:49 +1100 Subject: [blml] Please RJH answer this one question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sven Pran: >I am definitely not going to pretend that I made a deliberate misbid so >I realize that what I am about to do is changing my understanding of >the partnership agreements. Richard Hills: If a player initially forgets the partnership agreement, then becomes aware of the partnership agreement partway through a deal, that does not affect the player's obligation to accurately describe the partnership agreement. So North _describing_ partner's 5D as "one ace" is correct. But.... 2007 Law 75A: ".....For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorised information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in either major suit; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values." Richard Hills: Ergo, it is North's responsibility to keep _bidding_ as if partner's 5D was "diamond preference". Sven Pran: >Consequently, in order to protect both myself and my opponents I must >abide by Law 20F4 and summon the Director even though I technically >haven't yet given any explanation (that I now understand is incorrect) >to opponents. > >I am of the opinion that it is never wrong to summon the Director if >one feels that there might be a reason to do so. Richard Hills: Antejentacular pandiculation. Sven admits that Law 20F4 does not "technically" apply, so we now have the Sven Pran law-stretching School joining the De Wael law-stretching School. Not yet any infraction, not yet any justification for summoning the Director. An unnecessary summoning of the Director, which gives UI to partner that you might have misbid, is a Law 73B1 "extraneous remark" infraction. 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 Thu Feb 14 06:05:53 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 05:05:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Please RJH answer this one question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003101c86ec7$465d3540$0100a8c0@stefanie> Richard Hills: > > If a player initially forgets the partnership agreement, then becomes > aware of the partnership agreement partway through a deal, that does not > affect the player's obligation to accurately describe the partnership > agreement. > > So North _describing_ partner's 5D as "one ace" is correct. Are you certain? North remembered the true agreement because of South's explanation, which was UI to him. In addition, one would have to be absolutely certain that it is partner's understanding of the system and not one's own that is correct. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 14 06:28:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:28:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <045e01c86ebf$f8cef220$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan: >Removed from 64A: > >[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] > >Is this a massive typo? Richard Hills: No. See the parallel texts of Laws 61 to 64 at: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/resources.html Stefanie Rohan: >The revoke laws are simple to apply (except when there is a >question of restoring equity). Directors understand them. Players >are familiar with them, and cheerfully take their lumps when they >revoke. Why on earth would anyone want to make a change? Richard Hills: Lots of changes made to the revoke laws, including abolition of the draconian Law 63B. One reason to make a change is to remove an ambiguity, such as achieved by the new Law 64 footnote: * a trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes of this Law. Monty Python's Life of Brian: "Hold up the sandal, as He has commanded us!" 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 Feb 14 06:39:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:39:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] Please RJH answer this one question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003101c86ec7$465d3540$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan: [snip] >In addition, one would have to be absolutely certain that it >is partner's understanding of the system and not one's own >that is correct. Richard Hills: Law requires the correct explanation to be given. If one absolutely certainly gives an incorrect explanation, that is still an infraction of Law. 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 Feb 14 06:53:01 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:53:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080214154627.038c9ec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >This has me really worried. 4NT .. 4D meant to show 1ace. I thought this was >a no brainer under the new rules, disallowed under the 1997 rules, and allowed >(nay mandated in Oz) before 1997 because 4D (insufficient) has no meaning as a >reply to 4NT. Richard Hills: Because 4D has zero meaning, presumably there was zero pause for thought in realising the error. Ergo, Law 25A1 can be used for a 5D correction. 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 Thu Feb 14 09:03:33 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:03:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Please MS answer these three questions In-Reply-To: <000901c86e81$8407a830$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000901c86e81$8407a830$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47B3F5D5.6090403@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .................. >>>> 1) Provided that the story is true (South is always right), was North >>>> correct in replying one ace? >>> North must select one of the following options: >>> >>> He must either answer "Diamond preference" or he must summon the >> Director >>> (Law 20F4). >>> >>> North must absolutely not answer "one ace" without first summoning the >>> Director. This answer qualifies for an automatic procedural penalty. >>> >> Why? North believes that South is correct in stating that 4NT was >> Blackwood. Have you never made a call, heard partner explain >> differently, and realize that he was right? How then do you explain >> his next call? > > I am definitely not going to pretend that I made a deliberate misbid so I > realize that what I am about to do is changing my understanding of the > partnership agreements. Consequently, in order to protect both myself and my > opponents I must abide by Law 20F4 and summon the Director even though I > technically haven't yet given any explanation (that I now understand is > incorrect) to opponents. > Come off it, Sven! You make a call, partner explains, and you say to yourself "damn it, I forgot the system". Do you now call the TD to explain? No you don't. And if you do, you have such a completely different view of bridge that it's no use discussing with you. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 14 09:05:50 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:05:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Please RJH answer this one question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47B3F65E.9040605@skynet.be> Thank you Richard, for a voice of sanity in this Norwegian wilderness. I do notice however that, apart from correcting Sven on his answer to question one, you have not yourself answered questions two to four. Would you care to do so? richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> The bidding goes: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- --- 1H >> 4S 4NT Pass 5D >> 5S Dble Pass Pass >> Pass >> >> Before bidding 5S, West asks what 4NT is, and South says "Blackwood". >> West then asks how many aces South has shown, and North says "one". >> It turns out North has a minor two-suiter, and North admits having >> intended 4NT as showing this. >> >> When asked why he replied "one", North states that South is always >> better in the system than he is. If South says it's Blackwood, then >> it is. South concurs that 4NT to him is always Blackwood. >> >> North/South cannot show any system card or system notes that confirm >> this. North is not from Belgium, nor does he have an H, D or W among >> his initials. >> >> One question: >> >> 1) Provided that the story is true (South is always right), was North >> correct in replying one ace? > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, North must not deliberately give MI. 2007 Law 72B1. > > Sven Pran: > >>> North must select one of the following options: >>> >>> He must either answer "Diamond preference" > > Richard Hills: > > Which is deliberately giving MI, thus contrary to the 2007 Law 72B1. > > Sven Pran: > >>> or he must summon the Director (Law 20F4). > > Richard Hills: > > Law 20F4 requires a previous erroneous _explanation_ by North, not > merely a previous erroneous _bid_ by North. > > Sven Pran: > >>> North must absolutely not answer "one ace" without first summoning >>> the Director. > > Richard Hills: > > Since Law 20F4 does not apply, North should not create UI by an > unnecessary summoning of the Director. > > Sven Pran: > >>> This answer qualifies for an automatic procedural penalty. > > Richard Hills: > > Rubbish. Why PP a correct description of partnership agreement? > > On the other hand, North has UI from South (2007 Law 75A), so it is > possible that that UI demonstrably suggested North's double. If so, a > Law 16 adjusted score may be required. > > > 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 > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 14 09:11:41 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:11:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Please RJH answer this one question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003101c86ec7$465d3540$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <003101c86ec7$465d3540$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B3F7BD.2080204@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Richard Hills: >> If a player initially forgets the partnership agreement, then becomes >> aware of the partnership agreement partway through a deal, that does not >> affect the player's obligation to accurately describe the partnership >> agreement. >> >> So North _describing_ partner's 5D as "one ace" is correct. > > Are you certain? North remembered the true agreement because of South's > explanation, which was UI to him. In addition, one would have to be > absolutely certain that it is partner's understanding of the system and not > one's own that is correct. > Give the lady a cigar! she's finally seen the problem here! MS advice to players is incomplete! As Richard correctly points out, if North remembers the system and realizes he has misbid, he must explain consistently (5Di = 1 ace). As everyone is aware, if North knows the system better than South and "knows" that South was mistaken, then he must (according to MS) explain "correctly" (5Di = diamond preference). But what must a player do who does not know which of the two applies? Sneak a look at his SC perhaps? Call the TD? The MS currently has no answer to that one. I'd like you guys to discuss this among yourselves. > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 14 09:51:54 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:51:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c86ee6$d99eb710$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick ............. > If I ever should be so unfortunate to be mixed up with L27 I'll > take a piece of paper from my back pocket and read something like... > > > If the IB is not accepted then the call is canceled and a legal > call is to be substituted. > > > > Offender may make any legal bid, or, [double or redouble that > incorporates the information of the canceled call], or, pass. > You had better remove the word "redouble" from that piece of paper. Redouble is not included among the legal calls that can replace an IB and have the auction continue under Law 27C. (And as I understand: The omission of "redouble" from the list of legal replacement calls is intentional.) Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 14 10:10:09 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:10:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com> References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com> <47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47B40571.7020405@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > Suppose, however, that you really would hesitate with *either* a shapely > hand short in opponents suit *or* a massive penalty double. Which kind > of hand is more common in this auction? Which kind of hand is the > hesitation more likely to indicate? Arguably the former. > > Indeed. But that's irrelevant. See the word "unmistakably" in L73F1 and contrast with advancer's tempo-then-pass in low-level auctions (like 1C 1S p ...p), which unmistakably suggests that any action would be welcome. Best regards Alain > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From geller at nifty.com Thu Feb 14 10:15:18 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:15:18 +0900 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <000201c86ee6$d99eb710$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000201c86ee6$d99eb710$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <200802140915.AA12463@geller204.nifty.com> Sven Pran writes: >(And as I understand: The omission of "redouble" from the list of legal >replacement calls is intentional.) The precise reason is unclear, and indeed may not exist, but the DSC is known to be infallible...... or something like that.... so they don't need any reasons other than "we just didn't feel like it." -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 14 10:21:27 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:21:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz In-Reply-To: <47B2F9B0.1040705@NTLworld.com> References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com> <47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com> <3642E884-1518-47C2-BFE3-5B8A8FE35BA8@starpower.net> <47B2F9B0.1040705@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47B40817.7000108@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Eric Landau] > Isn't "arguably" an antonym of "demonstrably"? > [Nige1] > Nearer synonyms than antonyms :) > > I think Eric wanted to express the fact that, if you say "arguably", it shows that you can't say "demonstrably", or you would have been delighted to do so. If you call something "rather good", it shows it isn't, because you could have said "quite good" :-\ From geller at nifty.com Thu Feb 14 11:18:45 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:18:45 +0900 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz In-Reply-To: <47B40817.7000108@ulb.ac.be> References: <47B40817.7000108@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200802141018.AA12465@geller204.nifty.com> Alain Gottcheiner writes: >If you call something "rather good", it shows it isn't, because you >could have said "quite good" :-\ It's like a letter of recommendation. If it says someone works hard it means he's not so smart, If it says he's smart it means he's lazy. Only if it says he's smart AND works hard is it a positive recommendation. :-) -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 14 12:34:10 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:34:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new fun game - Alain's contribution In-Reply-To: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B42732.8070906@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > Dear all, > > I have thought of a fun game we can play. Here is how it works: > > 1. Anyone who can think of a substitution they would allow under new 27C2 > can post details about it. > Okay, here's my contribution. Case 1 1C opening ; 1H answer showing 4+ spades. But LHO has overcalled 1H. Now a double (in my system at least) shows the equivalent of a 1H response (1S would deny spades), minus some specific types of hands (mainly those worth a WJR, which we don't play noncompetitively). Since everything that is said by the 1H response is also said by the double, this substitution should be allowed IMOBO. Case 2 West opens 2C (clubs, opening values), but is told South has opened 2D (weak). Now West overcalls 2NT, showing 4S and 5+C, and sound (don't preempt over a preempt). Don't tell me such overcalls don't exist. I can send you my convention card. Once again, nothing is said by 2C that isn't said by 2NT, so I do allow the substitution. I'm cuious about what you're aiming at. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 14 12:45:40 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:45:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz In-Reply-To: <018d01c86e9f$97dc45f0$e1d5403e@Mildred> References: <200802131802.KAA18921@mailhub.irvine.com> <8506DEFC-536E-457D-A34D-3FFA102FE939@starpower.net> <018d01c86e9f$97dc45f0$e1d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47B429E4.5010803@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > > +=+ Chambers happens to be sitting on the desk in front of me. > 'arguable' = capable of being disputed; capable of being > maintained. > 'arguable' = adverb from 'arguable'. > Harrap's gives as French equivalents for arguable : 1. 'discutable' ; this means something whose truth or falsity hasn't been settled yet, so that one can argue pro as well as con. 2. 'd?fendable' ; this means som?thing which might barely be argued in favor of. 3. 'soutenable' ; this means something which might be argued in favor of, more reasonably than the previous one. And 'arguably' as the corresponding adverb. For 'demonstrably' it gives 'de toute ?vidence', which can be translated as 'IOTTMCO'. In Longman, you'll find for arguable : 1. Able to be supported with reason (see 3. above) 2. Doubtful in some degree (see 1. above) And 'dem?onstrable' : That can be clearly proved ISTM that this makes 'arguably' far away from 'demonstrably' Best regards Alain (ah yes, the problem about acronyms ;-) Intuitively Obvious To The Most Casual Observer. From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Feb 14 13:02:58 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:02:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] A new fun game In-Reply-To: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093A38@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > Dear all, > > I have thought of a fun game we can play. Here is how it works: > > 1. Anyone who can think of a substitution they would allow under new 27C2 > can post details about it. [snip] > 5. This is not just for fun actually. No responses so far! I was wondering just last night if there were any examples of allowed substitutions. "Good game, good game" (Bruce Forsyth, passim) Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 14 13:02:31 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:02:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <000201c86ee6$d99eb710$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200802140915.AA12463@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <00fa01c86f01$b37d1a70$a3d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 9:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The new L27C2 > Sven Pran writes: >>(And as I understand: The omission of "redouble" from >> the list of legal replacement calls is intentional.) > > The precise reason is unclear, and indeed may not exist, > but the DSC is known to be infallible...... or something > like that.... so they don't need any reasons other than > "we just didn't feel like it." > +=+ Neither infallible nor inflexible. Acid-proof, yes. We are bound by terms of reference. The detail of our copious exchanges is not revealed - the individual members are entitled to confidentiality. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Feb 14 13:37:37 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:37:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz In-Reply-To: <47B40817.7000108@ulb.ac.be> References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com> <47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com> <3642E884-1518-47C2-BFE3-5B8A8FE35BA8@starpower.net> <47B2F9B0.1040705@NTLworld.com> <47B40817.7000108@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47B43611.9070307@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] I think Eric wanted to express the fact that, if you say "arguably", it shows that you can't say "demonstrably", or you would have been delighted to do so. If you call something "rather good", it shows it isn't, because you could have said "quite good" :-\ [Nige1] I sympathise with law-malkers in trying to express themselves simply and unambiguously. In context it was obvious that I meant that it was *arguable* that it was *demontrable* (i.e. demonstrable *if* my estimates of probability were correct). Anyway, that argument was relevant only if North would ever hesitate with a big penalty double (for example if he is a beginner). Otherwise, IMO, his hesitation clearly shows a borderline *action* double. I sympathise with those who passed 3H, fully intending to compete later. I believe a player who says he would *always* bid 4S over 4H. (Just as I would *always* double on the hesitater's hand). Manifestly, there are players for whom pass is a logical alternative to 4S. For them the hesitation (by an ethical partner) demonstrably suggests that bidding 4S is the more profitable course of action. As Richard points out, to discover whether pass is an LA, the committee should poll only players who would pass 3H. Players who would have bid 3S or 4S on the previous round are in a different category. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 14 13:54:20 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:54:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] A new fun game - Alain's contribution References: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B42732.8070906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <011001c86f08$b77838b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> I'm cuious about what you're aiming at. My aim is to see if there will be any uniformity in the application of this Law. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 14 13:42:41 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:42:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com><47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com><3642E884-1518-47C2-BFE3-5B8A8FE35BA8@starpower.net><47B2F9B0.1040705@NTLworld.com><002501c86e66$56090390$9d015e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <013f01c86f0f$7128c8f0$a3d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Return to Oz > > American Heritage Dictionary gives: > > "Demonstrable: Capable of being shown or proved." > > "Arguable: That can be argued about." > > Of course, BLMLers know quite well from experience > that even that which is proven can be argued about > anyhow, but I'll stick by "antonym". > +=+ How natural to argue here about what is arguable. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 14 15:41:53 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:41:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fun Game #1 In-Reply-To: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <0EADFF52-20F1-4B73-B5CA-C4BCDE5AE53B@starpower.net> On Feb 13, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > I have thought of a fun game we can play. Here is how it works: > > 1. Anyone who can think of a substitution they would allow under > new 27C2 > can post details about it. It will be even more fun with examples that would obviously not be allowed under the old laws. Here's one... Fun game #1a: x/AKxxx/AQxxx/xx. 1S-1H. P-1H (natural) would promise opening bid values, unlimited, with at least four hearts. 1m-1H (natural) would promise opening bid values, unlimited, normally at least five hearts, very occasionally a strong four with extra HC strength. I propose to substitute a bid of 2S (Michaels cue-bid). This promises opening bid values, unlimited, at least five hearts, and a five-card or longer minor. This, IMO, must be allowed. Fun game #1b: As above, except that P-1H (but not 1m-1H, so in this one it might matter what the IBer thought he was bidding over) would promise a very sound opening bid; there is a narrow range of hands (e.g. x/AKxxx/Kxxxx/xx) systemically suitable for 1S-2S but marginally too weak for P-1H (system would call for P-2H). ISTM this is a fair test case for whether the "incoporated" requirement is to be strictly applied or whether there is wiggle room for a somewhat less-than-literal interpretation. As an interesting aside, I would assert that I must not be allowed to substitute 2H (natural) without penalty, even though that would have been allowed under the old law. 1S-2H would promise five hearts, could be much weaker than an opening bid (as little as 5-6 HCP), and would be limited to less than intermediate jump overcall strength. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Feb 14 15:45:38 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:45:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B40571.7020405@ulb.ac.be> References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com> <47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com> <47B40571.7020405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47B45412.1050401@NTLworld.com> [nige1] Suppose, however, that you really would hesitate with *either* a shapely hand short in opponents suit *or* a massive penalty double. Which kind of hand is more common in this auction? Which kind of hand is the hesitation more likely to indicate? Arguably the former. Alain Gottcheiner] Indeed. But that's irrelevant. See the word "unmistakably" in L73F1 and contrast with advancer's tempo-then-pass in low-level auctions (like 1C 1S p ...p), which unmistakably suggests that any action would be welcome. [nige2] I would not expect an expert partner to hesitate with a massive *penalty* double. Even if such hands would give him a problem (perhaps he's not an expert), I argue that hands suitable for an *action* double occur more frequently in this kind of auction; hence the hesitation makes a 4S bid more likely to be successful. Why is this argument "irrelevant"? and please explain the relevance of "Law 73" (quoted below) [TNLB L73] When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C). * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 14 15:50:36 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:50:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802140023.AA12457@geller204.nifty.com> References: <017c01c86e9e$87886450$e1d5403e@Mildred> <200802140023.AA12457@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <2E2D3C5A-F85E-4CD2-AA30-94B5F03EAA3E@starpower.net> On Feb 13, 2008, at 7:23 PM, Robert Geller wrote: > gesta at tiscali.co.uk ????????: >> Information conveyed by a call is what it shows and >> what it excludes. For 27C1 to apply the substituted call >> must therefore convey the same meaning as, or a more >> precise meaning than, the withdrawn bid. (a balanced >> 15-19 may be replaced by a balanced 15-17, but not >> vice versa.) > > This means that in the process of replacing the insufficient > bid by a legal bid the OS actually benefit by providing a more > precise delineation of their hand (a thus more information) > than the IB provided. Of course in some sense this can > be argued to be restoration of equity, I suppose. > > But this means that a 1H IB (6+ points, 4 or more hearts) > after 1D-(1S) may be replaced by either NegX(4 or more hearts, > 6-9 or exactly 4 hearts, 10+) or 2H (5+ hearts, 10+ points). > > I suppose this restores equity but...... That both those examples qualify is both correct and as it should be. In neither case does the knowledge that partner has a hand suitable for 1D-P-1H add any information to that provided by the replacement call. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 14 15:59:11 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:59:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fun Game #1 In-Reply-To: <0EADFF52-20F1-4B73-B5CA-C4BCDE5AE53B@starpower.net> References: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <0EADFF52-20F1-4B73-B5CA-C4BCDE5AE53B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47B4573F.5060302@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Feb 13, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > >> I have thought of a fun game we can play. Here is how it works: >> >> 1. Anyone who can think of a substitution they would allow under >> new 27C2 >> can post details about it. >> > > It will be even more fun with examples that would obviously not be > allowed under the old laws. Here's one... > > Fun game #1a: x/AKxxx/AQxxx/xx. 1S-1H. P-1H (natural) would > promise opening bid values, unlimited, with at least four hearts. > 1m-1H (natural) would promise opening bid values, unlimited, normally > at least five hearts, very occasionally a strong four with extra HC > strength. I propose to substitute a bid of 2S (Michaels cue-bid). > This promises opening bid values, unlimited, at least five hearts, > and a five-card or longer minor. This, IMO, must be allowed. > AG : right, according to the "classical" "subset criterion". > Fun game #1b: As above, except that P-1H (but not 1m-1H, so in this > one it might matter what the IBer thought he was bidding over) would > promise a very sound opening bid; there is a narrow range of hands > (e.g. x/AKxxx/Kxxxx/xx) systemically suitable for 1S-2S but > marginally too weak for P-1H (system would call for P-2H). ISTM this > is a fair test case for whether the "incoporated" requirement is to > be strictly applied or whether there is wiggle room for a somewhat > less-than-literal interpretation. > > AG : IMHO the discrepancy is a little too big. But I agree with your concept of (limited) wiggle room. > As an interesting aside, I would assert that I must not be allowed to > substitute 2H (natural) without penalty, even though that would have > been allowed under the old law. AG : Isn't the new law "same denomination, minimum level OR incorporated meaning" ? > 1S-2H would promise five hearts, > could be much weaker than an opening bid (as little as 5-6 HCP), and > would be limited to less than intermediate jump overcall strength. > > AG : not quite. I would (and many would) overcall 2H on, say, x / K10xxxx / AKQx / Kx, which is above intermediate jump overcall strength. Whether most players would do it on a 5-count is another story. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 14 16:02:19 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:02:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B45412.1050401@NTLworld.com> References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com> <47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com> <47B40571.7020405@ulb.ac.be> <47B45412.1050401@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47B457FB.7030503@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [nige1] > Suppose, however, that you really would hesitate with *either* a shapely > hand short in opponents suit *or* a massive penalty double. Which kind > of hand is more common in this auction? Which kind of hand is the > hesitation more likely to indicate? Arguably the former. > > Alain Gottcheiner] > Indeed. But that's irrelevant. See the word "unmistakably" in L73F1 and > contrast with advancer's tempo-then-pass in low-level auctions (like 1C > 1S p ...p), which unmistakably suggests that any action would be welcome. > > [nige2] > I would not expect an expert partner to hesitate with a massive > *penalty* double. Even if such hands would give him a problem (perhaps > he's not an expert), I argue that hands suitable for an *action* double > occur more frequently in this kind of auction; hence the hesitation > makes a 4S bid more likely to be successful. Why is this argument > "irrelevant"? and please explain the relevance of "Law 73" (quoted below) > The part of L73 I use is L73F1, as written before. It is the part that says an indication must be "unmistakable" before we use L16. In my version, the part you mention is 73F2. If it is other in TNFLB, please adjust accordingly. Regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Feb 14 16:24:24 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:24:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <001e01c86eb5$d316c580$41cf403e@Mildred> References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY><200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com><017c01c86e9e$87886450$e1d5403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0802131656r342f545p6d058b87989b4fc2@mail.gmail.com> <001e01c86eb5$d316c580$41cf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47B45D28.6080405@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] Information conveyed by a call is what it shows and what it excludes. For 27C1 to apply the substituted call must therefore convey the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than, the withdrawn bid. (a balanced 15-19 may be replaced by a balanced 15-17, but not vice versa. [Nige1] Grattan's interpretation accords with justice and common sense. It seems to outlaw some examples, cited by BLMLERs. For example ... (1S)1H may not be replaced by (1S)2S (Michaels) unless - a 1H overcall would *promise* a two suiter 1C(1S)1H may not be replaced by 1C(1S)X (Sputnik) unless - the double always promises 4 hearts (or more) *and* - 1H is the systemic reply to 1C when you hold - say - five diamonds and four hearts or 5 hearts and and 5 spades. I think Stefanie Rohan is correct: if the new law is interpreted fairly, then it will prevent such cunning ploys :) and I agree with her -- so much the better :) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Feb 14 16:35:30 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:35:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B457FB.7030503@ulb.ac.be> References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com> <47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com> <47B40571.7020405@ulb.ac.be> <47B45412.1050401@NTLworld.com> <47B457FB.7030503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47B45FC2.2050109@NTLworld.com> [nige1] Suppose, however, that you really would hesitate with *either* a shapely hand short in opponents suit *or* a massive penalty double. Which kind of hand is more common in this auction? Which kind of hand is the hesitation more likely to indicate? Arguably the former. [Alain Gottcheiner] Indeed. But that's irrelevant. See the word "unmistakably" in L73F1 and contrast with advancer's tempo-then-pass in low-level auctions (like 1C 1S p ...p), which unmistakably suggests that any action would be welcome. [nige2] I would not expect an expert partner to hesitate with a massive *penalty* double. Even if such hands would give him a problem (perhaps he's not an expert), I argue that hands suitable for an *action* double occur more frequently in this kind of auction; hence the hesitation makes a 4S bid more likely to be successful. Why is this argument "irrelevant"? and please explain the relevance of "Law 73" (quoted below) [TNLB L73] When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C). * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. [Alain Gottcheiner2] The part of L73 I use is L73F1, as written before. It is the part that says an indication must be "unmistakable" before we use L16. In my version, the part you mention is 73F2. If it is other in TNFLB, please adjust accordingly. [Nige3] Please would you be more explicit, Alain, and please tie whatever *new* law you are quoting to a refutation of my argument. I no longer have a copy of the old laws. Thank you. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 14 16:58:22 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:58:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fun Game #1 In-Reply-To: <47B4573F.5060302@ulb.ac.be> References: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <0EADFF52-20F1-4B73-B5CA-C4BCDE5AE53B@starpower.net> <47B4573F.5060302@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <13612816-243C-44C0-80A2-3ACDE88DB17B@starpower.net> On Feb 14, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> On Feb 13, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> >>> I have thought of a fun game we can play. Here is how it works: >>> >>> 1. Anyone who can think of a substitution they would allow under >>> new 27C2 >>> can post details about it. >> >> It will be even more fun with examples that would obviously not be >> allowed under the old laws. Here's one... >> >> Fun game #1a: x/AKxxx/AQxxx/xx. 1S-1H. P-1H (natural) would >> promise opening bid values, unlimited, with at least four hearts. >> 1m-1H (natural) would promise opening bid values, unlimited, normally >> at least five hearts, very occasionally a strong four with extra HC >> strength. I propose to substitute a bid of 2S (Michaels cue-bid). >> This promises opening bid values, unlimited, at least five hearts, >> and a five-card or longer minor. This, IMO, must be allowed. > > AG : right, according to the "classical" "subset criterion". > >> Fun game #1b: As above, except that P-1H (but not 1m-1H, so in this >> one it might matter what the IBer thought he was bidding over) would >> promise a very sound opening bid; there is a narrow range of hands >> (e.g. x/AKxxx/Kxxxx/xx) systemically suitable for 1S-2S but >> marginally too weak for P-1H (system would call for P-2H). ISTM this >> is a fair test case for whether the "incoporated" requirement is to >> be strictly applied or whether there is wiggle room for a somewhat >> less-than-literal interpretation. > > AG : IMHO the discrepancy is a little too big. But I agree with your > concept of (limited) wiggle room. Actually, I don't; I personally prefer a "strict constructionist" position. I might reasonably be accused of thinking more like a director than a player, but I foresee too many difficulties if we lack a "bright line" test of "incorporation". If we stick with Alain's "classical subset criterion" test we will at least always know what passes and what fails. In any case, Grattan has been teasing us with the knowledge that the WBFLC will soon have something to say on the subject, which might clarify what we're actually supposed to do. >> As an interesting aside, I would assert that I must not be allowed to >> substitute 2H (natural) without penalty, even though that would have >> been allowed under the old law. > AG : Isn't the new law "same denomination, minimum level OR > incorporated > meaning" ? No. All references to "denomination" are gone. The substitute call must be minimum level *and* incorporate the meaning of the IB (but not redouble). I'd be curious as to why neither redoubles nor skip bids were permitted, although Grattan assures us that there were reasons, albeit secret ones. This would suggest that the WBFLC does not intend the "strict constructionist" interpretation, as that would seem to leave no rationale for the exclusions. >> 1S-2H would promise five hearts, >> could be much weaker than an opening bid (as little as 5-6 HCP), and >> would be limited to less than intermediate jump overcall strength. > > AG : not quite. I would (and many would) overcall 2H on, say, x / > K10xxxx / AKQx / Kx, which is above intermediate jump overcall > strength. > Whether most players would do it on a 5-count is another story. It's my system (EHAA!) so I make the rules. 1S-3H is an intermediate jump overcall, and 1S-2H shows not enough for 3H. xx/AQxxx/xxx/xxx or x/AJ10xxx/xxx/xxx are "textbook" minimums for 1S-2H. That's not to assert that it would be unreasonable to bid 2H on Alain's example; the normally assumed minimum for an intermediate jump overcall is defined by both hand strength and suit strength in combination, so it's a matter of judgment whether you're good enough for 3H with that much playing strength but only H K10xxxx. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Feb 14 17:40:46 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:40:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <2E2D3C5A-F85E-4CD2-AA30-94B5F03EAA3E@starpower.net> References: <017c01c86e9e$87886450$e1d5403e@Mildred><200802140023.AA12457@ge ller204.nifty.com> <2E2D3C5A-F85E-4CD2-AA30-94B5F03EAA3E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47B46F0E.9020708@meteo.fr> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Feb 13, 2008, at 7:23 PM, Robert Geller wrote: > >> gesta at tiscali.co.uk ????????: >>> Information conveyed by a call is what it shows and >>> what it excludes. For 27C1 to apply the substituted call >>> must therefore convey the same meaning as, or a more >>> precise meaning than, the withdrawn bid. (a balanced >>> 15-19 may be replaced by a balanced 15-17, but not >>> vice versa.) >> This means that in the process of replacing the insufficient >> bid by a legal bid the OS actually benefit by providing a more >> precise delineation of their hand (a thus more information) >> than the IB provided. Of course in some sense this can >> be argued to be restoration of equity, I suppose. >> >> But this means that a 1H IB (6+ points, 4 or more hearts) >> after 1D-(1S) may be replaced by either NegX(4 or more hearts, >> 6-9 or exactly 4 hearts, 10+) or 2H (5+ hearts, 10+ points). >> >> I suppose this restores equity but...... > > That both those examples qualify is both correct and as it should > be. In neither case does the knowledge that partner has a hand > suitable for 1D-P-1H add any information to that provided by the > replacement call. i agree. the condition is that the set of hands corresponding to the replacement call is a subset of hands compatible with the IB. what i see as confusing is the additional useless sentence "information arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides", as for the replacement to be allowed, the condition is precisely that this information is null. i also wonder what is the goal of 27C2: if the replacement is allowed, it's because the IB can't affect the proceedings, what damage could then occur? is it in the case IBer opts for a replacement call meeting the requirements of 27C1, with an inadequate hand, only not to penalize his partner? should he be authorized such a trick? should his partner be authorized to allow for it? jpr > > > 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 -- _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Feb 14 23:01:25 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:01:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <47B46F0E.9020708@meteo.fr> References: <017c01c86e9e$87886450$e1d5403e@Mildred><200802140023.AA12457@ge ller204.nifty.com> <2E2D3C5A-F85E-4CD2-AA30-94B5F03EAA3E@starpower.net> <47B46F0E.9020708@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> On Feb 14, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> On Feb 13, 2008, at 7:23 PM, Robert Geller wrote: >> >>> gesta at tiscali.co.uk ????????: >>>> Information conveyed by a call is what it shows and >>>> what it excludes. For 27C1 to apply the substituted call >>>> must therefore convey the same meaning as, or a more >>>> precise meaning than, the withdrawn bid. (a balanced >>>> 15-19 may be replaced by a balanced 15-17, but not >>>> vice versa.) >>> This means that in the process of replacing the insufficient >>> bid by a legal bid the OS actually benefit by providing a more >>> precise delineation of their hand (a thus more information) >>> than the IB provided. Of course in some sense this can >>> be argued to be restoration of equity, I suppose. >>> >>> But this means that a 1H IB (6+ points, 4 or more hearts) >>> after 1D-(1S) may be replaced by either NegX(4 or more hearts, >>> 6-9 or exactly 4 hearts, 10+) or 2H (5+ hearts, 10+ points). >>> >>> I suppose this restores equity but...... >> >> That both those examples qualify is both correct and as it should >> be. In neither case does the knowledge that partner has a hand >> suitable for 1D-P-1H add any information to that provided by the >> replacement call. > > i agree. the condition is that the set of hands corresponding to the > replacement call is a subset of hands compatible with the IB. That's what L27C1 says. > what i see as confusing is the additional useless sentence > "information > arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides", as for the > replacement to be allowed, the condition is precisely that this > information is null. That's why a lot of folks seem to think that the authors of L27C1 meant it to mean something other than what it says, and why we are waiting for a clarifying minute from the WBFLC that Grattan has told us is in the works. Many are anticipating that it may redefine "incorporates" to mean "comes sort of close to incorporating", leaving open the possibility of non-null information being available from the IB. > i also wonder what is the goal of 27C2: if the replacement is allowed, > it's because the IB can't affect the proceedings, what damage could > then > occur? is it in the case IBer opts for a replacement call meeting the > requirements of 27C1, with an inadequate hand, only not to penalize > his > partner? That's how I read it. I have previously suggested that L27C2 will wind up giving us a lot more headaches than L27C1 will, as such cases arise. > should he be authorized such a trick? I don't see how cannot be. He can bid whatever he likes. L27C1 only addresses the respective meanings of the insufficient and replacement bids without regard to the bidder's actual hand. Presumably L27C2 is there so we can pick up the pieces. > should his partner be > authorized to allow for it? Why not? Presumably L27C2 is there so we can pick up the pieces. We need to ask whether not forbidding it might create positions where the IB could work to the bidders advantage even when the "different contract" criterion of L27C2 isn't met, but I can't create a scenario off-hand. There's nothing in the law that would forbid it per se, but L40B3 explicitly grants RAs the authority to do so. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 14 23:27:54 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:27:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Michael Prescott (international-class expert): >>The committee seems to think that if partner >>tanks and then passes, you should do something >>different from what you would have done without >>the tank. This is incorrect. When partner breaks >>tempo, it does not mean you must pass. Richard Hills: >No, Prescott has constructed a straw man. When >partner gives UI, your logical alternatives may >be restricted. Under Law 16 and Law 73C, if: > >(a) logical alternatives X and Y exist, and >(b) without UI from pard you would select X, and >(c) partner does create UI, and >(d) pard's UI demonstrably suggests X, then >(e) you must change your selection from X to Y. Blml lurker (also an international-class expert): I saw the NOT bulletin with Michael's article. I thought it was quite disturbing that there was no rebuttal by someone who knows the law. I think a lot of the people who sit on appeals tend to think like Michael. I have seen a number of errors of this type at congresses etc. Do you know if there was a follow up clear explanation? I wasn't playing in Canberra (I was actually there visiting my parents for a few days) so I didn't see all the bulletins. It seems that 'make the bid you were always going to make' is a very popular misunderstanding. *sigh* 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Feb 15 01:00:39 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:00:39 +1300 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <47B45D28.6080405@NTLworld.com> References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> <200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com> <017c01c86e9e$87886450$e1d5403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0802131656r342f545p6d058b87989b4fc2@mail.gmail.com> <001e01c86eb5$d316c580$41cf403e@Mildred> <47B45D28.6080405@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802141600i3ead3e8fh277d2a35166943d8@mail.gmail.com> > (1S)1H > may not be replaced by (1S)2S (Michaels) unless > - a 1H overcall would *promise* a two suiter This seems ok to me. The 2S replacement gives more information than the 1H presummed opening bid. I might disallow 2S because it is unlimited whereas 1H was limited. I might allow myself to bid 2S citing my recent 1H opening on : - AKQJxx AQJxxx A as evidence that my 1H openings are unlimited. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Feb 15 01:05:33 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:05:33 +1300 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz In-Reply-To: <013f01c86f0f$7128c8f0$a3d0403e@Mildred> References: <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com> <47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com> <3642E884-1518-47C2-BFE3-5B8A8FE35BA8@starpower.net> <47B2F9B0.1040705@NTLworld.com> <002501c86e66$56090390$9d015e47@DFYXB361> <013f01c86f0f$7128c8f0$a3d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802141605t64c28289pc72e0aa0b25bc572@mail.gmail.com> On 15/02/2008, gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************** > "When my stick touches the air, > you play." > ~ Serge Koussevitzky > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:44 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Return to Oz > > > > > > American Heritage Dictionary gives: > > > > "Demonstrable: Capable of being shown or proved." > > > > "Arguable: That can be argued about." > > > > Of course, BLMLers know quite well from experience > > that even that which is proven can be argued about > > anyhow, but I'll stick by "antonym". > > > +=+ How natural to argue here about what is arguable. > ~ G ~ +=+ I thought that was the definition. If it is here it is arguable. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 15 01:56:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:56:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: 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 - addenda An omission in my original summary, noted by Grattan Endicott, is an important clarification of an ambiguity in the revoke laws. The new footnote to Law 64 says: "* a trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes of this Law." An even more significant clarification in the new Laws is the revised Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts). Under the old 1997 Law 85 Directors were given no guidance - they were merely told that they had to be "satisfied". So, if one side asserted. "That opponent hesitated," and the other side asserted, "Not so," some Directors believed that they had to automatically rule for the "Not so," side, since this unsatisfactory situation meant that those Directors were ipso facto not "satisfied". But the new 2007 Law 85A1 says: "When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows: In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." A key phrase is "balance of probabilities" which is aimed at the target of neither disadvantaging the putative non-offending side nor disadvantaging the putative offending side. Another key phrase is "able to collect", which implies that a Director should not lazily rule on first impressions, but rather should be diligent in seeking the truth before ruling. 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 Fri Feb 15 03:38:00 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:38:00 +0900 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <200802150238.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> Now I'm really confused by L27C1 Let's look at L27C1 again...... ************************************************* 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 .... ************************************************* OK, next let's look at the definition of incorporates. v.t. 1. to combine with something already formed 2. to merge into a single whole v.i. 1. to unite or compbine into a single whole. As an example, New York City (the larger entity) incorporates the boroughs of Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island (five smaller entities). Or another: the motor vehicle market incorporates the markets for cars, trucks, busses motorcycles,...... L27C1 says the replacement bid must "incorporate the information contained in the IB." This means the replacement call must be consistent with ("incorporate") any possible hand consistent with the IB. For example, after N E S 1C (1S) 1H if the IB is replaced by 2H this violates L27C1 because 2H does not incorporate a hand with only 4 hearts. OTH if the IB is replaced by NEGx this also violates L27C1, because 1H might have been 5+hearts with 10+ points, and this is not incorporated in the NEGx. In short, South is up the creek without a paddle. The problem is, the Lords of the Law may not have been sufficiently careful in their drafting of L27C ("shocked, I'm shocked to discover sloppy drafting by the DSC." -Claude Rains). I believe what the actually meant to say is the opposite of what they actually said, namely that the replacement call is admissible if it is a subset of the IB. In other words, it is admissible if there are no hands with which one would make the replacement call but would not have made the IB. How does the following wording change to L27C grab you: ************************************************* 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 IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE information contained in the insufficient bid, the auction and play continues .... ************************************************* I'm sure someone can come up with something a little better than the above, but I propose it as a start. Turning now to Eric's recent post..... Eric Landau writes: >>> That both those examples qualify is both correct and as it should >>> be. In neither case does the knowledge that partner has a hand >>> suitable for 1D-P-1H add any information to that provided by the >>> replacement call. >> >> i agree. the condition is that the set of hands corresponding to the >> replacement call is a subset of hands compatible with the IB. > >That's what L27C1 says. The problem is, as L27C1 is now worded that's NOT what L27C1 says, but rather is what L27C1 SHOULD say. I think it is necessary to rewrite L27C1 because it actually now appears to say the opposite. Am I missing something here? -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 15 03:47:08 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:47:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B457FB.7030503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>>See the word "unmistakably" in L73F1 Nigel Guthrie: >>please explain Alain Gottcheiner: >The part of L73 I use is L73F1, as written before. It is the part >that says an indication must be "unmistakable" before we use L16. 1997 Law 73F1: When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner?s remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score (see Law 16). Richard Hills: It seems to me that Alain has been led astray by a translation error in the French edition of the 1997 Lawbook. The translator seems to have changed the 1997 Law 73F1 word "demonstrably" into "unmistakably" thus creating (in Alain's mind) a second hoop to jump through before the 1997 Law 16 applied. Alain Gottcheiner: >If it is other in TNFLB, please adjust accordingly. Richard Hills: It seems to me that the Drafting Sub-Committee believed that the 1997 Law 73F1 tautologically repeated part of Law 16, since the DSC chose to delete Law 73F1 from the 2007 Lawbook. 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 Fri Feb 15 04:44:06 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:44:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Please RJH answer this one question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B3F7BD.2080204@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >But what must a player do who does not know which of the two >applies? > >Sneak a look at his SC perhaps? Richard Hills: No, but the player could invite the enquiring opponent to look at the System Card. Herman De Wael: >Call the TD? Richard Hills: If an opponent asks a player a question about a call (not listed on the System Card) for which: (a) a partnership agreement does exist, but (b) the player has temporarily forgotten, then (c) the player should summon the TD. Herman De Wael: >The MS currently has no answer to that one. Richard Hills: Rubbish. There is an Official Interpretation in ->. 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 auction 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. Best wishes Richard James Hills Level 6 Aqua Training Suite Governance & Graduates Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6225 6776 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 Fri Feb 15 23:44:41 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:44:41 -0800 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560802141600i3ead3e8fh277d2a35166943d8@mail.gmail.co m> References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> <200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com> <017c01c86e9e$87886450$e1d5403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0802131656r342f545p6d058b87989b4fc2@mail.gmail.com> <001e01c86eb5$d316c580$41cf403e@Mildred> <47B45D28.6080405@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560802141600i3ead3e8fh277d2a35166943d8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080215144249.039481b0@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 04:00 PM 14/02/2008, you wrote: > > (1S)1H > > may not be replaced by (1S)2S (Michaels) unless > > - a 1H overcall would *promise* a two suiter > >This seems ok to me. The 2S replacement gives more information than >the 1H presummed opening bid. > >I might disallow 2S because it is unlimited whereas 1H was limited. > >I might allow myself to bid 2S citing my recent 1H opening on : > >- >AKQJxx >AQJxxx >A > >as evidence that my 1H openings are unlimited. > >Wayne I think if you would like a free Michaels cue bid, I will have Probst Law 0 (might have known) down on you so fast it will make yours eyes water (unless you get a really bad result anyway) Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Feb 16 02:32:18 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:32:18 -0800 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.0.6.2.20080214154627.038c9ec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080215172226.038d7e50@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 09:53 PM 13/02/2008, you wrote: >Tony Musgrove: > > >This has me really worried. 4NT .. 4D meant to show 1ace. I thought this >was > >a no brainer under the new rules, disallowed under the 1997 rules, and >allowed > >(nay mandated in Oz) before 1997 because 4D (insufficient) has no meaning >as a > >reply to 4NT. > >Richard Hills: > >Because 4D has zero meaning, presumably there was zero pause for thought in >realising the error. Ergo, Law 25A1 can be used for a 5D correction. This is a very interesting observation. Under the old L25, a footnote said that if the original bid was insufficient , apply L27. That footnote has now been removed. I used to feel that it covered quite a few simple L25A cases where the player was simply going to correct to the appropriate number of clubs etc. without penalty. But not to the case above where the opponents have said "You cant bid that, DIRECTOR!!" In any case I always used to offer the insufficient bid to the next player in turn if they wished to accept. And refuse to allow the simple change in the example above. Now, the footnote has GONE. So perhaps the PTB want to allow lots of L25A corrections, as the one above. No problem here. Tony (Sydney) From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 15 09:33:14 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:33:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Please RJH answer this one question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47B54E4A.4060403@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> But what must a player do who does not know which of the two >> applies? >> >> Sneak a look at his SC perhaps? > > Richard Hills: > > No, but the player could invite the enquiring opponent to look > at the System Card. > The problem with that one is that he can then no longer "remain silent about the misinformation". > Herman De Wael: > >> Call the TD? > > Richard Hills: > > If an opponent asks a player a question about a call (not > listed on the System Card) for which: > > (a) a partnership agreement does exist, but > (b) the player has temporarily forgotten, then > (c) the player should summon the TD. > Indeed, but see below. > Herman De Wael: > >> The MS currently has no answer to that one. > > Richard Hills: > > Rubbish. There is an Official Interpretation in ->. > I'll show below that these interpretations do not address the specific case we are talking about. > 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 auction 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. > Both these points address the simple problem of a player forgetting his system. He has already revealed to his partner that he is uncertain of the meaning, but he is not revealing how he takes the bid. The DWS problem has an added twist. Anything else than a simple consistent explanation reveals to partner that HE has misunderstood. This is far more damaging. So the player wishes to give the consistent explanation. Furthermore, he _knows_ what this consistent explanation is. There is no need for him to be sending himself off the table for his partner to tell the opponents what it means. So neither of the solutions above are helpful in this case. The MS makes perfectly clear what should happen when a player is certain - either way. But the MS does not address the question of how certain a player must be before he is also allowed to give the consistent explanation. Since this is in a player's benefit, he will always try to do this, but the MS does not say that he cannot (or can). > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 15 10:59:47 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:59:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B45FC2.2050109@NTLworld.com> References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com> <47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com> <47B40571.7020405@ulb.ac.be> <47B45412.1050401@NTLworld.com> <47B457FB.7030503@ulb.ac.be> <47B45FC2.2050109@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47B56293.4070502@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Nige3] > Please would you be more explicit, Alain, and please tie whatever *new* > law you are quoting to a refutation of my argument. I no longer have a > copy of the old laws. Thank you. > I'm frightfully sorry, Sir, TNFLB hasn't reached Belgium yet. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 15 11:06:25 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:06:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fun Game #1 In-Reply-To: <13612816-243C-44C0-80A2-3ACDE88DB17B@starpower.net> References: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <0EADFF52-20F1-4B73-B5CA-C4BCDE5AE53B@starpower.net> <47B4573F.5060302@ulb.ac.be> <13612816-243C-44C0-80A2-3ACDE88DB17B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47B56421.2010402@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > No. All references to "denomination" are gone. The substitute call > must be minimum level *and* incorporate the meaning of the IB (but > not redouble). I'd be curious as to why neither redoubles nor skip > bids were permitted, although Grattan assures us that there were > reasons, albeit secret ones. This would suggest that the WBFLC does > not intend the "strict constructionist" interpretation, as that would > seem to leave no rationale for the exclusions. > > Indeed. I could find some examples where a jump would be needed to create "incorporation". For example, if I open an Acol 2H (1RF, could be 2-suited) but they had opened 2S, I may no more bid 3H ; and for some reason, if I happen to hold a 2-suiter, I'm not allowed to bid 4C / 4D which shows precisely that (and the strength and heart length for a 2H opening), which satisfies the inclusion principle. I fail to see the rationale for that. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 15 11:13:01 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:13:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47B565AD.2040003@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >> No, Prescott has constructed a straw man. When >> partner gives UI, your logical alternatives may >> be restricted. Under Law 16 and Law 73C, if: >> >> (a) logical alternatives X and Y exist, and >> (b) without UI from pard you would select X, and >> (c) partner does create UI, and >> (d) pard's UI demonstrably suggests X, then >> (e) you must change your selection from X to Y. >> Right so ! But doesn't apply in the case under scrutiny. The only reason to make a knowledgeable player pass would be to try and stop the bidding in 3H, with full intention to bid 4S over 4H if it were to happen. Therefore, passing over 4H isn't a LA *for somebody who had purposely passed 3H* Point a) doesn't pass the test. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 15 11:13:01 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:13:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47B565AD.2040003@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >> No, Prescott has constructed a straw man. When >> partner gives UI, your logical alternatives may >> be restricted. Under Law 16 and Law 73C, if: >> >> (a) logical alternatives X and Y exist, and >> (b) without UI from pard you would select X, and >> (c) partner does create UI, and >> (d) pard's UI demonstrably suggests X, then >> (e) you must change your selection from X to Y. >> Right so ! But doesn't apply in the case under scrutiny. The only reason to make a knowledgeable player pass would be to try and stop the bidding in 3H, with full intention to bid 4S over 4H if it were to happen. Therefore, passing over 4H isn't a LA *for somebody who had purposely passed 3H* Point a) doesn't pass the test. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 15 11:16:23 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:16:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47B56677.8060404@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Richard Hills: > > It seems to me that Alain has been led astray by a translation > error in the French edition of the 1997 Lawbook. The translator > seems to have changed the 1997 Law 73F1 word "demonstrably" into > "unmistakably" thus creating (in Alain's mind) a second hoop to > jump through before the 1997 Law 16 applied. > > Not at all. "demonstrable" means "which can be proven". "arguable" means "which might be argued, but still not certain", or even 'doubtful" Saying those two are synonyms still seems strange. No need to invokeFrench here. Regards alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Feb 15 14:14:13 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:14:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560802141600i3ead3e8fh277d2a35166943d8@mail.gmail.com> References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> <200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com> <017c01c86e9e$87886450$e1d5403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0802131656r342f545p6d058b87989b4fc2@mail.gmail.com> <001e01c86eb5$d316c580$41cf403e@Mildred> <47B45D28.6080405@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560802141600i3ead3e8fh277d2a35166943d8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47B59025.6070805@NTLworld.com> [nige1] (1S)1H may not be replaced by (1S)2S (Michaels) unless - a 1H overcall would *promise* a two suiter [Wayne Burrows] This seems ok to me. The 2S replacement gives more information than the 1H presummed opening bid. I might disallow 2S because it is unlimited whereas 1H was limited. I might allow myself to bid 2S citing my recent 1H opening on : - AKQJxx AQJxxx A - as evidence that my 1H openings are unlimited. [nige2] Wayne is correct to point out that the reason that I gave was wrong. Sorry From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Feb 15 14:23:47 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:23:47 +0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B56293.4070502@ulb.ac.be> References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com> <47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com> <47B40571.7020405@ulb.ac.be> <47B45412.1050401@NTLworld.com> <47B457FB.7030503@ulb.ac.be> <47B45FC2.2050109@NTLworld.com> <47B56293.4070502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47B59263.8080500@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] I'm frightfully sorry, Sir, TNFLB hasn't reached Belgium yet. [nige1] NP Alain :). Here is a link to a *WORD* version of the new laws (*HTML* would be best but at least this is more convenient than *PDF*) http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files/2007%20Laws/2007LawsComplete.doc From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 15 15:17:42 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:17:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802150238.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <200802150238.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <61AB2809-412C-4DCE-954C-5BC5AF42C0C4@starpower.net> On Feb 14, 2008, at 9:38 PM, Robert Geller wrote: > Now I'm really confused by L27C1 > > Let's look at L27C1 again...... > ************************************************* > 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 .... > ************************************************* > > OK, next let's look at the definition of incorporates. > v.t. > 1. to combine with something already formed > 2. to merge into a single whole > v.i. > 1. to unite or compbine into a single whole. > > As an example, New York City (the larger entity) incorporates > the boroughs of Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten > Island > (five smaller entities). Or another: the motor vehicle market > incorporates the markets for cars, trucks, busses motorcycles,...... > > L27C1 says the replacement bid must "incorporate the information > contained in the IB." This means the replacement call must be > consistent with ("incorporate") any possible hand consistent > with the IB. For example, after > N E S > 1C (1S) 1H > if the IB is replaced by 2H this violates L27C1 because 2H does not > incorporate a hand with only 4 hearts. OTH if the IB is replaced > by NEGx this also violates L27C1, because 1H might have been > 5+hearts with 10+ points, and this is not incorporated in the NEGx. > > In short, South is up the creek without a paddle. > > The problem is, the Lords of the Law may not have been sufficiently > careful in their drafting of L27C ("shocked, I'm shocked to discover > sloppy drafting by the DSC." -Claude Rains). I believe what the > actually meant to say is the opposite of what they actually said, > namely > that the replacement call is admissible if it is a subset of the IB. > In other words, it is admissible if there are no hands with which one > would make the replacement call but would not have made the IB. > > How does the following wording change to L27C grab you: > ************************************************* > 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 IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE > information contained in > the insufficient bid, the auction and play continues .... > ************************************************* > I'm sure someone can come up with something a little better than > the above, but I propose it as a start. > > Turning now to Eric's recent post..... > Eric Landau writes: >>>> That both those examples qualify is both correct and as it should >>>> be. In neither case does the knowledge that partner has a hand >>>> suitable for 1D-P-1H add any information to that provided by the >>>> replacement call. >>> >>> i agree. the condition is that the set of hands corresponding to the >>> replacement call is a subset of hands compatible with the IB. >> >> That's what L27C1 says. > > > The problem is, as L27C1 is now worded that's NOT what L27C1 says, but > rather is what L27C1 SHOULD say. I think it is necessary to rewrite > L27C1 because it actually now appears to say the opposite. > > Am I missing something here? L27C1 addresses incorporated *information*, not an incorporated set of hands. What Bob is missing is Alain's post of about two weeks ago, which did a very good job of explaining the difference. As it is critical to the discussion, I will reproduce it here: > On Jan 31, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> 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. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From geller at nifty.com Fri Feb 15 15:29:33 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:29:33 +0900 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <61AB2809-412C-4DCE-954C-5BC5AF42C0C4@starpower.net> References: <61AB2809-412C-4DCE-954C-5BC5AF42C0C4@starpower.net> Message-ID: <200802151429.AA12485@geller204.nifty.com> Eric Landau writes: >>> 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. In other words, you're saying that a map of New York City can replace a map of the world, because the map of NYC contains all the information in the world map. Sorry, no sale. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 15 15:40:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:40:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B59263.8080500@NTLworld.com> References: <2a1c3a560802112021n25233359hd98d3c098d231b4f@mail.gmail.com> <47B1A1E5.8030705@NTLworld.com> <47B1A9F3.80609@ulb.ac.be> <47B1C328.7000800@NTLworld.com> <47B1D25F.2080608@ulb.ac.be> <47B253D6.1040005@NTLworld.com> <47B2EE09.1080609@NTLworld.com> <47B40571.7020405@ulb.ac.be> <47B45412.1050401@NTLworld.com> <47B457FB.7030503@ulb.ac.be> <47B45FC2.2050109@NTLworld.com> <47B56293.4070502@ulb.ac.be> <47B59263.8080500@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47B5A470.2090206@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > > Here is a link to a *WORD* version of the new laws (*HTML* would be best > but at least this is more convenient than *PDF*) > > Thanks a lot. Now it seems old L73F1 has been suppressed altogether (whence our disagreement) and L16 now contains all that's necessary to assess UI cases. Well, the word used is still "demonstrably", and it's still different from "arguably". Best regars Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Feb 15 15:42:50 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:42:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B56677.8060404@ulb.ac.be> References: <47B56677.8060404@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47B5A4EA.90504@NTLworld.com> [richard.hills] It seems to me that Alain has been led astray by a translation error in the French edition of the 1997 Lawbook. The translator seems to have changed the 1997 Law 73F1 word "demonstrably" into "unmistakably" thus creating (in Alain's mind) a second hoop to jump through before the 1997 Law 16 applied. [Alain Gottcheiner] Not at all. "demonstrable" means "which can be proven". "arguable" means "which might be argued, but still not certain", or even 'doubtful" Saying those two are synonyms still seems strange. No need to invokeFrench here. [Nige1] Still quibbling Alain? :) I've already made it clear that I when I wrote "arguably" I intended the dictionary sense below. It is easy to understand, however, why so many BLMLers agree with Alain that the words are antonyms :) In any case, the context made it obvious that I meant "Arguably, it can be demonstrated ...". (my contention was contingent on whether probability estimates were roughly correct). As I understand the law, (after polling if necessary) a director or committee must make that same judgement. [Onelook online dictionary: primary meanings] - Arguably = as can be shown by argument. - Demonstrable = capable of being demonstrated or proved. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 15 15:44:41 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:44:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080215144249.039481b0@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> <200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com> <017c01c86e9e$87886450$e1d5403e@Mildred> <2b1e598b0802131656r342f545p6d058b87989b4fc2@mail.gmail.com> <001e01c86eb5$d316c580$41cf403e@Mildred> <47B45D28.6080405@NTLworld.com> <2a1c3a560802141600i3ead3e8fh277d2a35166943d8@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080215144249.039481b0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <90D96D47-3F69-4271-8E55-2D4498647DD7@starpower.net> On Feb 15, 2008, at 5:44 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 04:00 PM 14/02/2008, you wrote: >>> (1S)1H >>> may not be replaced by (1S)2S (Michaels) unless >>> - a 1H overcall would *promise* a two suiter >> >> This seems ok to me. The 2S replacement gives more information than >> the 1H presummed opening bid. >> >> I might disallow 2S because it is unlimited whereas 1H was limited. >> >> I might allow myself to bid 2S citing my recent 1H opening on : >> >> - >> AKQJxx >> AQJxxx >> A >> >> as evidence that my 1H openings are unlimited. >> > I think if you would like a free Michaels cue bid, I will have Probst > Law 0 (might have known) down on you so fast it will make > yours eyes water (unless you get a really bad result anyway) In what sense is the Michaels cue bid "free"? It is exactly the same bid, with exactly the same meaning, as you would have made had you heard the auction correctly. If, as Wayne points out, a 1H opening would be unlimited, then the knowledge that you have a hand that would have opened 1H adds zero information to what is already known from your 2S call, leaving the table in exactly the same state as it would have been after 1S-2S with no IB. That is the test prescribed in L27C1 for allowing a replacement without penalty, so 2S must -- as it should, causing no possible harm and no possible foul(*) -- be allowed. (*) On the assumption that you actually have a hand suitable by agreement for a Michaels cue bid. We have yet to address how L27C is supposed to apply when you do not. We will not be a position to sensibly undertake that discussion, however, until we figure out how it works in the (much less complicated) cases where the bidder's hand does match the replacement bid. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 15 16:09:18 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:09:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802151429.AA12485@geller204.nifty.com> References: <61AB2809-412C-4DCE-954C-5BC5AF42C0C4@starpower.net> <200802151429.AA12485@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: On Feb 15, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > Eric Landau writes: >>>> 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. > > In other words, you're saying that a map of New York City can replace > a map of the world, because the map of NYC contains all the > information in > the world map. Sorry, no sale. I am saying that if I tell you that the location you seek (analogous to my hand) is on a map of New York City (is suitable for 1S-2S), you get no additional information from my telling you that it also appears on a map of the world (would have opened 1H after P-). The "information" isn't the map, it's the fact that the location you are looking for is on the map. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Fri Feb 15 16:12:24 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:12:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <61AB2809-412C-4DCE-954C-5BC5AF42C0C4@starpower.net> <200802151429.AA12485@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <005001c86fe5$2b691500$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 2:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The new L27C2 > Eric Landau writes: >>>> For a replacement declaration to be allowed, the information it >>>> contains >>>> must contain all information in the relpaced bid, whence the range of >>>> possible hands should be narrower, not wider. > > In other words, you're saying that a map of New York City can replace > a map of the world, because the map of NYC contains all the information in > the world map. Sorry, no sale. Better by far than an atlas of the world (but it'd pay to give special attention to the appendix where there's a map of NYC) :) John > > -Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Fri Feb 15 16:18:15 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:18:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY><200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com><017c01c86e9e$87886450$e1d5403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0802131656r342f545p6d058b87989b4fc2@mail.gmail.com><001e01c86eb5$d316c580$41cf403e@Mildred><47B45D28.6080405@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560802141600i3ead3e8fh277d2a35166943d8@mail.gmail.com><6.1.0.6.2.20080215144249.039481b0@mail.optusnet.com.au> <90D96D47-3F69-4271-8E55-2D4498647DD7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <005901c86fe5$fc498650$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 2:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The new L27C2 > On Feb 15, 2008, at 5:44 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > >> At 04:00 PM 14/02/2008, you wrote: >>>> (1S)1H >>>> may not be replaced by (1S)2S (Michaels) unless >>>> - a 1H overcall would *promise* a two suiter >>> >>> This seems ok to me. The 2S replacement gives more information than >>> the 1H presummed opening bid. >>> >>> I might disallow 2S because it is unlimited whereas 1H was limited. >>> >>> I might allow myself to bid 2S citing my recent 1H opening on : >>> >>> - >>> AKQJxx >>> AQJxxx >>> A >>> >>> as evidence that my 1H openings are unlimited. >>> >> I think if you would like a free Michaels cue bid, I will have Probst >> Law 0 (might have known) down on you so fast it will make >> yours eyes water (unless you get a really bad result anyway) > > In what sense is the Michaels cue bid "free"? It is exactly the same > bid, with exactly the same meaning, as you would have made had you > heard the auction correctly. If, as Wayne points out, a 1H opening > would be unlimited, then the knowledge that you have a hand that > would have opened 1H adds zero information to what is already known > from your 2S call, leaving the table in exactly the same state as it > would have been after 1S-2S with no IB. That is the test prescribed > in L27C1 for allowing a replacement without penalty, so 2S must -- as > it should, causing no possible harm and no possible foul(*) -- be > allowed. Uhuh. Not if you play split range. I could have a hand worth a 1H, 2H(str or weak) or 3H opener or have canape hearts. ... and I ALWAYS open longest suit (how a nation which can land men on the moon can conceive that opening a small doubleton is the best way to launch a balanced 19 count defeats me) whereas I may be 5-6 with H my canape suit. There's a lot of mileage in this law yet. John > > (*) On the assumption that you actually have a hand suitable by > agreement for a Michaels cue bid. We have yet to address how L27C is > supposed to apply when you do not. We will not be a position to > sensibly undertake that discussion, however, until we figure out how > it works in the (much less complicated) cases where the bidder's hand > does match the replacement bid. > > > 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 ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 15 16:18:38 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:18:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B5A4EA.90504@NTLworld.com> References: <47B56677.8060404@ulb.ac.be> <47B5A4EA.90504@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <3D8DE1F6-7D8E-4D49-95DB-795CACCF9DEB@starpower.net> On Feb 15, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Guthrie wrote: > In any case, the context made it obvious that I meant "Arguably, it > can > be demonstrated ...". (my contention was contingent on whether > probability estimates were roughly correct). Any assertion that relies on probability estimates (whether or not they are "arguable", regardless of what that means) cannot, by definition, be "demonstrable". To "demonstrate" something is to prove it to be true (probability of 1). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 15 16:31:37 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:31:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <005901c86fe5$fc498650$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <00a801c86d13$bb880940$0701a8c0@LIBRARY><200802120854.AA12414@geller204.nifty.com><017c01c86e9e$87886450$e1d5403e@Mildred><2b1e598b0802131656r342f545p6d058b87989b4fc2@mail.gmail.com><001e01c86eb5$d316c580$41cf403e@Mildred><47B45D28.6080405@NTLworld.com><2a1c3a560802141600i3ead3e8fh277d2a35166943d8@mail.gmail.com><6.1.0.6.2.20080215144249.039481b0@mail.optusnet.com.au> <90D96D47-3F69-4271-8E55-2D4498647DD7@starpower.net> <005901c86fe5$fc498650$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: On Feb 15, 2008, at 10:18 AM, John ((MadDog)) Probst wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> On Feb 15, 2008, at 5:44 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: >> >>> At 04:00 PM 14/02/2008, you wrote: >>>>> (1S)1H >>>>> may not be replaced by (1S)2S (Michaels) unless >>>>> - a 1H overcall would *promise* a two suiter >>>> >>>> This seems ok to me. The 2S replacement gives more information >>>> than >>>> the 1H presummed opening bid. >>>> >>>> I might disallow 2S because it is unlimited whereas 1H was limited. >>>> >>>> I might allow myself to bid 2S citing my recent 1H opening on : >>>> >>>> - >>>> AKQJxx >>>> AQJxxx >>>> A >>>> >>>> as evidence that my 1H openings are unlimited. >>>> >>> I think if you would like a free Michaels cue bid, I will have >>> Probst >>> Law 0 (might have known) down on you so fast it will make >>> yours eyes water (unless you get a really bad result anyway) >> >> In what sense is the Michaels cue bid "free"? It is exactly the same >> bid, with exactly the same meaning, as you would have made had you >> heard the auction correctly. If, as Wayne points out, a 1H opening >> would be unlimited, then the knowledge that you have a hand that >> would have opened 1H adds zero information to what is already known >> from your 2S call, leaving the table in exactly the same state as it >> would have been after 1S-2S with no IB. That is the test prescribed >> in L27C1 for allowing a replacement without penalty, so 2S must -- as >> it should, causing no possible harm and no possible foul(*) -- be >> allowed. > > Uhuh. Not if you play split range. Of course not. But I set the original example ("Fun game #1") with the stipulation that 1S-2S showed opening-bid values and was unlimited, which was necessary to the assertion that "1H adds zero information to what is already known from your 2S call". > I could have a hand worth a 1H, 2H(str or > weak) or 3H opener or have canape hearts. ... and I ALWAYS open > longest suit > (how a nation which can land men on the moon can conceive that > opening a > small doubleton is the best way to launch a balanced 19 count > defeats me) > whereas I may be 5-6 with H my canape suit. Which proves that knowing only that 1H was a "natural opening bid" and 2S is "Michaels cue bid" is not enough information to determine whether 2S passes the test in L27C1. I doubt that anyone thought it was. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Feb 15 16:55:53 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:55:53 +0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802150238.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <200802150238.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47B5B609.5000602@NTLworld.com> [Robert Geller] Now I'm really confused by L27C1 Let's look at L27C1 again...... [TNLB 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 .... ************************************************* [Bob] OK, next let's look at the definition of incorporates. [Dictionary] v.t. 1. to combine with something already formed 2. to merge into a single whole [Bob] As an example, New York City (the larger entity) incorporates the boroughs of Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island (five smaller entities). Or another: the motor vehicle market incorporates the markets for cars, trucks, busses motorcycles,...... [SNIP] The problem is, the Lords of the Law may not have been sufficiently careful in their drafting of L27C ("shocked, I'm shocked to discover sloppy drafting by the DSC." -Claude Rains). I believe what the actually meant to say is the opposite of what they actually said, namely that the replacement call is admissible if it is a subset of the IB. In other words, it is admissible if there are no hands with which one would make the replacement call but would not have made the IB. How does the following wording change to L27C grab you: ************************************************* 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 IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE information contained in the insufficient bid, the auction and play continues .... ************************************************* I'm sure someone can come up with something a little better than the above, but I propose it as a start. [Nige1] Grattan and Eric have explained what the law-makers intended. I had not realised that they had again written something different. Thank you, Bob, for drawing attention to this anomaly. Lawmakers may quibble that there is a difference between - Replacement includes Original and - Replacement includes the *information* in Original Nevertheless, Bob is obviously right. What the WBFLC wrote may again be the opposite of what they intended. At best it is unclear. I would prefer the law to say that: - You may not condone opponent's insufficient bid (or bid out of turn). - You must substitute a pass for either. - Information from the illegal action is unauthorised to offender's partner. - Non-offenders can of course ask the director to waive their rights. - but a unilateral attempt to condone either is another infraction. Most players would understand such a simple law. It would eliminate the advantage that the current law accords to secretary birds who have developed elaborate conventions to profit from such infractions. Some of these are contingent on which option you select. For example, if you condone an insufficient bid or bid out of turn, then double is for *penalty* and other calls all have different meanings from the same bid made after refusing to condone it. Perhaps there should be two sets of laws. Keep the current sophisticated set for secretary birds. Allow ordinary players to enjoy a stripped down simplified set :) From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Feb 15 17:41:21 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:41:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802151429.AA12485@geller204.nifty.com> References: <61AB2809-412C-4DCE-954C-5BC5AF42C0C4@starpower.net> <200802151429.AA12485@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47B5C0B1.1070107@meteo.fr> Robert Geller a ?crit : > Eric Landau writes: >>>> 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. > > In other words, you're saying that a map of New York City can replace > a map of the world, because the map of NYC contains all the information in > the world map. Sorry, no sale. the point is not what the map contains but on what it focuses. in order to delimit where some event happened, a map of nyc gives more information than a map of the world. arguably it's not easy to translate the idea in a few words of a law, but we have been told that, from some weeks, a cohort of grammarians have been put to the task of making it unambiguous for every reader. jpr > > -Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Feb 15 17:42:09 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:42:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3D8DE1F6-7D8E-4D49-95DB-795CACCF9DEB@starpower.net> References: <47B56677.8060404@ulb.ac.be> <47B5A4EA.90504@NTLworld.com> <3D8DE1F6-7D8E-4D49-95DB-795CACCF9DEB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47B5C0E1.1070700@NTLworld.com> [nige1] In any case, the context made it obvious that I meant "Arguably, it can be demonstrated ...". (my contention was contingent on whether probability estimates were roughly correct). [Eric Landau] Any assertion that relies on probability estimates (whether or not they are "arguable", regardless of what that means) cannot, by definition, be "demonstrable". To "demonstrate" something is to prove it to be true (probability of 1). [nige2] It's easy to demonstrate that I'm right ... :) If there could be no argument about what a call demonstrably suggests, about half of BLML, RGB etc would immediately cease to exist :) ... Argh :( it's all still there :( Q.E.D. Manifestly ... [A] directors and committees must decide whether a logical alternative "could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". [B] Implicitly or explicitly, directors and committees must judge - the *probable* content of the extraneous information. - the *probable* effect on partner's choice. From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Sat Feb 16 14:39:50 2008 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:39:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new fun game - Alain's contribution References: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B42732.8070906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <011a01c870ad$c5d28360$9a493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 12:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A new fun game - Alain's contribution Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > Dear all, > > I have thought of a fun game we can play. Here is how it works: > > 1. Anyone who can think of a substitution they would allow under new 27C2 > can post details about it. > Okay, here's my contribution. Case 1 1C opening ; 1H answer showing 4+ spades. But LHO has overcalled 1H. Now a double (in my system at least) shows the equivalent of a 1H response (1S would deny spades), minus some specific types of hands (mainly those worth a WJR, which we don't play noncompetitively). Since everything that is said by the 1H response is also said by the double, this substitution should be allowed IMOBO. No: the only possibility to show the 4+ spades seems to be an insufficient bid. So Law 72B1 is applicable. Ben From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sun Feb 17 00:45:29 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:45:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Please MS answer these three questions In-Reply-To: <47B3022D.4060904@skynet.be> References: <47B3022D.4060904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47B77599.5040903@verizon.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > I am about to shut up about this problem. > Good. > But not before I ask the MS adepts to ask themselves the following > three questions, and realize that they don't care about the game of > bridge. > There is no such thing as "MS". There are those who read the Laws, and follow the Laws and WBFLC interpretations. And those who don't. > The bidding goes: > > W N E S > 1He > 4Sp 4NT pas 5Di > 5Sp Dbl all pass > > Before bidding 5Sp, West asks what 4NT is, and South says "Blackwood". > West then asks how many aces South has shown, and North says "one". It > turns out North has a minor two-suiter, and North admits having > intended 4NT as showing this. > This should not have ever happened. The actual agreement will have to be determined by the TD. However, the explanation by S is UI to N. He cannot alter his intended bidding based on that explanation, nor can he alter his understanding of the meaning of the S calls. N can say "diamond preference" or "TD please". Nothing else. > When asked why he replied "one", North states that South is always > better in the system than he is. If South says it's Blackwood, then it > is. South concurs that 4NT to him is always Blackwood. > North/South cannot show any system card or system notes that confirm this. > OK, they get a procedural penalty for failure to fill out the system cards, and the TD finds out the actual system anyway. > North is not from Belgium, nor does he have an H, D or W among his > initials. > > Four questions: > > 1) Provided that the story is true (South is always right), was North > correct in replying one ace? > > No. I disagree with Richard Hills that the UI can be used by N to clarify his agreements to himself. He cannot change what he believes the agreement to be based on UI. He should definitely attempt to "not hear" the S explanation. > 2) How should the Director establish that the story is true? > Haven't you ever made a table ruling? Ask the players what the system is away from the table. > 3) If the Director decides to believe North, what is the score > correction going to be (assume that West would not bid 5Sp if told > that 4NT shows minors, but not double either) > Believe N about what? That he originally misbid? If so, there is no adjustment, as the opponents had received all of the actual agreements. Since N's bidding is consistent with diamond preference, there is likely no problem. If S misexplained, it's a different story, and an adjustment may be in order. > 4) If the Director suspects that North is less certain about the > system than he's letting on, is the score correction any different > (you may assume that West would double if he knows the full story) > Degree of certainty is immaterial. Find out the actual system. Then figure out if you're dealing with misbid or MI. Assume MI over misbid if in doubt. Not complicated. > As a side question: does it matter why West asks the question? > Normally not (see Sven's answer). > As a teaser: are you happy with all these rulings you may have to make? > > Sure, as long as they're in accordance with the Laws. Hirsch From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Feb 17 04:04:08 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:04:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Please MS answer these three questions References: <47B3022D.4060904@skynet.be> <47B77599.5040903@verizon.net> Message-ID: <060f01c87111$c38a42a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> From: "Hirsch Davis" > However, the explanation by S is UI to N. He > cannot alter his intended bidding based on that explanation, nor can he > alter his understanding of the meaning of the S calls. N can say > "diamond preference" or "TD please". Nothing else. > I have been thinking about the fact that partner's explanation is UI. It really is all one needs to know when deciding whether the dWS is "acceptable", for those who are not swayed by the fact that it is illegal. (It is of course true, as many have pointed out, that it is the lawmakers' fault that someone can fall into such severe error, and that many other laws are not written in comprehensible language.) But anyway. Partner's explanation is UI, and that should settle the question. Herman, you are always saying that bridge should be played as if screens are present. Fine. Pretend there are screens. You did not hear partner's explanation. What further problem can you have? Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 17 23:53:01 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:53:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] Please RJH answer this one question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B54E4A.4060403@skynet.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Rubbish. There is an Official Interpretation in ->. >> >>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 auction 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. Herman De Wael: >The DWS problem has an added twist. >Anything else than a simple consistent explanation reveals >to partner that HE has misunderstood. This is far more >damaging. So the player wishes to give the consistent >explanation. Richard Hills: What the player wishes to do is irrelevant. The WBF LC Minute (and the Laws themselves) tell the player that any wish to give MI is not permitted. Herman De Wael: >Furthermore, he _knows_ what this consistent explanation >is. Richard Hills: Knowing that one can fool opponents with consistent MI is not any reason to do so. Quite the contrary; see the 2007 Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." Herman De Wael: >There is no need for him to be sending himself off the table Richard Hills: A misquote to bolster Herman's argument? The WBF LC Minute emphasised that the player must call the Director, and it is the Director who has the discretion to send the player away from the table. Herman De Wael: >for his partner to tell the opponents what it means. 2007 Law 75B: "...East-West are entitled to an accurate description of the North-South agreement..." Herman De Wael: >So neither of the solutions above are helpful in this case. Richard Hills: Sure it is not helpful to Herman that a written Official Interpretation of the WBF LC refutes a key aspect of the De Wael School. And Herman lacks the power to declare the WBF LC Minute inoperative merely because he considers the UI created in a particular case to be "more damaging" than in another case. Indeed, as has been pointed out by other blmlers, saying that creation of UI is "damaging" is begging the question, petitio principii. Rather, it is use of UI which is the infraction. WBF Code of Practice, revised 27th November 2003, page 7: "A player who, without design, makes unauthorized information available to his partner does not commit an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that information that is a breach of the laws." +=+ To be observed as a regulation wherever the tournament Rules and Regulations incorporate the WBF Code of Practice. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Best wishes Richard James Hills Level 6 Aqua Training Suite Governance & Graduates Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6225 6776 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 Mon Feb 18 00:09:10 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:09:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Please MS answer these three questions Message-ID: <47B8BE96.3050100@nhcc.net> From: Hirsch Davis > I disagree with Richard Hills that the UI can be used by N to > clarify his agreements to himself. He cannot change what he believes the > agreement to be based on UI. Someone else who agrees with Sven. So it's OK to give MI, but only after you yourself have misbid? That seems a strange rule. I'm also curious how you will tell the difference between a misbid and a psych -- presuming you are happy for psychers to explain the true system. From: Richard.hills at immi.gov.au> > 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 ... And the result of this procedure is that the opponents get exactly the dWS explanation. So the official procedure creates the same MI as the dWS but much more UI. Why do I keep thinking the whole business needs to be thought through again from the beginning? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 18 00:37:15 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:37:15 +1100 Subject: [blml] Please RJH answer this one question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B77599.5040903@verizon.net> Message-ID: Hirsch Davis: >No. I disagree with Richard Hills that the UI can be used >by N to clarify his agreements to himself. He cannot change >what he believes the agreement to be based on UI. He should >definitely attempt to "not hear" the S explanation. Richard Hills: Because I have a subtly nuanced position, Hirsch has made an unintentional error of disagreeing with a "straw man". (1) I agree that UI cannot be used to clarify North's agreements to itself, and that North should keep bidding based on North's original belief about the North-South agreements. 2007 Law 75 prologue and 75A: After a misleading explanation has been given to opponents the responsibilities of the players (and the Director) are as illustrated by the consequences of this following example: North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2D, intending to sign off; North explains, however, in answer to West's inquiry, that South's bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits. A. Mistake Causing Unauthorized Information Whether or not North's explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, South, having heard North's explanation, knows that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is "unauthorised information" (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). (If he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score.) For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorised information that this bid merely denies a four- card holding in either major suit; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values. Richard Hills: (2) Hirsch's "not hear" (equivalent to "make the call you would have made without the UI") is an error in Law. See the statement in Law 75A above about "careful to avoid taking any advantage". If the call you would have made is demonstrably suggested by the UI, and there is a non-suggested logical alternative, then Law requires a switch from your original choice. Ergo, you are required to "hear" partner's UI so that you can select a legal logical alternative. (3) So I am not arguing that North clarifies the North-South agreements to _itself_, but rather that North does not choose to deliberately lie about the North-South agreements to _East-West_. That is, my argument is that UI from South _may not_ be used by North for North's own purposes, but _must_ be used to avoid a deliberate infraction of MI. 2007 Law 72B1. Best wishes Richard James Hills Level 6 Aqua Training Suite Governance & Graduates Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6225 6776 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 Feb 18 01:06:16 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:06:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3D8DE1F6-7D8E-4D49-95DB-795CACCF9DEB@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >Any assertion that relies on probability estimates (whether or >not they are "arguable", regardless of what that means) cannot, >by definition, be "demonstrable". To "demonstrate" something >is to prove it to be true (probability of 1). Richard Hills: Appellant: "I thought that partner was hesitating because pard forgot where our car was parked." Appeals Committee: "Okay, since we cannot probability-of-1 prove it otherwise, you can keep the slam you bid after Hesitation Blackwood." :-( I think that an alternative dictionary definition should be used for the Law 16 word "demonstrably". Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "demonstrate, v.t & i. (-rable) - convincingly establish the truth or existence of by reasoning or otherwise" Best wishes Richard James Hills Level 6 Aqua Training Suite Governance & Graduates Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6225 6776 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 Mon Feb 18 01:38:55 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:38:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802151505.m1FF5Ses026573@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200802151505.m1FF5Ses026573@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47B8D39F.90405@nhcc.net> From: Tony Musgrove > This has me really worried. 4NT .. 4D meant to show 1ace. I thought this was > a no brainer under the new rules Indeed, as you say, a no-brainer. Where I went wrong was failing to imagine that a pair might use a 4D bid to show one ace. (I'd have expected it to be a suit or a control.) Sorry. > Under the old > L25, a footnote said that if the original bid was insufficient , apply L27. That was (or still is, in some places) only L25B. L25A never had such a restriction. > ...where the opponents have said "You cant bid that, DIRECTOR!!" I think you have to rule whether the conditions for L25A apply. As you say, in the old days, often enough it made no difference, though it would have if the next player wished to accept the IB. Now it will make a difference more often. For the player whose IB really was insufficient, there's a bit of conflict between L25A "only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought" and L9B2 "No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification." It doesn't seem reasonable that a player can eliminate an opponent's right to a L25A correction by a quick director call. I think this conflict could use a bit of interpretation. (It seems to me analogous to the situation where a quick director call prevents a claimer from stating a line of play.) On a related subject, perhaps one way to address "incorporates" is to ask, "What, if anything, does the IB tell you that the replacement call does not?" If the answer is "nothing" (and the other conditions are met) allow the replacement without penalty. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Feb 18 01:45:34 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:45:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802141605.m1EG5epH026122@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200802141605.m1EG5epH026122@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47B8D52E.5040600@nhcc.net> > From: Guthrie > (1S)1H > may not be replaced by (1S)2S (Michaels) unless > - a 1H overcall would *promise* a two suiter No, that's backwards. A 1H bid doesn't deny a two-suiter, at least as most play it. As long as the Michaels bid promises hearts and overall strength sufficient to open 1H, the substitute 2S should be allowed. (That won't apply for most pairs, who allow Michaels on hands too weak to open the bidding.) > 1C(1S)1H > may not be replaced by 1C(1S)X (Sputnik) unless > - the double always promises 4 hearts (or more) *and* > - 1H is the systemic reply to 1C when you hold - say - five diamonds > and four hearts or 5 hearts and and 5 spades. Yes, this looks right. A 1H response to 1C not only promises four or more hearts, it denies certain combinations of heart, diamond, and spade length. The director will have to verify that the double makes the same promises before allowing a penalty-free correction. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 18 03:48:37 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:48:37 +1100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B8D39F.90405@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: [snip] >there's a bit of conflict between L25A "only if he does so, or attempts >to do so, without pause for thought" and L9B2 "No player shall take any >action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to >rectification." It doesn't seem reasonable that a player can eliminate >an opponent's right to a L25A correction by a quick director call. I >think this conflict could use a bit of interpretation. [snip] Richard Hills: As requested, hair-splitting interpretation coming up. The Law 9B2 rectification requires a previous irregularity. But it is a Law 25A1 *right*, not an irregularity, to correct one's unintended call. Best wishes Richard James Hills Level 6 Aqua Training Suite Governance & Graduates Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6225 6776 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 18 08:22:21 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:22:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802151429.AA12485@geller204.nifty.com> References: <61AB2809-412C-4DCE-954C-5BC5AF42C0C4@starpower.net> <200802151429.AA12485@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47B9322D.8020303@ulb.ac.be> Robert Geller a ?crit : > Eric Landau writes: > >>>> 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. >>>> > > In other words, you're saying that a map of New York City can replace > a map of the world, because the map of NYC contains all the information in > the world map. Sorry, no sale. > Nope. He is saying that there is no UI. That's what counts. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 18 08:27:08 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:27:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3D8DE1F6-7D8E-4D49-95DB-795CACCF9DEB@starpower.net> References: <47B56677.8060404@ulb.ac.be> <47B5A4EA.90504@NTLworld.com> <3D8DE1F6-7D8E-4D49-95DB-795CACCF9DEB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47B9334C.6010507@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Feb 15, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Guthrie wrote: > > >> In any case, the context made it obvious that I meant "Arguably, it >> can >> be demonstrated ...". (my contention was contingent on whether >> probability estimates were roughly correct). >> > > Any assertion that relies on probability estimates (whether or not > they are "arguable", regardless of what that means) cannot, by > definition, be "demonstrable". To "demonstrate" something is to > prove it to be true (probability of 1). > > And more than that ;-) A probability of 1 isn't enough to say something is true. It might be "stochastically certain". From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Feb 18 08:43:25 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:43:25 +1300 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802150238.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <200802150238.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104c3@mail.gmail.com> On 15/02/2008, Robert Geller wrote: > Now I'm really confused by L27C1 > > Let's look at L27C1 again...... > ************************************************* > 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 .... > ************************************************* > > OK, next let's look at the definition of incorporates. > v.t. > 1. to combine with something already formed > 2. to merge into a single whole > v.i. > 1. to unite or compbine into a single whole. > > As an example, New York City (the larger entity) incorporates > the boroughs of Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island > (five smaller entities). Or another: the motor vehicle market > incorporates the markets for cars, trucks, busses motorcycles,...... > > L27C1 says the replacement bid must "incorporate the information > contained in the IB." This means the replacement call must be > consistent with ("incorporate") any possible hand consistent > with the IB. For example, after > N E S > 1C (1S) 1H > if the IB is replaced by 2H this violates L27C1 because 2H does not > incorporate a hand with only 4 hearts. OTH if the IB is replaced > by NEGx this also violates L27C1, because 1H might have been > 5+hearts with 10+ points, and this is not incorporated in the NEGx. > I don't think this is what incorporates means here. A more restrictive 2H may incorporate everything in a less restrictive 1H. It matters not that 1H is 4+ and 2H is 5+. The information 5+ is incorporated in the informations 4+. Similarly the information exactly four hearts or 5+ hearts and 10+ points is all included in the information 4+ hearts and 5/6+ hcp. There may be other reasons why we would disallow these corrections. But the reasons you cite do not seem to be sufficient to disallow these replacement bids. Wayne From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 18 08:45:07 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:45:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new fun game - Alain's contribution In-Reply-To: <011a01c870ad$c5d28360$9a493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> References: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B42732.8070906@ulb.ac.be> <011a01c870ad$c5d28360$9a493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> Message-ID: <47B93783.4020105@ulb.ac.be> Ben Schelen a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 12:34 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] A new fun game - Alain's contribution > > > Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > >> Dear all, >> >> I have thought of a fun game we can play. Here is how it works: >> >> 1. Anyone who can think of a substitution they would allow under new 27C2 >> can post details about it. >> >> > > Okay, here's my contribution. > > Case 1 > > 1C opening ; 1H answer showing 4+ spades. > > But LHO has overcalled 1H. > > Now a double (in my system at least) shows the equivalent of a 1H > response (1S would deny spades), minus some specific types of hands > (mainly those worth a WJR, which we don't play noncompetitively). > > Since everything that is said by the 1H response is also said by the > double, this substitution should be allowed IMOBO. > > > No: the only possibility to show the 4+ spades seems to be an insufficient > bid. > I don't understand that. There is an obvious possibility to show 4+ spades : to double 1H, and that's exactly what the player does. A double shows the equivalent of a 1H response, that is, 4+ spades. WTP ? Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 18 10:09:15 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:09:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] A new fun game - Alain's contribution References: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B42732.8070906@ulb.ac.be><011a01c870ad$c5d28360$9a493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> <47B93783.4020105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001801c8720d$f8474220$65cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A new fun game - Alain's contribution > > this substitution should be allowed IMOBO. > +=+ Seeker after truth enquires "is that 'obviously biased'?" +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 18 11:11:38 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:11:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Please MS answer these three questions In-Reply-To: <060f01c87111$c38a42a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47B3022D.4060904@skynet.be> <47B77599.5040903@verizon.net> <060f01c87111$c38a42a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B959DA.6070700@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > From: "Hirsch Davis" > >> However, the explanation by S is UI to N. He >> cannot alter his intended bidding based on that explanation, nor can he >> alter his understanding of the meaning of the S calls. N can say >> "diamond preference" or "TD please". Nothing else. >> > I have been thinking about the fact that partner's explanation is UI. It > really is all one needs to know when deciding whether the dWS is > "acceptable", for those who are not swayed by the fact that it is illegal. > (It is of course true, as many have pointed out, that it is the lawmakers' > fault that someone can fall into such severe error, and that many other laws > are not written in comprehensible language.) > > But anyway. Partner's explanation is UI, and that should settle the > question. Herman, you are always saying that bridge should be played as if > screens are present. Fine. Pretend there are screens. You did not hear > partner's explanation. What further problem can you have? > Then, there is no problem, because I cannot be blamed for: - giving UI to partner; - correcting the mistake (contrary to L20F5) No really, Stefanie, that is NOT an answer. As I've shown with my example, my way of answering is much closer to the game with screens as yours. Just look at West. In my system, he gets the exact same answer as with screens (when he gets the explanation from my partner). > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 18 11:22:20 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:22:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Please MS answer these three questions In-Reply-To: <47B77599.5040903@verizon.net> References: <47B3022D.4060904@skynet.be> <47B77599.5040903@verizon.net> Message-ID: <47B95C5C.9080307@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: >> I am about to shut up about this problem. >> > Good. >> But not before I ask the MS adepts to ask themselves the following >> three questions, and realize that they don't care about the game of >> bridge. >> > > There is no such thing as "MS". There are those who read the Laws, and > follow the Laws and WBFLC interpretations. And those who don't. > There is no use explaining that to me - you know I don't agree with it. Anyway, you know who I mean. >> The bidding goes: >> >> W N E S >> 1He >> 4Sp 4NT pas 5Di >> 5Sp Dbl all pass >> >> Before bidding 5Sp, West asks what 4NT is, and South says "Blackwood". >> West then asks how many aces South has shown, and North says "one". It >> turns out North has a minor two-suiter, and North admits having >> intended 4NT as showing this. >> > This should not have ever happened. But it did. > The actual agreement will have to be > determined by the TD. Which is precisely the reason why I ask this question. How can a player explain the "true" meaning if he does not know which one that is? > However, the explanation by S is UI to N. He > cannot alter his intended bidding based on that explanation, nor can he > alter his understanding of the meaning of the S calls. N can say > "diamond preference" or "TD please". Nothing else. > And what if the true meaning (as North now with absolute certainty knows) is "one ace"? >> When asked why he replied "one", North states that South is always >> better in the system than he is. If South says it's Blackwood, then it >> is. South concurs that 4NT to him is always Blackwood. >> North/South cannot show any system card or system notes that confirm this. >> > > OK, they get a procedural penalty for failure to fill out the system > cards, and the TD finds out the actual system anyway. > Are you always giving procedural penalties for every mistake between partners? How many appeals thereon have you had? How many have you won? >> North is not from Belgium, nor does he have an H, D or W among his >> initials. >> >> Four questions: >> >> 1) Provided that the story is true (South is always right), was North >> correct in replying one ace? >> >> > No. I disagree with Richard Hills that the UI can be used by N to > clarify his agreements to himself. He cannot change what he believes the > agreement to be based on UI. He should definitely attempt to "not hear" > the S explanation. > Well, this is an argument that has gone around quite often, and been dismissed equally often. UI cannot be used for determining calls and plays, but there is no restrictions on using it to do other things, such as explain. >> 2) How should the Director establish that the story is true? >> > > Haven't you ever made a table ruling? Ask the players what the system > is away from the table. > The stroy being that North is "certain" that South's explanation is true. Well, in your answer, this doesn't matter, since you never accept that North may explain "one ace". >> 3) If the Director decides to believe North, what is the score >> correction going to be (assume that West would not bid 5Sp if told >> that 4NT shows minors, but not double either) >> > > Believe N about what? That he originally misbid? If so, there is no > adjustment, as the opponents had received all of the actual agreements. > Since N's bidding is consistent with diamond preference, there is likely > no problem. If S misexplained, it's a different story, and an > adjustment may be in order. > No, believe North that he was certain South's explanation was correct. We have ascertained that we are going to rule South's explanation MI, so North's is as well. >> 4) If the Director suspects that North is less certain about the >> system than he's letting on, is the score correction any different >> (you may assume that West would double if he knows the full story) >> > Degree of certainty is immaterial. Find out the actual system. Then > figure out if you're dealing with misbid or MI. Assume MI over misbid > if in doubt. Not complicated. No, that part of it isn't. But you haven't touched on the real issue. In addition to giving MI, North was guilty of a far worse crime (according to some): DWSing! Are you going to punish that or shall I happily continue doing things you are dead against but will not punish? >> As a side question: does it matter why West asks the question? >> > Normally not (see Sven's answer). >> As a teaser: are you happy with all these rulings you may have to make? >> >> > Sure, as long as they're in accordance with the Laws. > > Hirsch > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 18 11:30:46 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:30:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Please RJH answer this one question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47B95E56.9060706@skynet.be> Richard, please, try and understand what I am saying - don't just disagree with me because I'm Herman. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> Rubbish. There is an Official Interpretation in ->. >>> >>> 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 auction 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. > > Herman De Wael: > >> The DWS problem has an added twist. >> Anything else than a simple consistent explanation reveals >> to partner that HE has misunderstood. This is far more >> damaging. So the player wishes to give the consistent >> explanation. > > Richard Hills: > > What the player wishes to do is irrelevant. The WBF LC > Minute (and the Laws themselves) tell the player that any > wish to give MI is not permitted. > We are not talking about (what you think are) the current laws, we are talking about how the laws ought to be. Citing WBF minutes brings nothing to the discussion. > Herman De Wael: > >> Furthermore, he _knows_ what this consistent explanation >> is. > > Richard Hills: > > Knowing that one can fool opponents with consistent MI is > not any reason to do so. Quite the contrary; see the 2007 > Law 72B1: > I'm not talking about fooling the opponents. I'm reacting to your quote which deals with players who do't know what the explanation is - this player does know what the explanation is - two of them, in fact. So your quote brought nothing to the discussion in the first place, and disgreeing with me on a totally different basis is quite out of the question. > "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if > there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." > > Herman De Wael: > >> There is no need for him to be sending himself off the table > > Richard Hills: > > A misquote to bolster Herman's argument? The WBF LC Minute > emphasised that the player must call the Director, and it is > the Director who has the discretion to send the player away > from the table. > What misquote? Your quote spoke of "callling the director, who can then agree to send the player who does not know off the table". I shortened this, and you react as if I spoke a heresy. Please just see that my argument is valid. There is no need to call the director, if all the director could be doing is sending someone off the table with the purpose of him not hearing what the true agreement is. He knows the true agreement - even better than the one who would be answering the question. You are guilty of another of your famous logical fallacies. You wrote something, I react, and rather than comment on my reaction, you pick on one word out of it - steering the discussion away from where we were and not having to agree that I have correctly refuted your argument. > Herman De Wael: > >> for his partner to tell the opponents what it means. > > 2007 Law 75B: > > "...East-West are entitled to an accurate description of the > North-South agreement..." > > Herman De Wael: > >> So neither of the solutions above are helpful in this case. > > Richard Hills: > > Sure it is not helpful to Herman that a written Official > Interpretation of the WBF LC refutes a key aspect of the De > Wael School. And Herman lacks the power to declare the WBF > LC Minute inoperative merely because he considers the UI > created in a particular case to be "more damaging" than in > another case. > > Indeed, as has been pointed out by other blmlers, saying > that creation of UI is "damaging" is begging the question, > petitio principii. Rather, it is use of UI which is the > infraction. > > WBF Code of Practice, revised 27th November 2003, > page 7: > > "A player who, without design, makes unauthorized > information available to his partner does not commit > an infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that > information that is a breach of the laws." > > +=+ To be observed as a regulation wherever the > tournament Rules and Regulations incorporate the > WBF Code of Practice. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > And all of this has been said 73 times before. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 18 11:32:15 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:32:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Please MS answer these three questions References: <47B3022D.4060904@skynet.be> <47B77599.5040903@verizon.net><060f01c87111$c38a42a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B959DA.6070700@skynet.be> Message-ID: <019a01c87219$87df5b10$0100a8c0@stefanie> Herman: >> But anyway. Partner's explanation is UI, and that should settle the >> question. Herman, you are always saying that bridge should be played as >> if >> screens are present. Fine. Pretend there are screens. You did not hear >> partner's explanation. What further problem can you have? >> > > Then, there is no problem, because I cannot be blamed for: > - giving UI to partner; > - correcting the mistake (contrary to L20F5) What do you mean? > > No really, Stefanie, that is NOT an answer. As I've shown with my > example, my way of answering is much closer to the game with screens > as yours. Just look at West. In my system, he gets the exact same > answer as with screens (when he gets the explanation from my partner). You cannot have it both ways. What you want is for your opponents to be, in effect, behind screens, while your side are not. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Feb 18 12:28:57 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:28:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47B96BF9.2080501@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] Any assertion that relies on probability estimates (whether or not they are "arguable", regardless of what that means) cannot, by definition, be "demonstrable". To "demonstrate" something is to prove it to be true (probability of 1). [Richard Hills] I think that an alternative dictionary definition should be used for the Law 16 word "demonstrably". [Pocket Oxford Dictionary] "demonstrate, v.t & i. (-rable) - convincingly establish the truth or existence of by reasoning or otherwise." [Nige1] Our dispute over the dictionary meaning of "arguably" and "demonstrably" is not completely pointless. The endless controversies on BLML about "suggested logical alternatives" demonstrate that, as far as Bridge law are concerned, "demonstrably" and "arguably" are nearer synonyms than antonyms :) Our semantic wrangling also demontrates that "domonstrably" (with its overtones of "proof") is the wrong word to use in the law book. The relevant law should be clarified, but it is hard to come up with a sensible replacement :( [Onelook on-line dictionary: primary meanings] - Arguably = as can be shown by argument. - Demonstrable = capable of being demonstrated or proved. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 18 13:17:25 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:17:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Please MS answer these three questions In-Reply-To: <019a01c87219$87df5b10$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47B3022D.4060904@skynet.be> <47B77599.5040903@verizon.net><060f01c87111$c38a42a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B959DA.6070700@skynet.be> <019a01c87219$87df5b10$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47B97755.8010808@skynet.be> Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Herman: > >>> But anyway. Partner's explanation is UI, and that should settle the >>> question. Herman, you are always saying that bridge should be played as >>> if >>> screens are present. Fine. Pretend there are screens. You did not hear >>> partner's explanation. What further problem can you have? >>> >> Then, there is no problem, because I cannot be blamed for: >> - giving UI to partner; >> - correcting the mistake (contrary to L20F5) > > What do you mean? Isn't that obvious? Behind screens, the problem does not exist. I don't know what my partner has said, so I cannot explain anything else than what I think my system is. >> No really, Stefanie, that is NOT an answer. As I've shown with my >> example, my way of answering is much closer to the game with screens >> as yours. Just look at West. In my system, he gets the exact same >> answer as with screens (when he gets the explanation from my partner). > > You cannot have it both ways. What you want is for your opponents to be, in > effect, behind screens, while your side are not. > OK, maybe that's fair. But don't forget that we are not behind screens. I have received UI from my partner, so we are already at a disadvantage. Indeed, what I want is for my partner not to be also disadvantaged. I don't believe that this is wrong. As for my opponents to be behind screens, yes, that is indeed what I strive for. My explanations will be the same as the ones west will receive behind screens. But isn't that one of the advantages of the DWS? This form of bridge is closely like the one we have behind screens. MS bridge is strongly different. What would be your preference, everything else being equal? Do you not agree that this difference is an advantage? > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 18 14:15:40 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:15:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Please RJH answer this one question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <03cf01c87230$5c41c530$0100a8c0@stefanie> RJH: There is an Official Interpretation in ->. >>> >>>WBF Laws Committee Minutes, 1st September 1998 >>> >>>Item 8: Not that this particular minute is the best example, but it is beyond ridiculous (as noted by Eric Landau) that we will be relying on minutes published in eg 1998 for guidance on how to apply the 2007 Laws. The existence of such minutes indicates that the WBFLC knew that a clarification was necessary or desirable, and the failure by the DSC to incorporate these minutes into the laws constitutes gross negligence and incompetence. At least Herman (along with the other members of BLML) has access to the minutes and to a DSC member who is willing to give out the interpretations. Most players and directors would have no way of even knowing that the Laws are modified by minutes or by anything else. Stefanie Rohan London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 18 15:55:51 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:55:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47B96BF9.2080501@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <002f01c8723e$63fef050$44d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Eric Landau] > Any assertion that relies on probability estimates (whether or > not they are "arguable", regardless of what that means) cannot, > by definition, be "demonstrable". To "demonstrate" something > is to prove it to be true (probability of 1). > [Richard Hills] > I think that an alternative dictionary definition should be > used for the Law 16 word "demonstrably". > [Pocket Oxford Dictionary] > "demonstrate, v.t & i. (-rable) - convincingly establish the > truth or existence of by reasoning or otherwise." > > [Nige1] > > Our dispute over the dictionary meaning of "arguably" and "demonstrably" > is not completely pointless. > > The endless controversies on BLML about "suggested logical alternatives" > demonstrate that, as far as Bridge law are concerned, "demonstrably" and > "arguably" are nearer synonyms than antonyms :) > > Our semantic wrangling also demontrates that "domonstrably" (with its > overtones of "proof") is the wrong word to use in the law book. The > relevant law should be clarified, but it is hard to come up with a > sensible replacement :( > > [Onelook on-line dictionary: primary meanings] > - Arguably = as can be shown by argument. > - Demonstrable = capable of being demonstrated or proved. > +=+ I would say a thing is arguably the case if an argument may be made for it; but such argument is subject to counter- argument and in the outcome either the argument or the counter-argument will prevail. If a thing is demonstrable then it can be shown to be so. My personal opinion is that in the application of the laws the Director has, for the occasion, the (2007) Law 81C2 power to decide what the law is and he has the Law 85 powers to determine the facts. The decisions as to what is arguable and what is demonstrable are placed in his hands. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 18 16:24:29 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:24:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002f01c8723e$63fef050$44d0403e@Mildred> References: <47B96BF9.2080501@NTLworld.com> <002f01c8723e$63fef050$44d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47B9A32D.9020105@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > > +=+ I would say a thing is arguably the case if an argument > may be made for it; but such argument is subject to counter- > argument and in the outcome either the argument or the > counter-argument will prevail. > If a thing is demonstrable then it can be shown to be so. > My personal opinion is that in the application of the laws > the Director has, for the occasion, the (2007) Law 81C2 > power to decide what the law is and he has the Law 85 > powers to determine the facts. The decisions as to what is > arguable and what is demonstrable are placed in his hands. > I'm 100 % with you here. So TFLB and TNFLB say "demonstrably", which means that only when the TD is sure which LA was suggested may one apply L16. This means that whenever a player hesitated, then took a "middle road", partner is free to act. For example, if the unopposed bidding goes 1H-1S-2C-3C after tempo, partner is free to act as one wishes.. It might be that you stretched your raise a little, or that you made a heavy raise. Well, it's arguably the latter, but not demonstrably. Agreed ? Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Feb 18 18:20:05 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:20:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002f01c8723e$63fef050$44d0403e@Mildred> References: <47B96BF9.2080501@NTLworld.com> <002f01c8723e$63fef050$44d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47B9BE45.90900@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott} +=+ I would say a thing is arguably the case if an argument may be made for it; but such argument is subject to counter- argument and in the outcome either the argument or the counter-argument will prevail. If a thing is demonstrable then it can be shown to be so. My personal opinion is that in the application of the laws The Director has, for the occasion, the (2007) Law 81C2 power to decide what the law is and he has the Law 85 powers to determine the facts. The decisions as to what is arguable and what is demonstrable are placed in his hands. [nige1] Whatever "demonstrably" means to Grattan, "could demonstrably suggest" cannot carry a connotation of certainty. Although Grattan's answer will delight Alain Gottcheiner, Eric Landau and all the other BLML directors who imagine that they can determine with near certainty what logical alternatives are suggested. I suspect, however, that such directors delude themselves. I'm confirmed in my suspicions by the arguments between experienced directors in many practical cases. Short of a confession from a player, the best a director can do is argue that a logical alternative is *likely* to have been suggested. Take the case under discussion. Suppose that Pass and 4S are logical alternatives for you when your partner tanks after LHO raises RHO's jump overcall. The director must judge which logical alternative (if any) partner's hesitation suggests. Assuming that your partner is an expert, the director must estimate the frequency of the different kinds of hand, with which an expert would hesitate. Finally, suppose the director estimates that when your partner hesitates in this context, he will have - a borderline "action double" 90% of the time; and - a mountainous penalty double 10% of the time. Polling a group of players may help the director judge what are logical alternatives and what the hesitation suggests. But such a poll does not result in certainty. For example, in this case, the director's poll produced a different result from a poll by a friend of the appellants. The director might conclude that the hesitation suggests bidding 4S rather than passing. This isn't demonstrable in Grattan's sense. It depends, in context, on the director's judgement about - what are the logical alternatives, - on what kind of hands your partner might hesitate, - their relative probability and - the likely thought processes of typical players. This is nearer the "balance of probability" than "certainty". The foregoing is my view, as an ordinary player :) I hope directors are not offended by my lack of faith in their infallibility :( From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Feb 18 20:16:12 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:16:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 Message-ID: <47B9D97C.6050105@nhcc.net> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > As requested, hair-splitting interpretation coming up. > > The Law 9B2 rectification requires a previous irregularity. But it is a > Law 25A1 *right*, not an irregularity, to correct one's unintended call. This is on the right track but not good enough. The problem is that L9B2 forbids "any action," and correcting an unintended call seems to be an action. I think L9B1c might help, but it isn't exactly on point either. Do TDs need to be trained, when called to a table for an apparent IB, to first ask "Was that the bid you intended to make?" or something similar? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 18 23:10:47 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:10:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B9D97C.6050105@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner asked: [snip] >Do TDs need to be trained, when called to a table for an >apparent IB, to first ask "Was that the bid you intended >to make?" or something similar? Richard Hills replies: In my opinion, yes. Using bidding boxes, this auction occurred: NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S Pass 1S South (my partner Hashmat Ali) intended to bid an artificial game force relay of 1NT, but unintentionally pulled the wrong card from the bidding box. The Director in charge, Sean Mullamphy, ruled that Law 25A rather than Law 27 applied, so allowed Hashmat to correct 1S to 1NT without further rectification. Best wishes Richard James Hills Level 6 Aqua Training Suite Governance & Graduates Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6225 6776 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 Feb 19 00:14:53 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:14:53 +1100 Subject: [blml] Please RJH answer this one question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B95E56.9060706@skynet.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: There is a rhetorical technique which is colloquially known in Australia as "shifting the goal posts". When an Aussie politician is under pressure in an interview, the pollie starts talking about what he wants to talk about, not what his interlocutor is pressing him on. Herman De Wael: >We are not talking about (what you think are) the current >laws, we are talking about how the laws ought to be. Citing >WBF minutes brings nothing to the discussion. Monty Python's Flying Circus: Presenter (Graham Chapman): Good evening. CAPTION: "THRUST - A QUITE CONTROVERSIAL LOOK AT THE WORLD AROUND US" Presenter: I have with me tonight Anne Elk. Mrs Anne Elk. Miss Elk: (John Cleese, as a very prim lady) Miss. SUPERIMPOSED CAPTION: "ANNE ELK" Presenter: You have a new theory about the brontosaurus. Miss Elk: Can I just say here Chris for one moment that I have a new theory about the brontosaurus? Presenter: Er... exactly. (he gestures but she does not say anything) What is it? Miss Elk: Where? (looks round) Presenter: No, no. Your new theory. Miss Elk: Oh, what is my theory? Presenter: Yes. Miss Elk: Oh what is my theory that it is. Well Chris you may well ask me what is my theory. Presenter: I am asking. Miss Elk: Good for you. My word yes. Well Chris, what is it that it is - this theory of mine. Well, this is what it is - my theory that I have, that is to say, which is mine, is mine. Presenter: (beginning to show signs of exasperation) Yes, I know it's yours, what is it? Miss Elk: Where? Oh, what is my theory? This is it. (clears throat at some length) My theory that belongs to me is as follows. (clears throat at great length) This is how it goes. The next thing I"m going to say is my theory. Ready? Presenter: Yes! Miss Elk: My theory by A. Elk. Brackets Miss, brackets. This theory goes as follows and begins now. All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too. Presenter: That's it, is it? Miss Elk: Spot on, Chris. Presenter: Well, er, this theory of yours appears to have hit the nail on the head. Miss Elk: And it's mine. Best wishes Richard James Hills Level 6 Aqua Training Suite Governance & Graduates Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6225 6776 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 Feb 19 01:06:17 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:06:17 +1100 Subject: [blml] Please RJH answer this one question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <03cf01c87230$5c41c530$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>There is an Official Interpretation in ->. >> >>WBF Laws Committee Minutes, 1st September 1998 >> >>Item 8: [snip] Stefanie Rohan: [snip] >The existence of such minutes indicates that the WBFLC knew that a >clarification was necessary or desirable, and the failure by the >DSC to incorporate these minutes into the laws constitutes gross >negligence and incompetence. [snip] Richard Hills: It seems to me that Stefanie is arguing under a false premise. All relevant WBF Laws Committee minutes were considered by the Drafting Sub-Committee when designing the 2007 Lawbook. For example, a summary of Item 8 appears as this sentence of 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." Of course, in some cases the DSC deliberately repealed a WBF LC minute by taking a new approach in the 2007 Lawbook. For example, a 1997 minute about appeals has been superseded by the 2007 Law 92D. Best wishes Richard James Hills Level 6 Aqua Training Suite Governance & Graduates Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6225 6776 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 Tue Feb 19 02:32:42 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:32:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001e01c87297$52474610$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Steve Willner asked: > > [snip] > >>Do TDs need to be trained, when called to a table for an >>apparent IB, to first ask "Was that the bid you intended >>to make?" or something similar? What else should a TD do? "What was the call you had in mind when you took that bid out of the box? - What were you actually thinking?" ... and watch the eyes closely for the response. John > > Richard Hills replies: > > In my opinion, yes. > > Using bidding boxes, this auction occurred: > > NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1S Pass 1S > > South (my partner Hashmat Ali) intended to bid an > artificial game force relay of 1NT, but unintentionally > pulled the wrong card from the bidding box. > > The Director in charge, Sean Mullamphy, ruled that Law > 25A rather than Law 27 applied, so allowed Hashmat to > correct 1S to 1NT without further rectification. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Level 6 Aqua Training Suite > Governance & Graduates Section > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6225 6776 > 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 19 02:39:44 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:39:44 -0600 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01c87297$52474610$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <001e01c87297$52474610$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802181739j798b5acbm9bad69597ee7736c@mail.gmail.com> On Feb 18, 2008 7:32 PM, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > Steve Willner asked: > > > >>Do TDs need to be trained, when called to a table for an > >>apparent IB, to first ask "Was that the bid you intended > >>to make?" or something similar? > > What else should a TD do? "What was the call you had in mind when you took > that bid out of the box? - What were you actually thinking?" ... and watch > the eyes closely for the response. John > And then what? What do you look for in their eyes and how are your subsequent actions affected by what you divine? Please feel free to assume I am a beginner at directing bridge. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 19 03:55:00 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:55:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47B9A32D.9020105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >This means that whenever a player hesitated, then took a "middle >road", partner is free to act. >For example, if the unopposed bidding goes 1H-1S-2C-3C after tempo, >partner is free to act as one wishes. >It might be that you stretched your raise a little, or that you made >a heavy raise. Well, it's arguably the latter, but not demonstrably. > >Agreed ? Richard Hills: Quibbled. In my opinion "whenever ... free to act" is too sweeping a statement. It is possible that a typical Belgian expert may hesitate before choosing an optimistic 3C cue raise of the 1S overcall as often as hesitating before a pessimistic raise. But if the person who has made a 3C cue raise of the 1S overcall is a typical Aussie expert, then they overbid freely, but they underbid with reluctance. Best wishes Richard James Hills Level 6 Aqua Training Suite Governance & Graduates Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6225 6776 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 Feb 19 11:12:45 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:12:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004901c872e0$e695b1f0$0bce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 2:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Alain Gottcheiner: > >>This means that whenever a player hesitated, then took a "middle >>road", partner is free to act. >>For example, if the unopposed bidding goes 1H-1S-2C-3C after tempo, >>partner is free to act as one wishes. >>It might be that you stretched your raise a little, or that you made >>a heavy raise. Well, it's arguably the latter, but not demonstrably. >> >>Agreed ? > > Richard Hills: > > Quibbled. In my opinion "whenever ... free to act" is too sweeping a > statement. > > It is possible that a typical Belgian expert may hesitate before > choosing an optimistic 3C cue raise of the 1S overcall as often as > hesitating before a pessimistic raise. > > But if the person who has made a 3C cue raise of the 1S overcall is a > typical Aussie expert, then they overbid freely, but they underbid > with reluctance. > +=+ The Director will rule. Alain's principle is right, but it is the Director who decides whether it applies in the particular case. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 19 11:18:56 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:18:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001e01c87297$52474610$0901a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0802181739j798b5acbm9bad69597ee7736c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004a01c872e0$e82fd9f0$0bce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 1:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Feb 18, 2008 7:32 PM, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> > Steve Willner asked: >> > >> >>Do TDs need to be trained, when called to a table for an >> >>apparent IB, to first ask "Was that the bid you intended >> >>to make?" or something similar? >> >> What else should a TD do? "What was the call you had in mind when you >> took >> that bid out of the box? - What were you actually thinking?" ... and >> watch >> the eyes closely for the response. John >> > > And then what? What do you look for in their eyes and how are your > subsequent actions affected by what you divine? Please feel free to > assume I am a beginner at directing bridge. > +=+ Before he asks questions the Director should listen to the players. It is frequently the case that the information he wants is volunteered in what the players tell him. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 19 11:45:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:45:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47BAB350.2080403@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >> This means that whenever a player hesitated, then took a "middle >> road", partner is free to act. >> For example, if the unopposed bidding goes 1H-1S-2C-3C after tempo, >> partner is free to act as one wishes. >> It might be that you stretched your raise a little, or that you made >> a heavy raise. Well, it's arguably the latter, but not demonstrably. >> >> Agreed ? >> > > Richard Hills: > > Quibbled. In my opinion "whenever ... free to act" is too sweeping a > statement. > > It is possible that a typical Belgian expert may hesitate before > choosing an optimistic 3C cue raise of the 1S overcall as often as > hesitating before a pessimistic raise. > Note that I said "unnopposed", so no question of a cue-bid here. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 19 11:48:32 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:48:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004a01c872e0$e82fd9f0$0bce403e@Mildred> References: <001e01c87297$52474610$0901a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0802181739j798b5acbm9bad69597ee7736c@mail.gmail.com> <004a01c872e0$e82fd9f0$0bce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47BAB400.8010205@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > > +=+ Before he asks questions the Director should listen > to the players. It is frequently the case that the information > he wants is volunteered in what the players tell him. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > Of course. But the fact that the player tells you he was anxious about overbidding with his 3C bid doesn't mean that, in another case, he couldn't be anxious about underbidding. If bouth are possible, none is suggested. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 19 11:48:58 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:48:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802181739j798b5acbm9bad69597ee7736c@mail.gmail.com> References: <001e01c87297$52474610$0901a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0802181739j798b5acbm9bad69597ee7736c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47BAB41A.6050400@NTLworld.com> [Steve Willner] Do TDs need to be trained, when called to a table for an apparent IB, to first ask "Was that the bid you intended to make?" or something similar? [John Probst] What else should a TD do? "What was the call you had in mind when you took that bid out of the box? - What were you actually thinking?" ... and watch the eyes closely for the response. [Jerry Fusselman] And then what? What do you look for in their eyes and how are your subsequent actions affected by what you divine? Please feel free to assume I am a beginner at directing bridge. [Nige1] One of the unfortunate side-effects of the legal trend towards sophisticated laws that overly depend on subjective judgement and mind-reading is that they foster rationalisation of law-breaking that results in such clever psychological skirmishes between players and directors. Again, cunning secretary birds who study obscure interpretations and school each other on what to say (and more importantly, what not to volunteer) have a decisive advantage over ordinary players. Although it is easy to understand why directors are delighted to rise to such challenges, these shenanigans put ordinary players off the game. From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Tue Feb 19 19:59:59 2008 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?=) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:59:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new fun game - Alain's contribution In-Reply-To: References: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B42732.8070906@ulb.ac.be><011a01c870ad$c5d28360$9a493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43><47B93783.4020105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c87329$a12b6c10$1810a8c0@FK27.local> 2D-2NT 2S 2D: weak two 2NT asking for a side ace or king if maximum. 2S: spade ace or king, but heavily caffeine depleted ;-) Again this needs investigating by the TD away from the table. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Feb 20 17:59:42 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:59:42 -0800 Subject: [blml] A new fun game - Alain's contribution In-Reply-To: <000001c87329$a12b6c10$1810a8c0@FK27.local> References: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B42732.8070906@ulb.ac.be> <011a01c870ad$c5d28360$9a493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> <47B93783.4020105@ulb.ac.be> <000001c87329$a12b6c10$1810a8c0@FK27.local> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080220085601.03db7640@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 10:59 AM 19/02/2008, you wrote: >2D-2NT >2S > >2D: weak two >2NT asking for a side ace or king if maximum. >2S: spade ace or king, but heavily caffeine depleted ;-) > >Again this needs investigating by the TD away from the table. I never allow these to be changed under L25A. I think that they almost always work out what suit to bid and then just get the number wrong. However, I think the new laws want to allow a change to 3S without penalty. The old laws would not. Tony (Sydney) From john at asimere.com Wed Feb 20 02:56:29 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 01:56:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001e01c87297$52474610$0901a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0802181739j798b5acbm9bad69597ee7736c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000801c87363$cf6a35e0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 1:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Feb 18, 2008 7:32 PM, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> > Steve Willner asked: >> > >> >>Do TDs need to be trained, when called to a table for an >> >>apparent IB, to first ask "Was that the bid you intended >> >>to make?" or something similar? >> >> What else should a TD do? "What was the call you had in mind when you >> took >> that bid out of the box? - What were you actually thinking?" ... and >> watch >> the eyes closely for the response. John >> > > And then what? What do you look for in their eyes and how are your > subsequent actions affected by what you divine? Please feel free to > assume I am a beginner at directing bridge. If they're lying give them a darned hard time :) > > Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Feb 20 03:00:11 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:00:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001e01c87297$52474610$0901a8c0@JOHN><2b1e598b0802181739j798b5acbm9bad69597ee7736c@mail.gmail.com> <47BAB41A.6050400@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <002b01c87364$53990440$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 10:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The new L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Steve Willner] > Do TDs need to be trained, when called to a table for an apparent IB, to > first ask "Was that the bid you intended to make?" or something similar? > [John Probst] > What else should a TD do? "What was the call you had in mind when you > took that bid out of the box? - What were you actually thinking?" ... > and watch the eyes closely for the response. > [Jerry Fusselman] > And then what? What do you look for in their eyes and how are your > subsequent actions affected by what you divine? Please feel free to > assume I am a beginner at directing bridge. > > [Nige1] > One of the unfortunate side-effects of the legal trend towards > sophisticated laws that overly depend on subjective judgement and > mind-reading is that they foster rationalisation of law-breaking that > results in such clever psychological skirmishes between players and > directors. Oh for godsakes nigel. You pay me to run the game; let me get on with it. john > > Again, cunning secretary birds who study obscure interpretations and > school each other on what to say (and more importantly, what not to > volunteer) have a decisive advantage over ordinary players. > > Although it is easy to understand why directors are delighted to rise to > such challenges, these shenanigans put ordinary players off the game. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 20 04:20:04 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:20:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] Executive Summary of changes between 1997 Laws and 2007 Laws - Part Three [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 Three - Changes affecting bridge administrators The old 1997 Lawbook lumped all bridge administrators together under the undefined term of "sponsoring organisation". The new 2007 Lawbook separates bridge administrators into Regulating Authorities (usually - except for international tournaments - the governing body of a National Bridge Organization, such as the ACBL Board of Directors) and Tournament Organizers (grass- roots bridge administrators, such as the committee of the South Canberra Bridge Club). Given that Regulating Authorities, such as the ACBL BoD, already know how to correctly and legally implement the 2007 Lawbook, this article will restrict its discussion to correct and legal implementation by the grass-roots Tournament Organizers. Hidden before the main Laws is a revised Definition of: "Session - an extended period of play during which a number of boards, specified by the Tournament Organizer, is scheduled to be played. (May have different meanings as between Laws 4, 12C2 and 91.)" One reason this Definition was updated was due to an incident in a Swiss Teams some years ago. Three 8-board matches were played per session, and a team-of-five wished to vary its lineup after the first match. Sea lawyer opponents protested because the relevant part of Law 4 states: "...retain the same partnerships throughout a session (except in the case of substitutions authorised by the Director)..." The Director authorised the participation of the fifth player as a substitute. Alas, this was an illegal ruling, contrary to the dictionary definition of "substitute", since the fifth player was an _original_ member of that team. This problem can now be solved by the Tournament Organizer defining an 8-board match as a "session for the purposes of Law 4", but the full 24 boards as a "session for the purposes of Laws 12C2 and 91". The one-size-fits-all 1997 Law 11B (Irregularity Called by Spectator) has been repealed, and now correction of spectator errors can be customised to fit local cultures via the new Law 76C2: "Regulating Authorities and Tournament Organizers may specify how to deal with irregularities caused by spectators." However, the principle that spectators should be silent in the playing area has been retained, and Tournament Organizers are now given the specific power to regulate the boundaries of the playing area. 2007 Law 76C1: "A spectator may speak as to fact or law within the playing area* only when requested to do so by the Director. * The playing area includes all parts of the accommodation where a player may be present during a session in which he is participating. It may be further defined by regulation." Law 79D - Conditions of Contest: "If approved by the Regulating Authority other scoring methods (for example conversions to Victory Points) may be adopted. The Tournament Organizer should publish Conditions of Contest in advance of a tournament or contest. These should detail conditions of entry, methods of scoring, determination of winners, breaking of ties, and the like. The Conditions must not conflict with law or regulation and shall incorporate any information specified by the Regulating Authority. They should be available to contestants." Note that: (1) The 1997 ban on "he's making it up as he goes along" [Monty Python's Life of Brian] has been retained. Because of the phrase "in advance of", any Condition of Contest that the Tournament Organizer creates ex post facto is invalid. (2) New in 2007 is a specific statement that any CoC created by the Tournament Organizer must be compliant with higher authority. To most this would be stating the obvious, but some years ago a Tournament Organizer issued Conditions of Contest abolishing the right to claim. (3) Also new in 2007 is a requirement for the CoC to be available to contestants. This will be a big challenge for some grass-roots bridge administrators. For example, the Bridge Federation of the Australian Capital Territory has General Conditions of Contest known to very few (although admittedly Special Conditions of Contest for each individual event are usually prominently displayed on the noticeboard). A number of controversies have occurred over the years when a significant scoring error has been discovered after the expiry of the correction period. Tournament Organizers may now create a special emergency regulation to deal with this. 2007 Law 79C2: "Regulations may provide for circumstances in which a scoring error may be corrected after expiry of the Correction Period if the Director and the Tournament Organizer are both satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record is wrong." Note that as a safeguard against the appearance of an arbitrary decision ("Caesar's wife must be above suspicion"), the ruling is made jointly by the Director and the Tournament Organizer, and the standard of proof required is "beyond reasonable doubt". The lesser standard of proof of "balance of probabilities" is used for a Director's other decisions on disputed facts - see Law 85A1. Law 80B2 contains a laundry list of Tournament Organizer powers and responsibilities. There is an interesting cross- reference from Law 93A to Law 80B2(k). Law 80B2(k): "The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: (k) to make suitable arrangements for the conduct of appeals under Law 93." Law 93A: "The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon all appeals if there is no Appeals Committee (or alternative arrangement under Law 80B2(k)), or if such cannot operate without disturbing the orderly progress of the tournament." Reading these two Laws together, and then translating into plain English: "If a Standing Appeals Committee does not exist, then the Tournament Organizer should try to arrange an Ad Hoc Appeals Committee." Best wishes Richard James Hills Level 6 Aqua Training Suite Governance & Graduates Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6225 6776 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 Wed Feb 20 23:33:45 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:33:45 -0800 Subject: [blml] A new fun game In-Reply-To: <47B93783.4020105@ulb.ac.be> References: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B42732.8070906@ulb.ac.be> <011a01c870ad$c5d28360$9a493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> <47B93783.4020105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080220142244.03c7b870@mail.optusnet.com.au> Finally the ruling I was dreading: West North East South 1C pass 1H dbl pass 2D 1NT Under the old rules, I can allow East to bid to 2NT without penalty, but now, she wanted to show 6-10 and I suppose 2NT might show 10-11 say. Clearly not "incorporated" under the new Act. So I should allow no change which allows partner to stay in the bidding. However, I tell them all about incorporates etc. and then decide to allow a change to 2NT without penalty to see what happens. All pass so no problem perhaps? I still think TPTB want us to allow all the previously allowed changes and then some. If I had applied the strict meaning of the Law, the 2NT correction would have barred partner, a result earnestly to be hoped for by the 6-10 holder. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 20 05:45:27 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:45:27 +1100 Subject: [blml] A gnu fun game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080220142244.03c7b870@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >Finally the ruling I was dreading: Richard Hills: The ruling I dread is one under the 2007 Law 67B1. Tony Musgrove: [snip] >All pass so no problem perhaps? I still think TPTB want us to allow >all the previously allowed changes and then some. If I had applied >the strict meaning of the Law, the 2NT correction would have barred >partner, a result earnestly to be hoped for by the 6-10 holder. Richard Hills: If truly "earnestly to be hoped for", then the problem perhaps is one of Law 23 (Awareness of Potential Damage). As to what The Powers That Be want, this message is on the ecats website, http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/2007laws.asp -> "January 2008 The WBF Laws Drafting Subcommittee is considering a problem drawn to its attention concerning Law 27C. It is possible this Law will be rewritten. Alternatively guidance in the form of a footnote or an interpretation may be issued. Please hold back any publication of this Law until a solution has been agreed and issued." That is the end of the gnus. Here are the head lions again. Best wishes Richard James Hills Level 6 Aqua Training Suite Governance & Graduates Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6225 6776 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 20 11:30:45 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:30:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new fun game - Alain's contribution In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080220085601.03db7640@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B42732.8070906@ulb.ac.be> <011a01c870ad$c5d28360$9a493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> <47B93783.4020105@ulb.ac.be> <000001c87329$a12b6c10$1810a8c0@FK27.local> <6.1.0.6.2.20080220085601.03db7640@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <47BC0155.50805@ulb.ac.be> Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > At 10:59 AM 19/02/2008, you wrote: > >> 2D-2NT >> 2S >> >> 2D: weak two >> 2NT asking for a side ace or king if maximum. >> 2S: spade ace or king, but heavily caffeine depleted ;-) >> >> Again this needs investigating by the TD away from the table. >> > > I never allow these to be changed under L25A. I think that they > almost always work out what suit to bid and then just get the > number wrong. However, I think the new laws want to > allow a change to 3S without penalty. The old laws would > not. > Why wouldn't they ? The S bid is natural in both cases, being related to honor strength in the named suit. This was the test in old L27B1A. Bst regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 20 11:37:59 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:37:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new fun game In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080220142244.03c7b870@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B42732.8070906@ulb.ac.be> <011a01c870ad$c5d28360$9a493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> <47B93783.4020105@ulb.ac.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20080220142244.03c7b870@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <47BC0307.8020405@ulb.ac.be> Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > Finally the ruling I was dreading: > > West North East South > 1C pass 1H dbl > pass 2D 1NT > > Under the old rules, I can allow East to bid to 2NT without penalty, > but now, she wanted to show 6-10 and I suppose 2NT might show > 10-11 say. Clearly not "incorporated" under the new Act. So I > should allow no change which allows partner to stay in the bidding. > > However, I tell them all about incorporates etc. and then decide to > allow a change to 2NT without penalty to see what happens. All > pass so no problem perhaps? I still think TPTB want us to allow > all the previously allowed changes and then some. If I had applied the > strict meaning of the Law, the 2NT correction would have barred > partner, a result earnestly to be hoped for by the 6-10 holder. > There is no more problem with such situations than there was using old rules - only the potentially problematic cases aren't the same. TNFLB tells us to say that partner will be barred. Then, if this happens to be "hoped for", we apply L23 to correct the score. Once upon a time, this potentially applied to every "new denomination", now it potentially applies to every case of "non-incorporation". WTH ? BTW, Tony, how do you manage to write messages that arrive at 23:33 and we're able to read at 11:25 ? Yes, Australia, I know, but in principle local time of *arrival* is what's mentioned on the listing Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 20 17:03:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:03:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz In-Reply-To: <47B9BE45.90900@NTLworld.com> References: <47B96BF9.2080501@NTLworld.com> <002f01c8723e$63fef050$44d0403e@Mildred> <47B9BE45.90900@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <601084D4-9290-4000-B810-41EA51A5EBE0@starpower.net> On Feb 18, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Guthrie wrote: > [Grattan Endicott} > +=+ I would say a thing is arguably the case if an argument > may be made for it; but such argument is subject to counter- > argument and in the outcome either the argument or the > counter-argument will prevail. > If a thing is demonstrable then it can be shown to be so. > My personal opinion is that in the application of the laws > The Director has, for the occasion, the (2007) Law 81C2 > power to decide what the law is and he has the Law 85 > powers to determine the facts. The decisions as to what is > arguable and what is demonstrable are placed in his hands. > > [nige1] > Whatever "demonstrably" means to Grattan, "could demonstrably suggest" > cannot carry a connotation of certainty. Although Grattan's answer > will > delight Alain Gottcheiner, Eric Landau and all the other BLML > directors > who imagine that they can determine with near certainty what logical > alternatives are suggested. Nigel sees a disagreement about substance where there is only a quibble about semantics. He is quite right that "could demonstably suggest" (no matter that the actual words in TFLB are "could demonstably have been suggested") does not require certainty. That is due to the use of "could"; "demonstrably suggests" would require certainty; "could demonstrably suggest" does not. > I suspect, however, that such directors delude themselves. I'm > confirmed > in my suspicions by the arguments between experienced directors in > many > practical cases. > > Short of a confession from a player, the best a director can do is > argue > that a logical alternative is *likely* to have been suggested. Which is sufficient. If he can show that one alternative can validly be described as "likely to have been suggested" whereas another can be described as "unlikely to have been suggested", he will have "demonstrated" that the former "is suggested" over the latter. > Take the case under discussion. Suppose that Pass and 4S are logical > alternatives for you when your partner tanks after LHO raises RHO's > jump > overcall. The director must judge which logical alternative (if any) > partner's hesitation suggests. > > Assuming that your partner is an expert, the director must estimate > the > frequency of the different kinds of hand, with which an expert would > hesitate. Finally, suppose the director estimates that when your > partner > hesitates in this context, he will have > - a borderline "action double" 90% of the time; and > - a mountainous penalty double 10% of the time. I don't understand this scenario at all. A hesitation always suggests a borderline action. With a "mountainous penalty double" an ethical player would not hesitate playing penalty doubles, and would not double playing "action" doubles. > Polling a group of players may help the director judge what are > logical > alternatives and what the hesitation suggests. But such a poll does > not > result in certainty. For example, in this case, the director's poll > produced a different result from a poll by a friend of the appellants. > > The director might conclude that the hesitation suggests bidding 4S > rather than passing. This isn't demonstrable in Grattan's sense. It > depends, in context, on the director's judgement about > - what are the logical alternatives, > - on what kind of hands your partner might hesitate, > - their relative probability and > - the likely thought processes of typical players. > This is nearer the "balance of probability" than "certainty". While I'm not sure where Nigel is coming from or going, this does suggest an interesting alternative view of what I would take as established practice. In the classic potential two-way huddle scenarios (game inviter who could have either passed or bid game himself; competitive passer who could have either doubled or sacrificed), we normally evaluate the potential for one explanation to be "suggested" over the other based on the auction, the partnership's methods, the table action, and (arguably) the hesitator's partner's hand. We do not, however, then compound the resulting probability estimates with the a priori probabilities of the hesitator having been dealt either "type of hesitation". Is Nigel suggesting that we should? ISTM that might be an idea worth discussing. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 20 17:37:43 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:37:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104c3@mail.gmail.com> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <200802150238.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104c3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> On Feb 18, 2008, at 2:43 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > On 15/02/2008, Robert Geller wrote: >> Now I'm really confused by L27C1 >> >> Let's look at L27C1 again...... >> ************************************************* >> 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 .... >> ************************************************* >> >> OK, next let's look at the definition of incorporates. >> v.t. >> 1. to combine with something already formed >> 2. to merge into a single whole >> v.i. >> 1. to unite or compbine into a single whole. >> >> As an example, New York City (the larger entity) incorporates >> the boroughs of Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten >> Island >> (five smaller entities). Or another: the motor vehicle market >> incorporates the markets for cars, trucks, busses motorcycles,...... >> >> L27C1 says the replacement bid must "incorporate the information >> contained in the IB." This means the replacement call must be >> consistent with ("incorporate") any possible hand consistent >> with the IB. For example, after >> N E S >> 1C (1S) 1H >> if the IB is replaced by 2H this violates L27C1 because 2H does not >> incorporate a hand with only 4 hearts. OTH if the IB is replaced >> by NEGx this also violates L27C1, because 1H might have been >> 5+hearts with 10+ points, and this is not incorporated in the NEGx. >> > > I don't think this is what incorporates means here. > > A more restrictive 2H may incorporate everything in a less restrictive > 1H. It matters not that 1H is 4+ and 2H is 5+. The information 5+ is > incorporated in the informations 4+. > > Similarly the information exactly four hearts or 5+ hearts and 10+ > points is all included in the information 4+ hearts and 5/6+ hcp. > > There may be other reasons why we would disallow these corrections. > But the reasons you cite do not seem to be sufficient to disallow > these replacement bids. Obviously the language in question is very confusing; here Wayne attempts to contradict Robert's understanding, but actually restates it. Both are stating things backwards. "The information 5+ is incorporated in the information[] 4+" would mean that if you know that partner has 4+ then you also know that he has 5+. It is the other way around. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Feb 20 22:24:26 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:24:26 +1300 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <200802150238.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104c3@mail.gmail.com> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802201324g7d328eafu5632fe7d37e2b593@mail.gmail.com> On 21/02/2008, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 18, 2008, at 2:43 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > On 15/02/2008, Robert Geller wrote: > >> Now I'm really confused by L27C1 > >> > >> Let's look at L27C1 again...... > >> ************************************************* > >> 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 .... > >> ************************************************* > >> > >> OK, next let's look at the definition of incorporates. > >> v.t. > >> 1. to combine with something already formed > >> 2. to merge into a single whole > >> v.i. > >> 1. to unite or compbine into a single whole. > >> > >> As an example, New York City (the larger entity) incorporates > >> the boroughs of Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten > >> Island > >> (five smaller entities). Or another: the motor vehicle market > >> incorporates the markets for cars, trucks, busses motorcycles,...... > >> > >> L27C1 says the replacement bid must "incorporate the information > >> contained in the IB." This means the replacement call must be > >> consistent with ("incorporate") any possible hand consistent > >> with the IB. For example, after > >> N E S > >> 1C (1S) 1H > >> if the IB is replaced by 2H this violates L27C1 because 2H does not > >> incorporate a hand with only 4 hearts. OTH if the IB is replaced > >> by NEGx this also violates L27C1, because 1H might have been > >> 5+hearts with 10+ points, and this is not incorporated in the NEGx. > >> > > > > I don't think this is what incorporates means here. > > > > A more restrictive 2H may incorporate everything in a less restrictive > > 1H. It matters not that 1H is 4+ and 2H is 5+. The information 5+ is > > incorporated in the informations 4+. > > > > Similarly the information exactly four hearts or 5+ hearts and 10+ > > points is all included in the information 4+ hearts and 5/6+ hcp. > > > > There may be other reasons why we would disallow these corrections. > > But the reasons you cite do not seem to be sufficient to disallow > > these replacement bids. > > Obviously the language in question is very confusing; here Wayne > attempts to contradict Robert's understanding, but actually restates > it. Both are stating things backwards. > > "The information 5+ is incorporated in the information[] 4+" would > mean that if you know that partner has 4+ then you also know that he > has 5+. It is the other way around. > You have a completely different understanding of information to what I have. 4+ is not more information than 5+. 5+ is more restrictive therefore has more information. The information 4+ is equivalent to the information exactly 4 or 5+. By breaking the information up in this way you can see that the information 5+ is incorporated in the information 4+. This also seems to me to be exactly what I would expect a law to allow. As then there is no additional information that would further restrict that hands from the insufficient bid. Wayne From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 20 23:37:53 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:37:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560802201324g7d328eafu5632fe7d37e2b593@mail.gmail.com> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <200802150238.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104c3@mail.gmail.com> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <2a1c3a560802201324g7d328eafu5632fe7d37e2b593@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Feb 20, 2008, at 4:24 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > On 21/02/2008, Eric Landau wrote: >> On Feb 18, 2008, at 2:43 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >>> On 15/02/2008, Robert Geller wrote: >>>> Now I'm really confused by L27C1 >>>> >>>> Let's look at L27C1 again...... >>>> ************************************************* >>>> 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 .... >>>> ************************************************* >>>> >>>> OK, next let's look at the definition of incorporates. >>>> v.t. >>>> 1. to combine with something already formed >>>> 2. to merge into a single whole >>>> v.i. >>>> 1. to unite or compbine into a single whole. >>>> >>>> As an example, New York City (the larger entity) incorporates >>>> the boroughs of Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten >>>> Island >>>> (five smaller entities). Or another: the motor vehicle market >>>> incorporates the markets for cars, trucks, busses >>>> motorcycles,...... >>>> >>>> L27C1 says the replacement bid must "incorporate the information >>>> contained in the IB." This means the replacement call must be >>>> consistent with ("incorporate") any possible hand consistent >>>> with the IB. For example, after >>>> N E S >>>> 1C (1S) 1H >>>> if the IB is replaced by 2H this violates L27C1 because 2H does not >>>> incorporate a hand with only 4 hearts. OTH if the IB is replaced >>>> by NEGx this also violates L27C1, because 1H might have been >>>> 5+hearts with 10+ points, and this is not incorporated in the NEGx. >>>> >>> >>> I don't think this is what incorporates means here. >>> >>> A more restrictive 2H may incorporate everything in a less >>> restrictive >>> 1H. It matters not that 1H is 4+ and 2H is 5+. The information 5 >>> + is >>> incorporated in the informations 4+. >>> >>> Similarly the information exactly four hearts or 5+ hearts and 10+ >>> points is all included in the information 4+ hearts and 5/6+ hcp. >>> >>> There may be other reasons why we would disallow these corrections. >>> But the reasons you cite do not seem to be sufficient to disallow >>> these replacement bids. >> >> Obviously the language in question is very confusing; here Wayne >> attempts to contradict Robert's understanding, but actually restates >> it. Both are stating things backwards. >> >> "The information 5+ is incorporated in the information[] 4+" would >> mean that if you know that partner has 4+ then you also know that he >> has 5+. It is the other way around. "Very confusing" is looking like a severe underbid. Obviously the language in question is even more confusing than that. > You have a completely different understanding of information to > what I have. Apparently. > 4+ is not more information than 5+. Correct. > 5+ is more restrictive therefore has more information. Correct. > The information 4+ is equivalent to the information exactly 4 or 5+. "4+" and "exactly 4 or 5+" are indeed equivalent, but they are not "information". They are "definition". "I hold 4+ hearts" and "I hold either exactly 4 or 5+ hearts" are also equivalent, and they *are* "information". > By breaking the information up in this way you can see that the > information 5+ is incorporated in the information 4+. The *definition* "5+" is incorporated in the definition "4+". But the *information* -- see above -- is incorporated the other way around. See Alain's explanation of a couple of weeks ago, with his "mammals" example. So this last statement is backwards. > This also seems to me to be exactly what I would expect a law to > allow. The substitution of 2H for 1H *is* exactly what the law allows. The law requires that the *information* from the IB ("I hold 4+ hearts") be incorporated in the information from the replacement bid ("I hold 5 + hearts"), and it is. For brevity we may say that "4+ is incorporated in 5+", but can do so only because we know from the context (L27C1) that we are talking about information, not about definition, which work in opposite directions with respect to "incorporation". > As then there is no additional information that would further > restrict that hands from the insufficient bid. Correct. If the information from the IB "would further restrict" the hands the IBer could hold, that *would* be additional information, hence not "incorporated", and the substitution would not be allowed. But "4+" adds no additional information to "5+" -- equivalent to "'4 +' is incorporated in the information '5+'" -- so we allow it. Wayne seems to draw the right conclusions about what the law allows, but expresses his reasoning in words opposite to those in the law's description of what it allows. As Wayne has demonstrated in the past that he is not in the least bit stupid, he has convinced me that his confusion must be blamed on the language of the law. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Feb 21 03:14:30 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:14:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz In-Reply-To: <601084D4-9290-4000-B810-41EA51A5EBE0@starpower.net> References: <47B96BF9.2080501@NTLworld.com> <002f01c8723e$63fef050$44d0403e@Mildred> <47B9BE45.90900@NTLworld.com> <601084D4-9290-4000-B810-41EA51A5EBE0@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47BCDE86.1050308@NTLworld.com> [Nige1] Short of a confession from a player, the best a director can do is to argue that a logical alternative is *likely* to have been suggested. [Eric Landau] Which is sufficient. If he can show that one alternative can validly be described as "likely to have been suggested" whereas another can be described as "unlikely to have been suggested", he will have "demonstrated" that the former "is suggested" over the latter. [Nige2] Thank you Eric that is all that I claimed. Alain gottcheiner objected to my claim, and most of BLML seemed to agree with him. [Nige1] Take the case under discussion. Suppose that Pass and 4S are logical alternatives for you when your partner tanks after LHO raises RHO's jump overcall. The director must judge which logical alternative (if any) partner's hesitation suggests. Assuming that your partner is an expert, the director must estimate the frequency of the different kinds of hand, with which an expert would hesitate. Finally, suppose the director estimates that when your partner hesitates in this context, he will have - a borderline "action double" 90% of the time; and - a mountainous penalty double 10% of the time. [Eric] I don't understand this scenario at all. A hesitation always suggests a borderline action. With a "mountainous penalty double" an ethical player would not hesitate playing penalty doubles, and would not double playing "action" doubles. [Nige1] I agree with Eric that an expert partner's hesitation indicates that he has a borderline "action double", so if pass is a logical alternative you must choose it rather than the suggested 4S. It was Alain who claimed that partner may be hesitating with a strong penalty double. i don't think an expert would hesitate on such a hand but, I pointed out that, even if he would, such hands are of lower frequency (in this auction, in my opinion). {Nige1] The director might conclude that the hesitation suggests bidding 4S rather than passing. This isn't demonstrable in Grattan's sense. It depends, in context, on the director's judgement about - what are the logical alternatives, - on what kind of hands your partner might hesitate, - their relative probability and - the likely thought processes of typical players. This is nearer the "balance of probability" than "certainty". [Eric] While I'm not sure where Nigel is coming from or going, this does suggest an interesting alternative view of what I would take as established practice. In the classic potential two-way huddle scenarios (game inviter who could have either passed or bid game himself; competitive passer who could have either doubled or sacrificed), we normally evaluate the potential for one explanation to be "suggested" over the other based on the auction, the partnership's methods, the table action, and (arguably) the hesitator's partner's hand. We do not, however, then compound the resulting probability estimates with the a priori probabilities of the hesitator having been dealt either "type of hesitation". Is Nigel suggesting that we should? ISTM that might be an idea worth discussing. [Nige2] It seems to me that a director should take into account quite a lot of probabilities. Among them ... - The probabilities of the different kind of hand on which a player might hesitate in the context of the bidding. - The skill and psychology of *this* hestitater. For example the probability that he overbids or underbids. - The probability of the alternatives for the hesitater's partner. (thus, there must be a permitted action of reasonable probability (here pass). In the given auction, some argue that pass is *not* a logical alternative; but I think it is a logical alternative for a player who would have passed on the previous round. I wouldn't trust this intuition unless confirmed by a poll of the player's peers (peers who would have passed on the previous round). From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 21 04:18:58 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 03:18:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <0bf201c87438$7ff93c10$0100a8c0@stefanie> RJH: > Lots of changes made to the revoke laws, including abolition of the > draconian Law 63B. Why is this "draconian"? I think asking is cheating, and am appalled that it is going to be permitted in the EBU. It is going to be annoying, too. A player who chooses to ask is going to have to ask every single time his partner shows out in a suit, unless he wants the director at his table every hand. > * a trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes of > this Law. > Yes, this is fine. It is 62A2 that has me concerned. I realise that the Laws are not meant to catch and punish cheaters, but it seems that there still needs to be a disincentive to revoking. Else, why not save a card until declarer's or partner's winners in the suit are exhausted, and then cash it when you get the lead, hoping a dozy declarer doesn't notice? The worst you can do is break even (of course this was true under the old Laws if it was the last trick taken by your side.) I am as baffled by the lawmakers' wish to let people "get away with" revokes as I am by their wish to let insufficient bidders "get away with it". Is following suit really such an onerous requirement? Is making legal bids? Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 21 07:00:43 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:00:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0bf201c87438$7ff93c10$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Lots of changes made to the revoke laws, >>including abolition of the draconian Law 63B. Stefanie Rohan: >Why is this "draconian"? Richard Hills: For a normal two-trick rectification revoke, the revoking player keeps the revoke trick, so the revoking side often has a net loss of only one trick for its carelessness. For a Law 63B revoke, the revoke was corrected, but the offending side was still penalised as if the revoke was not corrected. Ergo, for the same careless error of revoking, the revoking side often had a net loss of two tricks. Stefanie Rohan: >I think asking is cheating, and am appalled that >it is going to be permitted in the EBU. Richard Hills: It is the rules of a game, _not_ the thoughts of the game's players, which define what is cheating. On one occasion pard dealt and opened 1S, RHO undercalled 1D, and I quickly bid 1H. LHO called me a cheat because my quick bid had deprived RHO of her "right" to correct her insufficient bid to 2D. Stefanie Rohan: >It is going to be annoying, too. A player who >chooses to ask is going to have to ask every >single time his partner shows out in a suit, >unless he wants the director at his table every >hand. Richard Hills: As for the 2007 Law 61B3 causing the Director to be at the table on every defence due to questions about show-outs creating UI, is the Director at the table on every auction due to questions about bids creating UI? No. Furthermore, the 2007 Law 16B3 now states that for UI problems the best time to summon the Director is at the end of play. So if a defender enquires but the declaring side is not damaged (most cases), then zero summoning is needed. Stefanie Rohan: >It is 64A2 that has me concerned. I realise that >the Laws are not meant to catch and punish >cheaters, but it seems that there still needs to >be a disincentive to revoking. >..... >The worst you can do is break even Richard Hills: What's the problem? There is a disincentive to revoking, in that even the 2007 Law 64A2 allows me to make a grand slam when lacking the ace of trumps. And, of course, the consequences of the 2007 Law 72B1 are a severe disincentive for deliberately revoking, which _is_ cheating. Stefanie Rohan: >I am as baffled by the lawmakers' Monty Python's Life of Brian (modified): "But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what has the Drafting Sub-Committee ever done for us?" Stefanie Rohan: >wish to let people "get away with" revokes as I >am by their wish to let insufficient bidders >"get away with it". Is following suit really >such an onerous requirement? Is making legal >bids? Richard Hills: Not onerous for me (or presumably Stefanie). In the past year my mechanical bridge errors I can count on the fingers of one hand. But it is the Little Old Ladies whose table fees primarily pay for my subsidy when I represent the ACT Open Team in the Aussie Interstate Championships. And it is those numerous LOLs who commit frequent mechanical errors. On the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number, those LOLs should not be draconianly punished by the 2007 Laws. Best wishes Richard James Hills Level 6 Aqua Training Suite Governance & Graduates Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6225 6776 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 Thu Feb 21 07:35:24 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:35:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <0c6c01c87453$f0dfde50$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Stefanie Rohan: > >>I think asking is cheating, and am appalled that >>it is going to be permitted in the EBU. > > Richard Hills: > > It is the rules of a game, _not_ the thoughts of > the game's players, which define what is > cheating. Well, yes, of course. It just seems to me that asking is really contrary to the idea of the game. > > On one occasion pard dealt and opened 1S, RHO > undercalled 1D, and I quickly bid 1H. LHO called > me a cheat because my quick bid had deprived RHO > of her "right" to correct her insufficient bid to > 2D. Yes, well cheating was the wrong word for me to use. What I can say is that it produces a game I don't like. > Stefanie Rohan: > >>wish to let people "get away with" revokes as I >>am by their wish to let insufficient bidders >>"get away with it". Is following suit really >>such an onerous requirement? Is making legal >>bids? > > Richard Hills: > > Not onerous for me (or presumably Stefanie). In > the past year my mechanical bridge errors I can > count on the fingers of one hand. > > But it is the Little Old Ladies whose table fees > primarily pay for my subsidy when I represent > the ACT Open Team in the Aussie Interstate > Championships. And it is those numerous LOLs > who commit frequent mechanical errors. On the > principle of the greatest good for the greatest > number, those LOLs should not be draconianly > punished by the 2007 Laws. Do you reckon this was really the lawmakers' intention? Stefanie Rohan London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 21 09:13:34 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:13:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47BD32AE.4000306@ulb.ac.be> > > Stefanie Rohan: > > >> I think asking is cheating, and am appalled that >> it is going to be permitted in the EBU. >> > > Richard Hills: > > It is the rules of a game, _not_ the thoughts of > the game's players, which define what is > cheating. > > Yes, once again we see a respectable member of blml -not just the ordinary awkward customer- emphatically use th C-word. Once and for all, we have to take into consideration this fundamental fact of play activity : acting as the rules of the game prescribe shall never be considered as illegal. At /illuminati/, you're allowed to steal the cash. If you succeed in doing it, you've played cleverly, period. (and if you don't like it, you've to play some other boardgame) In some RPGs, assassination, denunciation and many more are encouraged and rewarded. At bridge, you're allowed to enquire about revokes in some circumstances. The laws explicitly allow this, and create some limitations (UI). Whence, whether you like it or not, enquiring may not, by definitiion, be c****ing. Best regards Alain From geller at nifty.com Thu Feb 21 10:32:47 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:32:47 +0900 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200802210932.AA12537@geller204.nifty.com> The plot thickens..... Two points: 1. I agree with Wayne as far as his interpretation of what 27C ought to say, but I disagree with him that this is what 27C ("...incorporates....") says now. I think it says the opposite, and the wording must urgently be fixed to say what the Law Lords apparently meant. Namely, there is no hand that would make the replacement bid but would not make the original IB. 2. More seriously, I want to point out some of the subtle problems that we've not covered yet. North East South West 1S 2H 1NT DIRECTOR!!!! OK, suppose South now changes the IB to 2NT after the director has arrived. Is this allowable. Well if 1NT was 6-9, but 2NT is 10-11 the answer is no. But if 1NT was intended as 1 round forcing (up to 11 points) then 2NT should be allowable, right? But not so fast. Up till now we've all been assuming that South saw pard's 1S but overlooked RHO's 2H. But what if South overlooked BOTH pard's opener AND righty's overcall, and intended 1NT as a 15-17 opener? Then what? The point I'm trying to get at is that L27C implicitly assumes we can know "what would have been shown by the insufficient bid." But is this really a well-defined concept? It seems to be this can be highly variable (and not rigorously definable), as it depends on how much of the auction the IB-er overlooked. We're on a really slippery slope here..... Is this really the direction we should be going in? -Bob Eric Landau ????????: >On Feb 20, 2008, at 4:24 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> On 21/02/2008, Eric Landau wrote: >>> On Feb 18, 2008, at 2:43 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: >>> >>>> On 15/02/2008, Robert Geller wrote: >>>>> Now I'm really confused by L27C1 >>>>> >>>>> Let's look at L27C1 again...... >>>>> ************************************************* >>>>> 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 .... >>>>> ************************************************* >>>>> >>>>> OK, next let's look at the definition of incorporates. >>>>> v.t. >>>>> 1. to combine with something already formed >>>>> 2. to merge into a single whole >>>>> v.i. >>>>> 1. to unite or compbine into a single whole. >>>>> >>>>> As an example, New York City (the larger entity) incorporates >>>>> the boroughs of Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten >>>>> Island >>>>> (five smaller entities). Or another: the motor vehicle market >>>>> incorporates the markets for cars, trucks, busses >>>>> motorcycles,...... >>>>> >>>>> L27C1 says the replacement bid must "incorporate the information >>>>> contained in the IB." This means the replacement call must be >>>>> consistent with ("incorporate") any possible hand consistent >>>>> with the IB. For example, after >>>>> N E S >>>>> 1C (1S) 1H >>>>> if the IB is replaced by 2H this violates L27C1 because 2H does not >>>>> incorporate a hand with only 4 hearts. OTH if the IB is replaced >>>>> by NEGx this also violates L27C1, because 1H might have been >>>>> 5+hearts with 10+ points, and this is not incorporated in the NEGx. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't think this is what incorporates means here. >>>> >>>> A more restrictive 2H may incorporate everything in a less >>>> restrictive >>>> 1H. It matters not that 1H is 4+ and 2H is 5+. The information 5 >>>> + is >>>> incorporated in the informations 4+. >>>> >>>> Similarly the information exactly four hearts or 5+ hearts and 10+ >>>> points is all included in the information 4+ hearts and 5/6+ hcp. >>>> >>>> There may be other reasons why we would disallow these corrections. >>>> But the reasons you cite do not seem to be sufficient to disallow >>>> these replacement bids. >>> >>> Obviously the language in question is very confusing; here Wayne >>> attempts to contradict Robert's understanding, but actually restates >>> it. Both are stating things backwards. >>> >>> "The information 5+ is incorporated in the information[] 4+" would >>> mean that if you know that partner has 4+ then you also know that he >>> has 5+. It is the other way around. > >"Very confusing" is looking like a severe underbid. Obviously the >language in question is even more confusing than that. > >> You have a completely different understanding of information to >> what I have. > >Apparently. > >> 4+ is not more information than 5+. > >Correct. > >> 5+ is more restrictive therefore has more information. > >Correct. > >> The information 4+ is equivalent to the information exactly 4 or 5+. > >"4+" and "exactly 4 or 5+" are indeed equivalent, but they are not >"information". They are "definition". "I hold 4+ hearts" and "I >hold either exactly 4 or 5+ hearts" are also equivalent, and they >*are* "information". > >> By breaking the information up in this way you can see that the >> information 5+ is incorporated in the information 4+. > >The *definition* "5+" is incorporated in the definition "4+". But >the *information* -- see above -- is incorporated the other way >around. See Alain's explanation of a couple of weeks ago, with his >"mammals" example. So this last statement is backwards. > >> This also seems to me to be exactly what I would expect a law to >> allow. > >The substitution of 2H for 1H *is* exactly what the law allows. The >law requires that the *information* from the IB ("I hold 4+ hearts") >be incorporated in the information from the replacement bid ("I hold 5 >+ hearts"), and it is. For brevity we may say that "4+ is >incorporated in 5+", but can do so only because we know from the >context (L27C1) that we are talking about information, not about >definition, which work in opposite directions with respect to >"incorporation". > >> As then there is no additional information that would further >> restrict that hands from the insufficient bid. > >Correct. If the information from the IB "would further restrict" the >hands the IBer could hold, that *would* be additional information, >hence not "incorporated", and the substitution would not be allowed. >But "4+" adds no additional information to "5+" -- equivalent to "'4 >+' is incorporated in the information '5+'" -- so we allow it. > >Wayne seems to draw the right conclusions about what the law allows, >but expresses his reasoning in words opposite to those in the law's >description of what it allows. As Wayne has demonstrated in the past >that he is not in the least bit stupid, he has convinced me that his >confusion must be blamed on the language of the law. > > >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 svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 21 11:25:18 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:25:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47BD32AE.4000306@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000301c87474$0f174230$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner .......... > Yes, once again we see a respectable member of blml -not just the > ordinary awkward customer- emphatically use th C-word. > > Once and for all, we have to take into consideration this fundamental > fact of play activity : acting as the rules of the game prescribe shall > never be considered as illegal. > At /illuminati/, you're allowed to steal the cash. If you succeed in > doing it, you've played cleverly, period. (and if you don't like it, > you've to play some other boardgame) > In some RPGs, assassination, denunciation and many more are encouraged > and rewarded. > At bridge, you're allowed to enquire about revokes in some > circumstances. The laws explicitly allow this, and create some > limitations (UI). > Whence, whether you like it or not, enquiring may not, by definitiion, > be c****ing. A defender asking his partner about possible revoke was unconditionally permitted until 1987 as part of the general permission to attempt preventing irregularities (2007 Law 9A3). This permission related to possible revokes has now simply been reestablished. But a question about a possible revoke (like any other question) can create UI, the use of which is still illegal. Regards Sven From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Feb 21 12:35:32 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:35:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802210932.AA12537@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093A53@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Robert Geller writes: > The point I'm trying to get at is that L27C implicitly assumes > we can know "what would have been shown by the insufficient > bid." But is this really a well-defined concept? It seems > to be this can be highly variable (and not rigorously definable), > as it depends on how much of the auction the IB-er overlooked. This was in issue for the old laws, how to determine if an IB was conventional. We don't know in what circumstances in the IB was made, and only some of those circumstances would make the IB conventional. 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Feb 21 13:02:48 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:02:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47BD32AE.4000306@ulb.ac.be> References: <47BD32AE.4000306@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47BD6868.8040405@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] Yes, once again we see a respectable member of blml -not just the ordinary awkward customer- emphatically use th C-word. Once and for all, we have to take into consideration this fundamental fact of play activity : acting as the rules of the game prescribe shall never be considered as illegal. At /illuminati/, you're allowed to steal the cash. If you succeed in doing it, you've played cleverly, period. (and if you don't like it, you've to play some other boardgame) In some RPGs, assassination, denunciation and many more are encouraged and rewarded. At bridge, you're allowed to enquire about revokes in some circumstances. The laws explicitly allow this, and create some limitations (UI). Whence, whether you like it or not, enquiring may not, by definitiion, be c****ing. [nige1] Alain Gottcheiner is obviously correct. BLMLers are too free with the C-word. Incredibly, they even mistakenly apply it to fellow BLMLers. Richard Hills is also manifestly right. Bridge-players must comply with rules as written :( in spite of rule-makers "intentions" if different :) We must still be free to campaign for change. Unfortunately the pernicious, so-called "Equity", philosophy encourages infraction. Also most laws are too complex and subjective, some are unnecessary, and a few are plain daft. Hence Stefanie Rohan has the patent right (and duty) to draw attention to legal flaws. And her current complaints are spot-on! :) In a casual game, revokes often go unnoticed, especially when perpetrated by better players against relative tyros. Stefanie demonstrates that the new law goes out of its way to reward such "carelessness" :( Stefanie also sensibly complains about defenders asking "Having none partner". If you refrain from asking when you *know* that partner is void in the suit, you impart valuable count information to partner. You don't need to signal count when partner shows out -- you can use word of mouth. Hence Stefanie is right that this rule can work only if you ask *always* or *never*. In America, for example, I'm told that players ask selectively. Honest American players probably agree that this is just another stupid and unnecessary rule :( Concerned players must keep hammering away about such anomalies if they are to be prevented from spoiling our game for decades to come. Bridge laws should be radically re-engineered for the enjoyment of players rather than the amusement of directors and law-makers. De facto on-line bridge laws are a hopeful harbinger of the future. Until face-to-face laws catch up (where possible) the prospects for face-to-face bridge are bleak. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Feb 21 13:25:13 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:25:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802210932.AA12537@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200802210932.AA12537@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47BD6DA9.7070503@NTLworld.com> [Robert Geller] The point I'm trying to get at is that L27C implicitly assumes we can know "what would have been shown by the insufficient bid." But is this really a well-defined concept? It seems to be this can be highly variable (and not rigorously definable), as it depends on how much of the auction the IB-er overlooked. We're on a really slippery slope here..... Is this really the direction we should be going in? [Nige1] I believe that law-makers now admit that this law is ambiguous and incomplete. I understand that thet are soon going to produce a new edition of the law-book to correct this law. >From the beginning, I think Bob persuaded almost all other BLMLers about fundamental problems with this law -- and the necessity to clarify many other laws. In the new interim edition, it would require only a little extra work by the committee to correct the other specific anomalies which Bob detailed. Please note that that such changes are largely cosmetic -- for example, they hardly scratch the surface of the radical rethink that I deem necessary -- but they would allow many more players and directors to understand the intentions of the WBFLC. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 21 15:34:58 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:34:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802210932.AA12537@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200802210932.AA12537@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: On Feb 21, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > The plot thickens..... > > Two points: > 1. I agree with Wayne as far as his interpretation of what > 27C ought to say, but I disagree with him that this is what > 27C ("...incorporates....") says now. I think it says the > opposite, and the wording must urgently be fixed to say what > the Law Lords apparently meant. Namely, there is no hand > that would make the replacement bid but would not make the > original IB. > > 2. More seriously, I want to point out some of the subtle > problems that we've not covered yet. > North East South West > 1S 2H 1NT DIRECTOR!!!! > > OK, suppose South now changes the IB to 2NT after the > director has arrived. Is this allowable. Well if 1NT was > 6-9, but 2NT is 10-11 the answer is no. But if 1NT was > intended as 1 round forcing (up to 11 points) then 2NT should > be allowable, right? > > But not so fast. Up till now we've all been assuming that > South saw pard's 1S but overlooked RHO's 2H. But what if > South overlooked BOTH pard's opener AND righty's overcall, > and intended 1NT as a 15-17 opener? Then what? Then there is no substitution without penalty available. > The point I'm trying to get at is that L27C implicitly assumes > we can know "what would have been shown by the insufficient > bid." But is this really a well-defined concept? It seems > to be this can be highly variable (and not rigorously definable), > as it depends on how much of the auction the IB-er overlooked. As in so many other places in the laws, we "know" by asking the IBer. We do not warp the desired effect of the laws to insure that we punish the tiny percentage of determined cheats who will lie outright to gain advantage -- we attempt to deal with them by other means. > We're on a really slippery slope here..... > Is this really the direction we should be going in? The "direction" the law seems to be going in is one of trying to restore the normal flow of the game after an infraction that produces no damage, rather than imposing arbitrary penalties for infractions. Clearly that is the direction taken by the new L27C. Should be? Well, there's a case for and a case against. > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 21 16:03:07 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:03:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c87474$0f174230$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000301c87474$0f174230$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47BD92AB.2060201@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > A defender asking his partner about possible revoke was unconditionally > permitted until 1987 as part of the general permission to attempt preventing > irregularities (2007 Law 9A3). This permission related to possible revokes > has now simply been reestablished. > > But a question about a possible revoke (like any other question) can create > UI, the use of which is still illegal. > > Indeed. But still I can't swallow equating using UI with c****ing, because the latter means coordinated action. From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 21 18:23:04 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:23:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47BD92AB.2060201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000801c874ae$6be5c150$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > A defender asking his partner about possible revoke was > > unconditionally permitted until 1987 as part of the general > > permission to attempt preventing irregularities (2007 Law 9A3). > > This permission related to possible revokes > > has now simply been reestablished. > > > > But a question about a possible revoke (like any other question) > > can create UI, the use of which is still illegal. > > > > > Indeed. But still I can't swallow equating using UI with c****ing, > because the latter means coordinated action. I see no reason to suspect c****ing in association with legal questions on possible revokes even when such questions can reveal knowledge or uncertainty about voids. Surely systemic variations in asking such questions will soon be noticed and reacted upon. Sven From john at asimere.com Thu Feb 21 21:43:15 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:43:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <0c6c01c87453$f0dfde50$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <005101c874ca$da4b4180$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> Stefanie Rohan: >> >>>I think asking is cheating, and am appalled that >>>it is going to be permitted in the EBU. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> It is the rules of a game, _not_ the thoughts of >> the game's players, which define what is >> cheating. > > Well, yes, of course. It just seems to me that asking is really contrary > to > the idea of the game. > >> >> On one occasion pard dealt and opened 1S, RHO >> undercalled 1D, and I quickly bid 1H. LHO called >> me a cheat because my quick bid had deprived RHO >> of her "right" to correct her insufficient bid to >> 2D. > > Yes, well cheating was the wrong word for me to use. What I can say is > that > it produces a game I don't like. >> Stefanie Rohan: >> >>>wish to let people "get away with" revokes as I >>>am by their wish to let insufficient bidders >>>"get away with it". Is following suit really >>>such an onerous requirement? Is making legal >>>bids? >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Not onerous for me (or presumably Stefanie). In >> the past year my mechanical bridge errors I can >> count on the fingers of one hand. >> >> But it is the Little Old Ladies whose table fees >> primarily pay for my subsidy when I represent >> the ACT Open Team in the Aussie Interstate >> Championships. And it is those numerous LOLs >> who commit frequent mechanical errors. On the >> principle of the greatest good for the greatest >> number, those LOLs should not be draconianly >> punished by the 2007 Laws. > > Do you reckon this was really the lawmakers' intention? yep. The Zonal option to stop people enquiring "having none" was introduced to placate those who thought asling was cheating. Creation of UI is not a problem, so even if I only ask when really surprised, it's my partner who gets the UI and it's his problem to handle it. The lawyers will lawyer away, but it's been part of the rubber law for years and given rubber players have a far higher ethical standard than tournament players, and given they think it's ok, then let the lawyers moan - It's a sensible change (removing the Zonal option) and I don't give a f**k about the lawyers. john > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 21 22:49:45 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:49:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005101c874ca$da4b4180$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <001701c874d3$acbb0bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst .................. > > Do you reckon this was really the lawmakers' intention? > > yep. The Zonal option to stop people enquiring "having none" was > introduced > to placate those who thought asling was cheating. Creation of UI is not a > problem, so even if I only ask when really surprised, it's my partner who > gets the UI and it's his problem to handle it. The lawyers will lawyer > away, > but it's been part of the rubber law for years and given rubber players > have > a far higher ethical standard than tournament players, and given they > think > it's ok, then let the lawyers moan - It's a sensible change (removing the > Zonal option) and I don't give a f**k about the lawyers. john Well, the change this time is really only that asking is again permitted unless forbidden by the zone instead of forbidden unless permitted by the zone. Except for that I agree with you and I believe most players have felt the prohibition to be an unnecessary pain in the ass. Regards Sven From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Feb 22 00:03:50 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:03:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] sking about possible revoke Message-ID: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com> Kojak or Grattan ought to be able to say something authoritative about this. I had always believed that the rule (not observed in the ACBL) not allowing defenders to ask about a possible revoke when partner did not follow suit was installed to avoid the situation in which a player, surprised (because, for example, declarer has a concealed 5-card suit he did not show), enquired if partner (really) could not follow suit. This restriction seemed to me to be eminently sensible. Nips UI in the bud, so to speak. Ahoy, JE From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 22 01:16:31 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:16:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] Asking about possible revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: [snip] >This restriction seemed to me to be eminently sensible. Nips UI in the >bud, so to speak. Ahoy, JE Richard Hills: The restriction is as eminently sensible as the Dvorak keyboard. But it is the inefficient QWERTY keyboard which is in almost universal use. Best wishes Richard James Hills Level 6 Aqua Training Suite Governance & Graduates Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6225 6776 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 Fri Feb 22 00:44:53 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:44:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001701c874d3$acbb0bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: Amen and Amen. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > .................. > > > Do you reckon this was really the lawmakers' intention? > > > > yep. The Zonal option to stop people enquiring "having none" was > > introduced > > to placate those who thought asling was cheating. Creation of UI is not > > a > > problem, so even if I only ask when really surprised, it's my partner > > who > > gets the UI and it's his problem to handle it. The lawyers will lawyer > > away, > > but it's been part of the rubber law for years and given rubber players > > have > > a far higher ethical standard than tournament players, and given they > > think > > it's ok, then let the lawyers moan - It's a sensible change (removing > > the > > Zonal option) and I don't give a f**k about the lawyers. john > > Well, the change this time is really only that asking is again permitted > unless forbidden by the zone instead of forbidden unless permitted by the > zone. > > Except for that I agree with you and I believe most players have felt the > prohibition to be an unnecessary pain in the ass. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From geller at nifty.com Fri Feb 22 01:43:49 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:43:49 +0900 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c874d3$acbb0bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <001701c874d3$acbb0bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <200802220043.AA12539@geller204.nifty.com> This was a really sneaky ploy by the Lords of the Law: The 1997 Laws read as follows: ********************************************************* Law 61B - Defenders may ask declarer but, unless the Zonal organisation so authorises, not one another. Law 63B - When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established. ************************************************************ whereas the 2007 Laws retain 61B but deleted 63B: *********************************************************** Law 61B - 3. Defenders may ask declarer and, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority, may ask one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized information). ********************************************************** Thus under the 1997 Laws if a defender asked, and his pard had in fact revoked the act of asking the question established the revoke, but under the 2007 Law the RA can outlaw the asking of the question by a defender, but cannot effectively penalize it. Under these circumstances the Laws Commission of the JCBL reluctant decided to allow the asking of the question, even though we would have preferred to ban it. -Bob Sven Pran ????????: >> On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst >.................. >> > Do you reckon this was really the lawmakers' intention? >> >> yep. The Zonal option to stop people enquiring "having none" was >> introduced >> to placate those who thought asling was cheating. Creation of UI is not a >> problem, so even if I only ask when really surprised, it's my partner who >> gets the UI and it's his problem to handle it. The lawyers will lawyer >> away, >> but it's been part of the rubber law for years and given rubber players >> have >> a far higher ethical standard than tournament players, and given they >> think >> it's ok, then let the lawyers moan - It's a sensible change (removing the >> Zonal option) and I don't give a f**k about the lawyers. john > >Well, the change this time is really only that asking is again permitted >unless forbidden by the zone instead of forbidden unless permitted by the >zone. > >Except for that I agree with you and I believe most players have felt the >prohibition to be an unnecessary pain in the ass. > >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 schoderb at msn.com Fri Feb 22 01:31:32 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:31:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] sking about possible revoke References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com> Message-ID: Yep sure did nip UI in the bud. No difficulty in having to work out whether or not UI was used in the rest of the play. No need to make judgements about lines of defense, etc. ACBL was against prohibition of the question because they felt that most of the ACBL players from average to below level had no idea what UI was being introduced, and the higher level could be handled on a case by case basis. Before 1997 I had never encountered a situation where it became necessary to adjust a score because of the use of UI. But the trend is to soften the laws, regulations, and rules so that "more normal results" can be obtained. (Pretty soon we will be playing "par" duplicate bridge which of course is much to the benefit of the hired hands.) Though this relaxation for those who were adamant about no questions, -- who now are the ones adamant about allowing the questions -- is not directly affected by the "change", it goes along with the idea of identifying UI and then placing the burden on the TD to work it out. This is not the only place where the TD is being placed in having to make judgements where there were formerly clear, recipe oriented, unbending avenues which were not subject to the TD's level of expertise. It remains to be seen if this is in fact a "better" way of managing the game. Those who are in the line of fire as TDs SHOULD quickly let us know if we are in fact on a "better" road. Ahoy yourself, Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:03 PM Subject: [blml] sking about possible revoke > Kojak or Grattan ought to be able to say something authoritative about > this. I had always believed that the rule (not observed in the ACBL) > not allowing defenders to ask about a possible revoke when partner did > not follow suit was installed to avoid the situation in which a player, > surprised (because, for example, declarer has a concealed 5-card suit he > did not show), enquired if partner (really) could not follow suit. This > restriction seemed to me to be eminently sensible. Nips UI in the bud, > so to speak. Ahoy, JE > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 22 01:27:39 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:27:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz References: <47B96BF9.2080501@NTLworld.com><002f01c8723e$63fef050$44d0403e@Mildred><47B9BE45.90900@NTLworld.com> <601084D4-9290-4000-B810-41EA51A5EBE0@starpower.net> Message-ID: <003f01c874e9$bdd4a1d0$10d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Return to Oz >> >> Short of a confession from a player, the best a director can do is >> argue >> that a logical alternative is *likely* to have been suggested. > > Which is sufficient. If he can show that one alternative can validly > be described as "likely to have been suggested" whereas another can > be described as "unlikely to have been suggested", he will have > "demonstrated" that the former "is suggested" over the latter. > >> Take the case under discussion. Suppose that Pass and 4S are logical >> alternatives for you when your partner tanks after LHO raises RHO's >> jump >> overcall. The director must judge which logical alternative (if any) >> partner's hesitation suggests. >> >> Assuming that your partner is an expert, the director must estimate >> the >> frequency of the different kinds of hand, with which an expert would >> hesitate. Finally, suppose the director estimates that when your >> partner >> hesitates in this context, he will have >> - a borderline "action double" 90% of the time; and >> - a mountainous penalty double 10% of the time. > > I don't understand this scenario at all. A hesitation always > suggests a borderline action. With a "mountainous penalty double" an > ethical player would not hesitate playing penalty doubles, and would > not double playing "action" doubles. > +=+ I find this discussion tortuous. I believe that 'could demonstrably suggest' is concerned with a question of certainty. If the Director judges that the hesitation demonstrably *could* suggest one thing over another he can so rule. The question is 'could it?'. If he is faced with a situation that it could well suggest one of two opposed things he has to resolve which of the two in his opinion it did suggest. For this he has the power of determining facts in accordance with the principle of the balance of probabilities (see Law 85A1). He may consider the subsequent action of the player's partner as part of the evidence he gathers. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Feb 22 02:05:17 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:05:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200802220043.AA12539@geller204.nifty.com> References: <001701c874d3$acbb0bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200802220043.AA12539@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47BE1FCD.2010307@NTLworld.com> [Robert Geller] The 1997 Laws read as follows: ********************************************************* Law 61B - Defenders may ask declarer but, unless the Zonal organisation so authorises, not one another. Law 63B - When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established. ************************************************************ whereas the 2007 Laws retain 61B but deleted 63B: *********************************************************** Law 61B - 3. Defenders may ask declarer and, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority, may ask one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized information). ********************************************************** Thus under the 1997 Laws if a defender asked, and his pard had in fact revoked the act of asking the question established the revoke, but under the 2007 Law the RA can outlaw the asking of the question by a defender, but cannot effectively penalize it. Under these circumstances the Laws Commission of the JCBL reluctant decided to allow the asking of the question, even though we would have preferred to ban it. [nigel] Bob seems correct. All legislatures that want to reduce the temptation to use unauthorised information would like to ban "asking" :) Bob did well to notice the sneaky "catch 22" of the "equity" law-makers, who seem determined to encourage and reward law-breaking :( From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 22 02:13:42 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:13:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47BCDE86.1050308@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >In the given auction, some argue that pass is *not* a logical >alternative; but I think it is a logical alternative for a >player who would have passed on the previous round. I wouldn't >trust this intuition unless confirmed by a poll of the >player's peers (peers who would have passed on the previous >round). Richard Hills: There is a useful rule of thumb "never sacrifice against a partscore". This may have been the reasoning of those blmlers who passed RHO's 3H, but then bid 4S once LHO raised to 4H. Furthermore the favourable vulnerability also suggests a save in 4S. So perhaps passing out 4H only just qualifies as a logical alternative. If one assumes that Pass was indeed only just a logical alternative, was the Appeals Committee correct in imposing a fine for a meritless appeal? In my opinion, yes, since the appellants failed to produce any new evidence at the hearing to demonstrate that Pass was _not_ a logical alternative. WBF Code of Practice, page 6: "The expectation is that each appeal committee will presume initially that the Director's ruling is correct. The ruling is overturned only on the basis of evidence presented." Best wishes Richard James Hills Level 6 Aqua Training Suite Governance & Graduates Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6225 6776 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 Fri Feb 22 02:14:54 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:14:54 +0900 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200802220114.AA12540@geller204.nifty.com> My main problems with L27C are (1) that as written ("...incorporates...") says more or less the opposite of what was apparently meant. (2) Even if the wording of L27C were to be fixed by whaever quick fix is now being debated secretly by the Lords of the Law I'm skeptical that their fix won't just create other problems instead (if they made this mess the first time why should we expect them to get it right the 2nd time, espcially when they're working in secret without (AFIK) any check by the federations). (3) Even if the wording of L27C was miraculously fixed, its implementation will create terribly difficult problems for ordinary directors in the field, especially less experienced directors or those without relatively sophisticated knowledge of bidding systems. As a secondary problem I'm a bit suspicious that IBers won't quickly work out that certain self-serving answers to the directors' questions will give them favorable results. Japanese players are very honest in some senses (women leave their handbags in all kinds of places and I've never heard of any theft problems) but I've never been at a table, not once, where a player who made an IB admitted to a "slip of the mind," rather than a "slip of the hand (tongue)" as the reason for pulling the wrong bidding card. So I think the idea that all we have to do to implement L27C is to have the director ask the IBer what he meant is really quite naive. Finally, I have a sort of philosophical objection to all this. Bridge is a simple game, but to win you have to always be paying attention. If you forget to unblock, thereby letting declarer throw you in, you won't get a do-over, even though this poor result is due to not paying attention. Why then should the aim of the Laws be to "restore equity" in the cases of IBs or revokes, etc. It seems to be there ought to be some appropriate penalty for disrupting the smooth progress of the game. -Bob -Bob Eric Landau ????????: >On Feb 21, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > >> The plot thickens..... >> >> Two points: >> 1. I agree with Wayne as far as his interpretation of what >> 27C ought to say, but I disagree with him that this is what >> 27C ("...incorporates....") says now. I think it says the >> opposite, and the wording must urgently be fixed to say what >> the Law Lords apparently meant. Namely, there is no hand >> that would make the replacement bid but would not make the >> original IB. >> >> 2. More seriously, I want to point out some of the subtle >> problems that we've not covered yet. >> North East South West >> 1S 2H 1NT DIRECTOR!!!! >> >> OK, suppose South now changes the IB to 2NT after the >> director has arrived. Is this allowable. Well if 1NT was >> 6-9, but 2NT is 10-11 the answer is no. But if 1NT was >> intended as 1 round forcing (up to 11 points) then 2NT should >> be allowable, right? >> >> But not so fast. Up till now we've all been assuming that >> South saw pard's 1S but overlooked RHO's 2H. But what if >> South overlooked BOTH pard's opener AND righty's overcall, >> and intended 1NT as a 15-17 opener? Then what? > >Then there is no substitution without penalty available. > >> The point I'm trying to get at is that L27C implicitly assumes >> we can know "what would have been shown by the insufficient >> bid." But is this really a well-defined concept? It seems >> to be this can be highly variable (and not rigorously definable), >> as it depends on how much of the auction the IB-er overlooked. > >As in so many other places in the laws, we "know" by asking the >IBer. We do not warp the desired effect of the laws to insure that >we punish the tiny percentage of determined cheats who will lie >outright to gain advantage -- we attempt to deal with them by other >means. > >> We're on a really slippery slope here..... >> Is this really the direction we should be going in? > >The "direction" the law seems to be going in is one of trying to >restore the normal flow of the game after an infraction that produces >no damage, rather than imposing arbitrary penalties for infractions. >Clearly that is the direction taken by the new L27C. Should be? >Well, there's a case for and a case against. > >> > >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 wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 04:14:22 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:14:22 +1300 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <200802150238.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104c3@mail.gmail.com> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <2a1c3a560802201324g7d328eafu5632fe7d37e2b593@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb050ead26@mail.gmail.com> On 21/02/2008, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 20, 2008, at 4:24 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > On 21/02/2008, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Feb 18, 2008, at 2:43 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> > >>> On 15/02/2008, Robert Geller wrote: > >>>> Now I'm really confused by L27C1 > >>>> > >>>> Let's look at L27C1 again...... > >>>> ************************************************* > >>>> 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 .... > >>>> ************************************************* > >>>> > >>>> OK, next let's look at the definition of incorporates. > >>>> v.t. > >>>> 1. to combine with something already formed > >>>> 2. to merge into a single whole > >>>> v.i. > >>>> 1. to unite or compbine into a single whole. > >>>> > >>>> As an example, New York City (the larger entity) incorporates > >>>> the boroughs of Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten > >>>> Island > >>>> (five smaller entities). Or another: the motor vehicle market > >>>> incorporates the markets for cars, trucks, busses > >>>> motorcycles,...... > >>>> > >>>> L27C1 says the replacement bid must "incorporate the information > >>>> contained in the IB." This means the replacement call must be > >>>> consistent with ("incorporate") any possible hand consistent > >>>> with the IB. For example, after > >>>> N E S > >>>> 1C (1S) 1H > >>>> if the IB is replaced by 2H this violates L27C1 because 2H does not > >>>> incorporate a hand with only 4 hearts. OTH if the IB is replaced > >>>> by NEGx this also violates L27C1, because 1H might have been > >>>> 5+hearts with 10+ points, and this is not incorporated in the NEGx. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I don't think this is what incorporates means here. > >>> > >>> A more restrictive 2H may incorporate everything in a less > >>> restrictive > >>> 1H. It matters not that 1H is 4+ and 2H is 5+. The information 5 > >>> + is > >>> incorporated in the informations 4+. > >>> > >>> Similarly the information exactly four hearts or 5+ hearts and 10+ > >>> points is all included in the information 4+ hearts and 5/6+ hcp. > >>> > >>> There may be other reasons why we would disallow these corrections. > >>> But the reasons you cite do not seem to be sufficient to disallow > >>> these replacement bids. > >> > >> Obviously the language in question is very confusing; here Wayne > >> attempts to contradict Robert's understanding, but actually restates > >> it. Both are stating things backwards. > >> > >> "The information 5+ is incorporated in the information[] 4+" would > >> mean that if you know that partner has 4+ then you also know that he > >> has 5+. It is the other way around. > > "Very confusing" is looking like a severe underbid. Obviously the > language in question is even more confusing than that. > > > You have a completely different understanding of information to > > what I have. > > Apparently. > > > 4+ is not more information than 5+. > > Correct. > > > 5+ is more restrictive therefore has more information. > > Correct. > > > The information 4+ is equivalent to the information exactly 4 or 5+. > > "4+" and "exactly 4 or 5+" are indeed equivalent, but they are not > "information". They are "definition". "I hold 4+ hearts" and "I > hold either exactly 4 or 5+ hearts" are also equivalent, and they > *are* "information". > > > By breaking the information up in this way you can see that the > > information 5+ is incorporated in the information 4+. > > The *definition* "5+" is incorporated in the definition "4+". But > the *information* -- see above -- is incorporated the other way > around. See Alain's explanation of a couple of weeks ago, with his > "mammals" example. So this last statement is backwards. > > > This also seems to me to be exactly what I would expect a law to > > allow. > > The substitution of 2H for 1H *is* exactly what the law allows. The > law requires that the *information* from the IB ("I hold 4+ hearts") > be incorporated in the information from the replacement bid ("I hold 5 > + hearts"), and it is. For brevity we may say that "4+ is > incorporated in 5+", but can do so only because we know from the > context (L27C1) that we are talking about information, not about > definition, which work in opposite directions with respect to > "incorporation". > > > As then there is no additional information that would further > > restrict that hands from the insufficient bid. > > Correct. If the information from the IB "would further restrict" the > hands the IBer could hold, that *would* be additional information, > hence not "incorporated", and the substitution would not be allowed. > But "4+" adds no additional information to "5+" -- equivalent to "'4 > +' is incorporated in the information '5+'" -- so we allow it. > > Wayne seems to draw the right conclusions about what the law allows, > but expresses his reasoning in words opposite to those in the law's > description of what it allows. As Wayne has demonstrated in the past > that he is not in the least bit stupid, he has convinced me that his > confusion must be blamed on the language of the law. > I have to admit when I first read this law I thought it was backwards. But then on a more careful reading it seemed right to me. After reading Eric's posts I started to think that I was really confused afterall. So I decided to look through this again this afternoon. It appears I twice wrote "is incorporated in" when I should have written simply "incorporates". These are the offending sentences: "The information 5+ is incorporated in the informations 4+." and "By breaking the information up in this way you can see that the information 5+ is incorporated in the information 4+." My arguments are that 'the information in 5+ incorporates the information in 4+". I think I understood this in my mind while carelessly writing the opposite in the two offending sentences which were also the opposite of the rest of my arguments. Let me try one more time: The information contain in 4+ is essentially "not 0-3". The information contained in the replacement bid 5+ incorporates "not 0-3" and includes the additional information "not exactly 4". This sort of relationship between the replacement bid and the insufficient bid is what is allowed by the new law. Wayne From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 22 05:08:47 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:08:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003f01c874e9$bdd4a1d0$10d3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >He may consider the subsequent action of the player's partner as part of >the evidence he gathers. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Presumably Grattan intended his slightly ambiguous "the player's partner" to be interpreted in context as meaning "the hesitator", not hermanically interpreted out of context as meaning "the hesitator's partner". Otherwise we are in "if it hesitates, shoot it!" territory. Under the 1975 version of Law 16 some Directors ruled that _any_ successful call by the hesitator's partner was sufficient evidence that the hesitation had been fielded. A more pernicious heresy is an argument that, after receiving UI from pard, choosing a _contra-indicated_ logical alternative is illegal, because then one's bidding is being influenced by UI. One such heretic argued that Law 73C applied to players (with his interpretation of Law 73C being "choose the call you would always have chosen"), while Law 16 was applicable only to Directors. So the heretic turned a deaf ear to his pard's UI, then waited for the Director's subsequent Law 16 adjustment. Fortunately, due to the comprehensive rewrite of the 2007 Law 16, it is now apparent to the most obtuse heretic what their obligations are. Best wishes Richard James Hills Level 6 Aqua Training Suite Governance & Graduates Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6225 6776 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 Feb 22 05:46:38 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:46:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005101c874ca$da4b4180$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan: >It just seems to me that asking is really contrary >to the idea of the game. 2007 Law 9A3 (second sentence): "However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)." Richard Hills: The above clause is one of the significant changes to "the idea of the game", since under the 1997 Lawbook only dummy was specifically granted some rights to prevent an irregularity. Ergo, asking a question to prevent the irregularity of an established revoke is consistent with the new idea of the game introduced in the 2007 Law 9A3. Best wishes Richard James Hills Governance & Graduates Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8458 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 Fri Feb 22 05:48:09 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:48:09 +0900 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb050ead26@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb050ead26@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802220448.AA12543@geller204.nifty.com> Wayne Burrows writes: >The information contain in 4+ is essentially "not 0-3". The >information contained in the replacement bid 5+ incorporates "not 0-3" >and includes the additional information "not exactly 4". This sort of >relationship between the replacement bid and the insufficient bid is >what is allowed by the new law. Your conclusion is sensible from a bridge point of view, but the claim that this is supported by the current language of 27C is really grasping at straws. The WBF should rewrite the law to obviate the need for specious arguments. Let's try it the other way. The replacement bid (2H) shows 5+. The IB shows 4+. Obviously there is a category (exactly 4) of hands that could have made the IB that is NOT included in the category of hands that could have made the replacement bid. Thus the replacement bid 82H) does not incorporate the IB. Full stop. Instead of our wasting time on this silly argument we should be instead be turning up the heat on the Lords of the Law to fix this wretchedly drafted law..... -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 08:18:53 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:18:53 +1300 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802220448.AA12543@geller204.nifty.com> References: <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb050ead26@mail.gmail.com> <200802220448.AA12543@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802212318y25e1bcf8ydab830d56233d50d@mail.gmail.com> On 22/02/2008, Robert Geller wrote: > Wayne Burrows writes: > >The information contain in 4+ is essentially "not 0-3". The > >information contained in the replacement bid 5+ incorporates "not 0-3" > >and includes the additional information "not exactly 4". This sort of > >relationship between the replacement bid and the insufficient bid is > >what is allowed by the new law. > > Your conclusion is sensible from a bridge point of view, but the > claim that this is supported by the current language of 27C is really > grasping at straws. The WBF should rewrite the law to obviate the > need for specious arguments. > > Let's try it the other way. The replacement bid (2H) shows 5+. > The IB shows 4+. Obviously there is a category (exactly 4) of > hands that could have made the IB that is NOT included in > the category of hands that could have made the replacement > bid. Thus the replacement bid 82H) does not incorporate the > IB. Full stop. > > Instead of our wasting time on this silly argument we should be > instead be turning up the heat on the Lords of the Law to fix this > wretchedly drafted law..... > The language of the law is "by a bid ... that incorporates the information contained in the insufficient bid". It is the information conveyed by they replacement bid not the description of the replacement bid that has to incorporate the information contained in the insufficient bid. We need to appreciate that the more information that is conveyed by a bid then the fewer hands that will make that bid and conversely that the less information contained in a bid the more hands that will make that bid. A precision 1C that shows 16+ gives less information than a standard 2NT opening showing 20-21 hcp in a balanced hand. The information in the 2NT opening 20-21 hcp balanced incorporates the information in 1C 16+. In addition to the information 16+ the 2NT opening contains additional information that narrow the range of hands to 20-21 hcp and limit the distribution to balanced hands. To me this seems a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the words in the law. Wayne From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Feb 23 04:31:33 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:31:33 -0800 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560802212318y25e1bcf8ydab830d56233d50d@mail.gmail.co m> References: <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb050ead26@mail.gmail.com> <200802220448.AA12543@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802212318y25e1bcf8ydab830d56233d50d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080222192739.03e84428@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 11:18 PM 21/02/2008, you wrote: >On 22/02/2008, Robert Geller wrote: > > Wayne Burrows writes: > > >The information contain in 4+ is essentially "not 0-3". The > > >information contained in the replacement bid 5+ incorporates "not 0-3" > > >and includes the additional information "not exactly 4". This sort of > > >relationship between the replacement bid and the insufficient bid is > > >what is allowed by the new law. > > > > Your conclusion is sensible from a bridge point of view, but the > > claim that this is supported by the current language of 27C is really > > grasping at straws. The WBF should rewrite the law to obviate the > > need for specious arguments. > > > > Let's try it the other way. The replacement bid (2H) shows 5+. > > The IB shows 4+. Obviously there is a category (exactly 4) of > > hands that could have made the IB that is NOT included in > > the category of hands that could have made the replacement > > bid. Thus the replacement bid 82H) does not incorporate the > > IB. Full stop. > > > > Instead of our wasting time on this silly argument we should be > > instead be turning up the heat on the Lords of the Law to fix this > > wretchedly drafted law..... > > > >The language of the law is "by a bid ... that incorporates the >information contained in the insufficient bid". > >It is the information conveyed by they replacement bid not the >description of the replacement bid that has to incorporate the >information contained in the insufficient bid. > >We need to appreciate that the more information that is conveyed by a >bid then the fewer hands that will make that bid and conversely that >the less information contained in a bid the more hands that will make >that bid. > >A precision 1C that shows 16+ gives less information than a standard >2NT opening showing 20-21 hcp in a balanced hand. > >The information in the 2NT opening 20-21 hcp balanced incorporates the >information in 1C 16+. In addition to the information 16+ the 2NT >opening contains additional information that narrow the range of hands >to 20-21 hcp and limit the distribution to balanced hands. > >To me this seems a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the words in the >law. In the classic 1C (1S) 1H, it seems wrong to allow a double which shows 4+ hearts (say), or a correction to 2H which should show (5+) hearts. I have to explain to the offender both options (perhaps away from the table) and then they get to choose which suits them best. I know I am also supposed to be ready with the firing squad if they get a great result from choosing luckily. Tony (Sydney) From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 22 11:20:59 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:20:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000201c87541$c4f0d260$13ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 1:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Return to Oz [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Nigel Guthrie: > > [snip] > >>In the given auction, some argue that pass is *not* a logical >>alternative; but I think it is a logical alternative for a >>player who would have passed on the previous round. I wouldn't >>trust this intuition unless confirmed by a poll of the >>player's peers (peers who would have passed on the previous >>round). > > Richard Hills: > > There is a useful rule of thumb "never sacrifice against a > partscore". This may have been the reasoning of those blmlers > who passed RHO's 3H, but then bid 4S once LHO raised to 4H. > > Furthermore the favourable vulnerability also suggests a save > in 4S. > > So perhaps passing out 4H only just qualifies as a logical > alternative. If one assumes that Pass was indeed only just a > logical alternative, was the Appeals Committee correct in > imposing a fine for a meritless appeal? > > In my opinion, yes, since the appellants failed to produce any > new evidence at the hearing to demonstrate that Pass was _not_ a > logical alternative. > > WBF Code of Practice, page 6: > > "The expectation is that each appeal committee will presume > initially that the Director's ruling is correct. The ruling is > overturned only on the basis of evidence presented." > +=+ It is not beyond belief that the committee thought the player knew very well what he was doing and what his responsibilities were. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 22 11:42:12 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:42:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000301c87541$c7bc0050$13ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 4:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Stefanie Rohan: > >>It just seems to me that asking is really contrary >>to the idea of the game. > > 2007 Law 9A3 (second sentence): > > "However any player, including dummy, may attempt > to prevent another player's committing an > irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and > 43)." > > Richard Hills: > > The above clause is one of the significant changes > to "the idea of the game", since under the 1997 > Lawbook only dummy was specifically granted some > rights to prevent an irregularity. > > Ergo, asking a question to prevent the irregularity > of an established revoke is consistent with the new > idea of the game introduced in the 2007 Law 9A3. > +=+ When, in November 2006, the subcommittee showed its drafts, as they then were, to all NBOs and Zones for their remarks we received a comment that said: "The 1997 laws (as well as the previous version) forbade the asking of 'no spades partner?' by defenders (except that an opt-out was allowed). Zone 'x' did not elect an opt-out. It took time and effort for players to get used to this change but it has now taken hold. The elimination of 'elections' from this law is in principle welcome, but not if the single global standard goes back to pre-1987. There is no obvious benefit from such questions and the potential for UI is huge. Is this something where some sort of compromise (leaving it up to the regulating authority) can be made?" We recognized from this that there were strong opinions in places and, where we had not provided an option, we inserted the option for RAs to exercise. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 22 15:42:54 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:42:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz In-Reply-To: <003f01c874e9$bdd4a1d0$10d3403e@Mildred> References: <47B96BF9.2080501@NTLworld.com><002f01c8723e$63fef050$44d0403e@Mildred><47B9BE45.90900@NTLworld.com> <601084D4-9290-4000-B810-41EA51A5EBE0@starpower.net> <003f01c874e9$bdd4a1d0$10d3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <44A3A3D4-3B04-407B-95AB-068B1C45F200@starpower.net> On Feb 21, 2008, at 7:27 PM, wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >>> Short of a confession from a player, the best a director can do is >>> argue >>> that a logical alternative is *likely* to have been suggested. >> >> Which is sufficient. If he can show that one alternative can validly >> be described as "likely to have been suggested" whereas another can >> be described as "unlikely to have been suggested", he will have >> "demonstrated" that the former "is suggested" over the latter. >> >>> Take the case under discussion. Suppose that Pass and 4S are logical >>> alternatives for you when your partner tanks after LHO raises RHO's >>> jump >>> overcall. The director must judge which logical alternative (if any) >>> partner's hesitation suggests. >>> >>> Assuming that your partner is an expert, the director must estimate >>> the >>> frequency of the different kinds of hand, with which an expert would >>> hesitate. Finally, suppose the director estimates that when your >>> partner >>> hesitates in this context, he will have >>> - a borderline "action double" 90% of the time; and >>> - a mountainous penalty double 10% of the time. >> >> I don't understand this scenario at all. A hesitation always >> suggests a borderline action. With a "mountainous penalty double" an >> ethical player would not hesitate playing penalty doubles, and would >> not double playing "action" doubles. > > +=+ I find this discussion tortuous. I believe that 'could > demonstrably > suggest' is concerned with a question of certainty. If the Director > judges > that the hesitation demonstrably *could* suggest one thing over > another > he can so rule. The question is 'could it?'. Because of the context in which we find it necessary to make such decisions, there's an easy, practical test that I like to use when facing such decisions as an AC member. A player, who has UI, has chosen alternative A over alternative B, which has produced a superior result to what would have occurred had he chosen B. I will ask the committee this: If he had chosen B, and the cards lay such that he got a superior result to what would have occurred had he chosen A, would we be considering adjusting the score now? If so, then A was not demonstrably suggested over B; if not, then it was. > If he is faced with a situation that it could well suggest > one of two > opposed things he has to resolve which of the two in his opinion it > did > suggest. For this he has the power of determining facts in accordance > with the principle of the balance of probabilities (see Law 85A1). He > may consider the subsequent action of the player's partner as part of > the evidence he gathers. The question Nigel raises is whether his determination "in accordance with the principle of the balance of probabilities" is confined to the facts of the particular situation at hand, or whether they should take into account the a priori probabilities of the cards being dealt to favor one action over another. If the TD/AC determines that the UI indicated a marginal game invitation, but did not indicate whether it was only just strong enough (a near pass) or only just weak enough (a near game-bid), is the player free to accept or decline the invitation as he chooses? Or should a significant difference in the a priori probabilities of partner's holding a near pass versus a near game-bid be sufficient to suggest one action over the other? In my experience, the latter is not a consideration in current practice, which may bias me towards thinking that it shouldn't be, but I am far from certain. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From geller at nifty.com Fri Feb 22 16:08:49 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:08:49 +0900 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C1 question In-Reply-To: <44A3A3D4-3B04-407B-95AB-068B1C45F200@starpower.net> References: <44A3A3D4-3B04-407B-95AB-068B1C45F200@starpower.net> Message-ID: <200802221508.AA12546@geller204.nifty.com> N E S E 1C 2H 1S DIRECTOR! Question: what replacement calls are allowed? Answer: This appears to depend on what South was going on. Scenario 1: South thought East passed. In that case 1S would show 4+. Maybe a negative double of 2H (showing 4+ spades) and 2S (showing 5+ spades and 10+ points) should both be allowed. Scenario 2: South thought East bid 1H. In that case (in the case of most players in Japan) a negative double of 1H would show exactly 4 spades and 1S would show 5+ spades and 6+ points. 2S would be 5+ spades and 10+ points, while neg X of 2H would show 4+ spades and maybe 8+ points. I'm not sure either of these replacement calls should be allowed. What do the rest of you guys think. It appears that scenario 1 is more favorable to South. But how can the director decide what the IB of 1S meant without knowing what auction South thought was going on? And how can the director figure out without asking South? Special bonus question: Once ordinary players figure this stuff out, what answer do YOU think South will give the director? -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 22 16:27:49 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:27:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd In-Reply-To: <200802220043.AA12539@geller204.nifty.com> References: <001701c874d3$acbb0bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200802220043.AA12539@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <871BD755-DDB5-408D-9EC9-E9A09D05D7C3@starpower.net> On Feb 21, 2008, at 7:43 PM, Robert Geller wrote: > This was a really sneaky ploy by the Lords of the Law: > > The 1997 Laws read as follows: > ********************************************************* > Law 61B - Defenders may ask declarer but, unless the > Zonal organisation so authorises, not one another. > Law 63B - When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the > revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty > provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been > established. > ************************************************************ > > whereas the 2007 Laws retain 61B but deleted 63B: > *********************************************************** > Law 61B - 3. Defenders may ask declarer and, unless prohibited by > the Regulating > Authority, may ask one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized > information). > ********************************************************** > > Thus under the 1997 Laws if a defender asked, and his pard had in fact > revoked the act of asking the question established the revoke, but > under the > 2007 Law the RA can outlaw the asking of the question by a > defender, but > cannot effectively penalize it. Under these circumstances the Laws > Commission of the JCBL reluctant decided to allow the asking of the > question, > even though we would have preferred to ban it. The effect of the old L63B was to penalize a revoke revealed by the illegal inquiry more harshly (by applying the penalty provisions of L64 *after* the revoke was corrected) than an unnoticed, established revoke. The dropping of the old L63B penalty eliminates the difference. We now treat the inquiry like any other infraction, by adjusting to a result that would have obtained had the infraction not occurred. We do not require (allow) the revoker to substitute a legal card, we play on, and we eventually penalize the established revoke normally. The only additional "penalty" paid for the inquiry itself is to preclude the possibility of the revoker noticing and correcting the revoke before it becomes established. This is consistent with the overall trend in the laws towards "restoring normality" in preference to imposing mechanical penalties. As an ACBLer, I have no experience with the consequences of this prohibition under either set of laws, hence no basis on which to opine on the merits of the change, but my intuition is that it was probably a good idea. There is no extra penalty for letting partner know that he has has dropped a card on the floor, or played out of turn, or committed any other irregularity, so why should there be for letting him know that he has revoked? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 22 16:40:18 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:40:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C1 question In-Reply-To: <200802221508.AA12546@geller204.nifty.com> References: <44A3A3D4-3B04-407B-95AB-068B1C45F200@starpower.net> <200802221508.AA12546@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47BEECE2.6000704@ulb.ac.be> Robert Geller a ?crit : > N E S E > 1C 2H 1S DIRECTOR! > > Question: what replacement calls are allowed? > > Answer: This appears to depend on what South was going on. > Scenario 1: South thought East passed. In that case 1S would show 4+. > Maybe a negative double of 2H (showing 4+ spades) and 2S (showing 5+ > spades and 10+ points) should both be allowed. > AG : they should, but only if a negative double would always show 4+ spades, which isn't the case in many partnerships. BTW, if playing rubensohl (where 2S is NF and 3H is a GF spade bid), allow 3H but not 2S (since 1S over 1C would have been unlimited) > Scenario 2: South thought East bid 1H. In that case (in the case of most > players in Japan) a negative double of 1H would show exactly 4 spades > and 1S would show 5+ spades and 6+ points. 2S would be 5+ spades > and 10+ points, while neg X of 2H would show 4+ spades and maybe 8+ points. > I'm not sure either of these replacement calls should be allowed. What do the > rest of you guys think. > If (big if) 1S would show 5+, then 2S (which also does) should be allowed (and see remark about rubensohl), while a double shouldn't. If it shows 4+, then both double (if showing 4+) and 2S should be allowed > It appears that scenario 1 is more favorable to South. But how can the director > decide what the IB of 1S meant without knowing what auction South thought > was going on? And how can the director figure out without asking South? > Why "without" ? He should ask (preferably away from the table). > Special bonus question: Once ordinary players figure this stuff out, what > answer do YOU think South will give the director? > > I think.he will answer honestly. At least that's what I should think. Super-bonus question : is there any chance that ordinary players ever figure this out ? NB : I don't think it's impossible (or even uncommon) that more than one replacement bid be acceptable. In my most usual partnership, all four of the following would be acceptable after 1C (1H) 1H (NB : 1H over 1C = transfer to spades, 4+ cards) - double (shows 4+ spades) - 2H (game force with either 6 spades or 5 spades + club fit) - 2S (weak) - 3D (GF with 5S/5D) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 22 16:45:50 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:45:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd In-Reply-To: <871BD755-DDB5-408D-9EC9-E9A09D05D7C3@starpower.net> References: <001701c874d3$acbb0bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200802220043.AA12539@geller204.nifty.com> <871BD755-DDB5-408D-9EC9-E9A09D05D7C3@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47BEEE2E.2020004@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > The effect of the old L63B was to penalize a revoke revealed by the > illegal inquiry more harshly (by applying the penalty provisions of > L64 *after* the revoke was corrected) than an unnoticed, established > revoke. The dropping of the old L63B penalty eliminates the > difference. We now treat the inquiry like any other infraction, by > adjusting to a result that would have obtained had the infraction not > occurred. We do not require (allow) the revoker to substitute a > legal card, we play on, and we eventually penalize the established > revoke normally. The only additional "penalty" paid for the inquiry > itself is to preclude the possibility of the revoker noticing and > correcting the revoke before it becomes established. This is > consistent with the overall trend in the laws towards "restoring > normality" in preference to imposing mechanical penalties. > > As an ACBLer, I have no experience with the consequences of this > prohibition under either set of laws, hence no basis on which to > opine on the merits of the change, but my intuition is that it was > probably a good idea. There is no extra penalty for letting partner > know that he has has dropped a card on the floor, or played out of > turn, or committed any other irregularity, so why should there be for > letting him know that he has revoked? > > It makes sense to be harsh against revokers, because it might slip unnoticed. This means something should be done to avoid the "either it goes unnoticed, or I'm no worse than before" effect. But it makes less sense to be harsher once the revoke is duly exposed by partner, because this can't happen anymore. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 22 16:47:45 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:47:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb050ead26@mail.gmail.com> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <200802150238.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104c3@mail.gmail.com> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <2a1c3a560802201324g7d328eafu5632fe7d37e2b593@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb050ead26@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> On Feb 21, 2008, at 10:14 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > On 21/02/2008, Eric Landau wrote: > >> Wayne seems to draw the right conclusions about what the law allows, >> but expresses his reasoning in words opposite to those in the law's >> description of what it allows. As Wayne has demonstrated in the past >> that he is not in the least bit stupid, he has convinced me that his >> confusion must be blamed on the language of the law. > > I have to admit when I first read this law I thought it was backwards. > But then on a more careful reading it seemed right to me. > > After reading Eric's posts I started to think that I was really > confused afterall. > > So I decided to look through this again this afternoon. > > It appears I twice wrote "is incorporated in" when I should have > written simply "incorporates". These are the offending sentences: > > "The information 5+ is incorporated in the informations 4+." > > and > > "By breaking the information up in this way you can see that the > information 5+ is incorporated in the information 4+." > > My arguments are that 'the information in 5+ incorporates the > information in 4+". I think I understood this in my mind while > carelessly writing the opposite in the two offending sentences which > were also the opposite of the rest of my arguments. > > Let me try one more time: > > The information contain in 4+ is essentially "not 0-3". The > information contained in the replacement bid 5+ incorporates "not 0-3" > and includes the additional information "not exactly 4". This sort of > relationship between the replacement bid and the insufficient bid is > what is allowed by the new law. Yes. Wayne now has it exactly right. From the first time I read it, I found L27C1 clear, unamibiguous and not at all troublesome (at least through "continues", but that's the portion we're talking about). But so many people have had so much difficulty understanding it that I have become convinced that there must be a serious problem with the language that I do not see. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 22 17:15:58 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:15:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802220448.AA12543@geller204.nifty.com> References: <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb050ead26@mail.gmail.com> <200802220448.AA12543@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <35CFDCD5-67D8-483C-B0BF-C421640A053E@starpower.net> On Feb 21, 2008, at 11:48 PM, Robert Geller wrote: > Wayne Burrows writes: >> The information contain in 4+ is essentially "not 0-3". The >> information contained in the replacement bid 5+ incorporates "not >> 0-3" >> and includes the additional information "not exactly 4". This >> sort of >> relationship between the replacement bid and the insufficient bid is >> what is allowed by the new law. > > Your conclusion is sensible from a bridge point of view, but the > claim that this is supported by the current language of 27C is really > grasping at straws. The WBF should rewrite the law to obviate the > need for specious arguments. > > Let's try it the other way. The replacement bid (2H) shows 5+. > The IB shows 4+. Obviously there is a category (exactly 4) of > hands that could have made the IB that is NOT included in > the category of hands that could have made the replacement > bid. Thus the replacement bid 82H) does not incorporate the > IB. Full stop. One last try, for Bob's benefit: L27C1 does not say that the replacement bid [RB] must incorporate the IB; it says that *the information from* the RB must incorporate *the information from* the IB. The "category of hands" is not "the information". The information is that the hand being decribed *belongs to* the category. The *information from* the RB is "my hand contains 5 or more hearts". The information from the IB is "my hand contains 4 or more hearts". As it is impossible to hold 5 or more hearts without holding 4 or more hearts, the former information "incorporates" the latter. WTDP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 22 17:41:21 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:41:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C1 question In-Reply-To: <200802221508.AA12546@geller204.nifty.com> References: <44A3A3D4-3B04-407B-95AB-068B1C45F200@starpower.net> <200802221508.AA12546@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <90A2EBE3-A1D8-4709-8DE0-564D40FE5732@starpower.net> On Feb 22, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > N E S E > 1C 2H 1S DIRECTOR! > > Question: what replacement calls are allowed? > > Answer: This appears to depend on what South was going on. > Scenario 1: South thought East passed. In that case 1S would > show 4+. > Maybe a negative double of 2H (showing 4+ spades) and 2S (showing 5+ > spades and 10+ points) should both be allowed. They should (unless there is some disparity in the HCP ranges that we're not being told about). > Scenario 2: South thought East bid 1H. In that case (in the case > of most > players in Japan) a negative double of 1H would show exactly 4 spades > and 1S would show 5+ spades and 6+ points. 2S would be 5+ spades > and 10+ points, while neg X of 2H would show 4+ spades and maybe 8+ > points. > I'm not sure either of these replacement calls should be allowed. > What do the > rest of you guys think. 2S should be allowed; it tells you that partner has 5+ spades and 10+ points, so your knowing from the IB that he has 5+ spades and 6+ points adds no information. A negative double would not be allowed; it could be made with only 4 spades, but you would know from the IB that he has 5+. > It appears that scenario 1 is more favorable to South. But how > can the director > decide what the IB of 1S meant without knowing what auction South > thought > was going on? And how can the director figure out without asking > South? He can't, of course. How can anyone ever know what anyone "thought" without asking them? Asking doesn't necessarily mean accepting any answer provided in any manner whatsoever as unquestionable truth. Directors ask questions, evaluate evidence, and make findings of fact. That's what they're paid to do. > Special bonus question: Once ordinary players figure this stuff > out, what > answer do YOU think South will give the director? I think South will tell the truth approximately 99.9548% of the time. I don't worry about the fact that approximately .0452% of the time some bloddy-minded cheater will lie to me; I am confident that he will be drummed out of my game soon enough. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 22 18:22:10 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:22:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd In-Reply-To: <47BEEE2E.2020004@ulb.ac.be> References: <001701c874d3$acbb0bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200802220043.AA12539@geller204.nifty.com> <871BD755-DDB5-408D-9EC9-E9A09D05D7C3@starpower.net> <47BEEE2E.2020004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8F1C17FF-5BF9-4420-9B21-27AF64EE5DDF@starpower.net> On Feb 22, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> As an ACBLer, I have no experience with the consequences of this >> prohibition under either set of laws, hence no basis on which to >> opine on the merits of the change, but my intuition is that it was >> probably a good idea. There is no extra penalty for letting partner >> know that he has has dropped a card on the floor, or played out of >> turn, or committed any other irregularity, so why should there be for >> letting him know that he has revoked? > > It makes sense to be harsh against revokers, because it might slip > unnoticed. > This means something should be done to avoid the "either it goes > unnoticed, or I'm no worse than before" effect. > But it makes less sense to be harsher once the revoke is duly > exposed by > partner, because this can't happen anymore. I suppose one advantage to ACBL practice -- by which the inquiry is not only legal but routine -- is that a lot fewer revokes slip by unnoticed! Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 22 19:10:46 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:10:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080222192739.03e84428@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb050ead26@mail.gmail.com> <200802220448.AA12543@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802212318y25e1bcf8ydab830d56233d50d@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080222192739.03e84428@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Feb 22, 2008, at 10:31 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > In the classic 1C (1S) 1H, it seems wrong to allow a double which > shows > 4+ hearts (say), or a correction to 2H which should show (5+) > hearts. I have > to explain to the offender both options (perhaps away from the > table) and > then they get to choose which suits them best. I know I am also > supposed > to be ready with the firing squad if they get a great result from > choosing > luckily. This example doesn't make sense; bidding systems don't offer arbitrary choices between multiple calls on a given auction and a given hand. There has to be enough additional definition of double (beyond "shows 4+ hearts") or 2H (beyond "show[s] 5+ hearts") for one of those two calls to promise a hand unsuitable for the other. (Common treatments of double, any of which would suffice to validate the example, include exactly 4 hearts, 5+ hearts only if lacking the HC strength to bid 2H (else 4+), or diamonds as well as hearts.) As long as the player chooses the call that is systemically indicated given his hand over the one that is not (the same call he'd have presumably chosen if he hadn't bid insufficiently to begin with), it is meaningless to call that "choosing luckily", and no need for the firing squad (i.e. L27C2 will not apply). "Choosing luckily", and the firing squad, would come into play in this example only if there were some unmentioned third choice in addition to double or 2H, with which the player would have bid 1H on (presumably) 1C-P-?, which is the systemically indicated call on 1C-1S-?, and which fails to meet the criterion in L27C1 for a substitution without penalty (as otherwise there would be no reason for him not to select it). Even then, we do not muster out the firing squad whenever he gets a better result by choosing 2H over double or vice versa, but only when he gets a better result than he might have had he not made the IB in the first place (and not therefore misdescribed his hand). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Fri Feb 22 04:17:40 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:17:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] sking about possible revoke References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com> Message-ID: <003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 12:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] sking about possible revoke > Yep sure did nip UI in the bud. No difficulty in having to work out > whether > or not UI was used in the rest of the play. No need to make judgements > about > lines of defense, etc. ACBL was against prohibition of the question > because > they felt that most of the ACBL players from average to below level had no > idea what UI was being introduced, and the higher level could be handled > on > a case by case basis. Agreed. Before 1997 I had never encountered a situation where > it became necessary to adjust a score because of the use of UI. > > But the trend is to soften the laws, regulations, and rules so that "more > normal results" can be obtained. (Pretty soon we will be playing "par" > duplicate bridge which of course is much to the benefit of the hired > hands.) Amen, Amen :) A trend thoroughly to be deprecated > Though this relaxation for those who were adamant about no questions, -- > who > now are the ones adamant about allowing the questions -- is not directly > affected by the "change", it goes along with the idea of identifying UI > and > then placing the burden on the TD to work it out. This is not the only > place > where the TD is being placed in having to make judgements where there were > formerly clear, recipe oriented, unbending avenues which were not subject > to > the TD's level of expertise. It remains to be seen if this is in fact a > "better" way of managing the game. Those who are in the line of fire as > TDs > SHOULD quickly let us know if we are in fact on a "better" road. That's a no-brainer in this quarter, Kojak. > > Ahoy yourself, Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Easterson" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:03 PM > Subject: [blml] sking about possible revoke > > >> Kojak or Grattan ought to be able to say something authoritative about >> this. I had always believed that the rule (not observed in the ACBL) >> not allowing defenders to ask about a possible revoke when partner did >> not follow suit was installed to avoid the situation in which a player, >> surprised (because, for example, declarer has a concealed 5-card suit he >> did not show), enquired if partner (really) could not follow suit. This >> restriction seemed to me to be eminently sensible. Nips UI in the bud, >> so to speak. Ahoy, 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 john at asimere.com Fri Feb 22 04:37:10 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:37:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <200802220114.AA12540@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <003701c8757f$332135d0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The new L27C2 > My main problems with L27C are > (1) that as written ("...incorporates...") says more or less > the opposite of what was apparently meant. > (2) Even if the wording of L27C were to be fixed by whaever > quick fix is now being debated secretly by the Lords of the Law > I'm skeptical that their fix won't just create other problems > instead (if they made this mess the first time why should we > expect them to get it right the 2nd time, espcially when > they're working in secret without (AFIK) any check by the > federations). > (3) Even if the wording of L27C was miraculously fixed, > its implementation will create terribly difficult problems > for ordinary directors in the field, especially less > experienced directors or those without relatively sophisticated > knowledge of bidding systems. "If the director deems that the substituted call has information content substantially the same as the withdrawn call he shall allow the substitution and retain the right to adjust the score should he deem that information from the withdrawn call affected the subsequent actions of the offending side." The point being that "making the bid good" in a normal non-conventional auction is (or should be) handled this way as well. > > As a secondary problem I'm a bit suspicious that IBers won't > quickly work out that certain self-serving answers to the > directors' questions will give them favorable results. Japanese > players are very honest in some senses (women leave their > handbags in all kinds of places and I've never heard of any theft > problems) but I've never been at a table, not once, where a > player who made an IB admitted to a "slip of the mind," rather > than a "slip of the hand (tongue)" "My" Japanese are obviously more honest than "Your" Japanese :) I find they have remarkably good ethics, once the principle of "how do we play bridge?" has been explained. I do award "ethics prizes" to players who have been honest to their own detriment. It seems that praise from the TD works. John as the reason for pulling > the wrong bidding card. So I think the idea that all we have > to do to implement L27C is to have the director ask the IBer > what he meant is really quite naive. > > Finally, I have a sort of philosophical objection to all this. > Bridge is a simple game, but to win you have to always be > paying attention. If you forget to unblock, thereby letting > declarer throw you in, you won't get a do-over, even though > this poor result is due to not paying attention. Why then > should the aim of the Laws be to "restore equity" in the cases > of IBs or revokes, etc. It seems to be there ought to be some > appropriate penalty for disrupting the smooth progress of the > game. Max Bavin once said to me "Much as I hate it, John, I have to agree with your interpretation as it _is_ a given that we should always try to achieve a bridge result." (I was arguing angels on the head of a pin with him about some bizarre case.) I believe that is why I get paid, to "get a bridge result if at all possible" within an acceptable interpretation of law of course. Therefore, much as I sympathise with your position, I don't hold hold it myself John > > -Bob > > > From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Feb 22 21:43:05 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:43:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd In-Reply-To: <8F1C17FF-5BF9-4420-9B21-27AF64EE5DDF@starpower.net> References: <001701c874d3$acbb0bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200802220043.AA12539@geller204.nifty.com> <871BD755-DDB5-408D-9EC9-E9A09D05D7C3@starpower.net> <47BEEE2E.2020004@ulb.ac.be> <8F1C17FF-5BF9-4420-9B21-27AF64EE5DDF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47BF33D9.9040909@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] I suppose one advantage to ACBL practice -- by which the inquiry is not only legal but routine -- is that a lot fewer revokes slip by unnoticed! {Nige1] The real advantage from "asking" will accrue to careless and unscrupulous players, who can convey count information by word of mouth, -- unless directors severely penalise players who *don't* always ask. From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 22 22:15:58 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:15:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd In-Reply-To: <47BF33D9.9040909@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000001c87598$1eb84250$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Guthrie .............. > {Nige1] > The real advantage from "asking" will accrue to careless and > unscrupulous players, who can convey count information by word of mouth, > -- unless directors severely penalise players who *don't* always ask. Like for instance when partner has already shown out once or when he shows out on the fourth round declarer pulls trump? The best "question" I was ever told about occurred some years ago when declarer started pulling trumps and a defender was void. Declarer asked him very politely: "Couldn't you please look once more?" Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Feb 22 23:08:10 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:08:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Run away jury In-Reply-To: <003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com> <003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <47BF47CA.30607@NTLworld.com> [WILLIAM SCHODER] This is not the only place where the TD is being placed in having to make judgements where there were formerly clear, recipe oriented, unbending avenues which were not subject to the TD's level of expertise. It remains to be seen if this is in fact a "better" way of managing the game. Those who are in the line of fire as TDs SHOULD quickly let us know if we are in fact on a "better" road. [John (MadDog) Probst] That's a no-brainer in this quarter, Kojak. [Nige1] Surprisingly, for once, I agree with John. The trend towards laws that depend less on simple objective facts and rely instead on the sophisticated subjective judgement of directors is to be deplored :( The law-makers have issued new shotguns to directors. The importance of the director's role is inflated; he enjoys more interesting decisions; he will often be able to decide the outcome of a competition on a personal whim. The director's subjective decision is harder for player to dispute successfully :) It is the poor players who is in the line of fire. For players, there are obvious drawbacks in the trend to subjectivity :( For example ... [A] When a decision is subjective, different directors rule differently on identical facts, in identical circumstances. It is easy to demonstrate this by reading about almost any ruling or appeal decision in BLML or elsewhere. Naturally, such different outcomes are perceived as unfair by players. (Especially if some rules are squirrelled away in unlikely places; rules are not just needlessly subjective but are also unnecessarily sophisticated and complex; directors disagree about their interpretation, as well as their application; and, anyway, most of the resulting argument is above player's heads). If this were some random effect, then the resulting chaos would be annoying but morally neutral. However there is a more serious and controversial perception, common among players, but vehemently denied by directors, especially on BLML. This is impossible to prove beyond doubt but plenty of circumstantial evidence is available ... [B] Look at rulings discussed by partisan BLMLers -- directors who are friends or compatriots of an alleged law-breaker. They often come to peculiar conclusions favourable to their prot?g?, quite different from anybody else. I'm told that if you are aware of connections between protagonists and committee members, a seemingly bizarre appeal committee decision may come as much less of a surprise. Friends often complain about it, convincingly, so I doubt whether all such suspicions are based on imagination. It seems to be a real problem although I haven't experienced such bias myself. The law-makers have absolutely no need to foster this pernicious trend by increasing the relative importance of subjective judgement in the rules for what is, after all, only a game. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Feb 23 01:03:02 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:03:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <200802150238.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104c3@mail.gmail.com> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <2a1c3a560802201324g7d328eafu5632fe7d37e2b593@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb050ead26@mail.gmail.com> <4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> [EL] >From the first time I read it, I found L27C1 clear, unamibiguous and not at all troublesome (at least through "continues", but that's the portion we're talking about). But so many people have had so much difficulty understanding it that I have become convinced that there must be a serious problem with the language that I do not see. [DALB] It's not so much that there is a problem with the language, but there is a problem with whether the language reflects the intent of the Lawmakers. Simpliciter: if all Xs are Ys, then the information "this is a Y" incorporates the information "this is an X". If some Ys are not Xs, the information "this is an X" does not incorporate the information "this is a Y". Law 27C as currently written 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. We define: hands that would make the insufficient bid (IB) as Xs; hands that would make the replacement call (RC) as Ys; RCs that permit the auction to continue as "allowed". And we answer Robert Geller's question thus: N E S E 1C 2H 1S DIRECTOR! Question: what replacement calls are allowed? (1) Can South make an allowed RC of "double"? Yes, if the RC (which means "my hand is a Y") would be made on all hands that would make the IB of "one spade" (which means "my hand is an X"). No, otherwise (or not necessarily, otherwise - see below). (2) Can South make an allowed RC of "two spades"? Yes, if the RC (which means "my hand is a Y") would be made on all hands that would make the IB of "one spade" (which means "my hand is an X"). No, otherwise. For the most part, this means that we do not need to know what South thought the auction was; all we need to know is what South's methods are (and we expect him to answer this question truthfully if we ask it). This is not to say that all difficulties are eliminated, including the difficulty to which Robert refers. For example; if South has: Qxxx x AJxxxx xx then if North opened 1C and East passed, South might bid 1S or 1D according to whether or not he was playing Walsh. If, however, East overcalled 1H, South would double unless this denied spades, in which case he would presumably bid 1S. Whether or not a South not playing Walsh, or playing double to deny spades, is allowed "double" as a RC over 2H (and doubtless he would double if in full possession of his faculties) may depend on whether he thought East bid 1H or whether he thought East passed. Again, this is a question to which we expect him to respond truthfully, though it is possible that he may see some advantage in not doing so. In correspondence with some members of the WBF DSC on this topic a few weeks ago, I remarked of the desire to allow corrections without penalty of insufficient bids that: I assume it is the normal barmy Kaplanesque stuff: no one at a high level should be penalized for an "obviously mechanical" error like passing a cue bid, so you peasants at low levels can have a mish-mash of rules and argue among yourselves whether what you did was because you're clumsy or because you're stupid. We Rosenbergs and Martels only play the game with our brains, and if they become detached from time to time from our fingers, that's not our fault. Good thing we don't play tennis, or some other actual sport in which what you do remains what you did, whether you meant to do it or not. A month or so later, I see no reason to disagree with myself. David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Sat Feb 23 12:05:07 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:05:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Run away jury In-Reply-To: <47BF47CA.30607@NTLworld.com> References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com> <003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47BF47CA.30607@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47BFFDE3.50604@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > > For example ... > > [A] When a decision is subjective, different directors rule differently > on identical facts, in identical circumstances. But ara circumstances strictly identical ? You can't gainsay the fact that a good TD will rule MI for some non-alert while another TD, as good as the former one, will rule no MI, because what's standard in this club, or in this game, or among this class of players, is different, and both will be right. And we, on blml, are also influenced by our local background and the level of expertise of the players we're accustomed to directing. Deducing from the fact that two TDs have ruled differently that one should make the laws 100% mechanic is far-fetched. I'm not in favor of throwing fairness away for the sake of trying to eliminate the last atom of possible bias. Perhaps my experience as a teacher, and as such, on college "AC"'s , has something to do with this. Best regards Alain From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Fri Feb 15 22:52:53 2008 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?us-ascii?Q?Andre_Steffens?=) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:52:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] What the heck is going on? Message-ID: <000001c8701d$1e022a40$1510a8c0@FK27.local> Playing for IMPs, all vulnerable, South dealing, being West you hold: 9x AJTxxx 9xx xx The auction goes: (pass) pass (1 :d:) pass (pass) ??? You play with a pickup partner with whom you have agreed to play four card majors,15-17NT, Multi 2 D and semiforcing 2H/2S openings. 1.What call do you make? 2. What other calls do you consider making? However, after the 1D (5 card major, lowest minor) partner hesitates visibly and passes. 3. Does this hesitation suggest one of the calls you were considering? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080215/18c371bb/attachment.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 18 10:29:31 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:29:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] A new fun game - Alain's contribution In-Reply-To: <001801c8720d$f8474220$65cd403e@Mildred> References: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B42732.8070906@ulb.ac.be><011a01c870ad$c5d28360$9a493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> <47B93783.4020105@ulb.ac.be> <001801c8720d$f8474220$65cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47B94FFB.3030108@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************** > "When my stick touches the air, > you play." > ~ Serge Koussevitzky > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:45 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] A new fun game - Alain's contribution > > > >> this substitution should be allowed IMOBO. >> >> > +=+ Seeker after truth enquires "is that 'obviously biased'?" +=+ > In My Own Biased Opinion. Personal feeling is that everything that appears on blml could earn an IMOBO, IMOCO (Conceited) or at least IMNSHO (Not So Humble). The diffecrence is : I'm aware of that ;-P Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080218/934eecd9/attachment.htm From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Feb 25 09:37:13 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:37:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] What the heck is going on? In-Reply-To: <000001c8701d$1e022a40$1510a8c0@FK27.local> References: <000001c8701d$1e022a40$1510a8c0@FK27.local> Message-ID: <022d01c87789$9ec821c0$dc586540$@nl> 1 pass 2 actually none, the only call worth considering might be 1H 3 perhaps not. If partner has hearts and diamonds bidding might work(if opps can't make 4S) if he has spades and diamonds I had better pass. Hans From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Andre Steffens Sent: vrijdag 15 februari 2008 22:53 To: blml at amsterdamned.org Subject: [blml] What the heck is going on? Playing for IMPs, all vulnerable, South dealing, being West you hold: 9x AJTxxx 9xx xx The auction goes: (pass) pass (1 :d:) pass (pass) ??? You play with a pickup partner with whom you have agreed to play four card majors,15-17NT, Multi 2 D and semiforcing 2H/2S openings. 1.What call do you make? 2. What other calls do you consider making? However, after the 1D (5 card major, lowest minor) partner hesitates visibly and passes. 3. Does this hesitation suggest one of the calls you were considering? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080225/140d69d3/attachment.htm From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Feb 25 10:03:51 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:03:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <2008021502 38.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104 c3@mail.gmail.com> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <2a 1c3a560802201324g7d328eafu5632fe7d37e2b593@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb0 50ead26@mail.gmail.com><4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> Message-ID: <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> David Burn a ?crit : > [EL] > >>From the first time I read it, I found L27C1 clear, unamibiguous and not at > all troublesome (at least through "continues", but that's the portion we're > talking about). But so many people have had so much difficulty > understanding it that I have become convinced that there must be a serious > problem with the language that I do not see. > > [DALB] > > It's not so much that there is a problem with the language, but there is a > problem with whether the language reflects the intent of the Lawmakers. > > Simpliciter: if all Xs are Ys, then the information "this is a Y" > incorporates the information "this is an X". no, i don't understand "incorporates" the same way than you. i understand it as "contains" or "is more precise than", and i think that it is the information "this is an X" that incorporates the information "this is an Y". but who am i, as an ignorant of english language, to give opinion on this issue? what is sure, is that it would be helpful to use less ambiguous words in the law. jpr If some Ys are not Xs, the > information "this is an X" does not incorporate the information "this is a > Y". > > Law 27C as currently written 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. > > We define: hands that would make the insufficient bid (IB) as Xs; hands that > would make the replacement call (RC) as Ys; RCs that permit the auction to > continue as "allowed". And we answer Robert Geller's question thus: > > N E S E > 1C 2H 1S DIRECTOR! > > Question: what replacement calls are allowed? > > (1) Can South make an allowed RC of "double"? Yes, if the RC (which means > "my hand is a Y") would be made on all hands that would make the IB of "one > spade" (which means "my hand is an X"). No, otherwise (or not necessarily, > otherwise - see below). > > (2) Can South make an allowed RC of "two spades"? Yes, if the RC (which > means "my hand is a Y") would be made on all hands that would make the IB of > "one spade" (which means "my hand is an X"). No, otherwise. > > For the most part, this means that we do not need to know what South thought > the auction was; all we need to know is what South's methods are (and we > expect him to answer this question truthfully if we ask it). This is not to > say that all difficulties are eliminated, including the difficulty to which > Robert refers. For example; if South has: > > Qxxx x AJxxxx xx > > then if North opened 1C and East passed, South might bid 1S or 1D according > to whether or not he was playing Walsh. If, however, East overcalled 1H, > South would double unless this denied spades, in which case he would > presumably bid 1S. Whether or not a South not playing Walsh, or playing > double to deny spades, is allowed "double" as a RC over 2H (and doubtless he > would double if in full possession of his faculties) may depend on whether > he thought East bid 1H or whether he thought East passed. Again, this is a > question to which we expect him to respond truthfully, though it is possible > that he may see some advantage in not doing so. > > In correspondence with some members of the WBF DSC on this topic a few weeks > ago, I remarked of the desire to allow corrections without penalty of > insufficient bids that: > > I assume it is the normal barmy Kaplanesque stuff: no one at a high level > should be penalized for an "obviously mechanical" error like passing a cue > bid, so you peasants at low levels can have a mish-mash of rules and argue > among yourselves whether what you did was because you're clumsy or because > you're stupid. We Rosenbergs and Martels only play the game with our brains, > and if they become detached from time to time from our fingers, that's not > our fault. Good thing we don't play tennis, or some other actual sport in > which what you do remains what you did, whether you meant to do it or not. > > A month or so later, I see no reason to disagree with myself. > > 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 25 10:55:55 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:55:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] What the heck is going on? In-Reply-To: <000001c8701d$1e022a40$1510a8c0@FK27.local> References: <000001c8701d$1e022a40$1510a8c0@FK27.local> Message-ID: <47C290AB.20409@ulb.ac.be> Andre Steffens a ?crit : > Playing for IMPs, all vulnerable, South dealing, being West you hold: > > 9x > AJTxxx > 9xx > xx > > The auction goes: > (pass) pass (1 :d:) pass > (pass) ??? > > You play with a pickup partner with whom you have agreed to play four > card majors,15-17NT, Multi 2 D and semiforcing 2H/2S openings. > 1.What call do you make? I would pass, because I'm afraid they could have a game in spades. I suppose partner could have overcalled 1NT on 16+ balanced, and if he holds about 14, they're still favourites to make 3S instead of our making 3H. > 2. What other calls do you consider making? Of course, one could bid 1H, but I don't like it. > > However, after the 1D (5 card major, lowest minor) partner hesitates > visibly and passes. > 3. Does this hesitation suggest one of the calls you were considering? It does. LHO could hold a 22-count AFAIC. I've seen a good player open 1S on AKQ10xx - void - AQxxx - AK recently. Reverse the pointed suits and you'll see the problem. Now this danger, at least, is over. So partner's tempo makes reopening less dangerous. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 25 11:25:37 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:25:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <2008021502 38.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104 c3@mail.gmail.com> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <2a 1c3a560802201324g7d328eafu5632fe7d37e2b593@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb0 50ead26@mail.gmail.com><4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <47C297A1.7070707@ulb.ac.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : > > no, i don't understand "incorporates" the same way than you. i > understand it as "contains" or "is more precise than" Well, if it "contains" or "incorporates" or "includes" or "embeds" the information in the other bid, it is more precise indeed. The confusion srpings from the fact that the set of hands it could correspond to is included the other way. If rules 1 and 2 are to be obeyed, it is more precise than, and incorporates, the fact that rule 1 must be obeyed. But I'm not at all surprised by thid difficulty ; I find it very difficult to persuade my students (1st year college) that when axiom system A embeds axiom system B, the set corresponding to A is embedded into the set corresponding to B. Best regards Alain [pour JPR : pas de panique : "college", ?a veut dire "enseignement sup?rieur"] From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 25 15:11:38 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:11:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <200802150238.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104c3@mail.gmail.com> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <2a1c3a560802201324g7d328eafu5632fe7d37e2b593@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb050ead26@mail.gmail.com> <4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> Message-ID: On Feb 22, 2008, at 7:03 PM, David Burn wrote: > [EL] > >> From the first time I read it, I found L27C1 clear, unamibiguous >> and not at > all troublesome (at least through "continues", but that's the > portion we're > talking about). But so many people have had so much difficulty > understanding it that I have become convinced that there must be a > serious > problem with the language that I do not see. > > [DALB] > > It's not so much that there is a problem with the language, but > there is a > problem with whether the language reflects the intent of the > Lawmakers. > > Simpliciter: if all Xs are Ys, then the information "this is a Y" > incorporates the information "this is an X". If some Ys are not Xs, > the > information "this is an X" does not incorporate the information > "this is a > Y". This is correct. > Law 27C as currently written 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. > > We define: hands that would make the insufficient bid (IB) as Xs; > hands that > would make the replacement call (RC) as Ys; RCs that permit the > auction to > continue as "allowed". That reverses the Xs and Ys relative to the principle above ("simpliciter" ff). > And we answer Robert Geller's question thus: > > N E S E > 1C 2H 1S DIRECTOR! > > Question: what replacement calls are allowed? > > (1) Can South make an allowed RC of "double"? Yes, if the RC (which > means > "my hand is a Y") would be made on all hands that would make the IB > of "one > spade" (which means "my hand is an X"). No, otherwise (or not > necessarily, > otherwise - see below). > > (2) Can South make an allowed RC of "two spades"? Yes, if the RC > (which > means "my hand is a Y") would be made on all hands that would make > the IB of > "one spade" (which means "my hand is an X"). No, otherwise. And that is backwards. South's RB is allowed if the IB would be made on all hands that would make the RB. Consider the case where both show the same point-count range, but one shows four or more spades and the other shows five or more. If those are IB and RB respectively, we allow the replacement without penalty (because the information "I have at least five spades" incoporates the information "I have at least four spades"), but not the other way around. I rest my case. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Feb 25 14:40:49 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:40:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] What the heck is going on? In-Reply-To: <47C290AB.20409@ulb.ac.be> References: <000001c8701d$1e022a40$1510a8c0@FK27.local> <47C290AB.20409@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47C2C561.9070408@NTLworld.com> [Andre Steffens] IMPs, all vul, South deals, West holds: S:9x H:AJTxxx D:9xx C:xx (_P) _P (1D) _P (_P) ?? You play with a pickup partner with whom you have agreed to play four card majors,15-17NT, Multi 2 D and semiforcing 2H/2S openings. 1. What call do you make? 2. What other calls do you consider making? However, after the 1D (5 card major, lowest minor) partner hesitates visibly and passes. 3. Does this hesitation suggest one of the calls you were considering? [Hans van Staveren] 1 pass 2 actually none, the only call worth considering might be 1H 3 perhaps not. If partner has hearts and diamonds bidding might work (if opps can?t make 4S) if he has spades and diamonds I had better pass. [Alain Gottcheiner] 1. I would pass, because I'm afraid they could have a game in spades. I suppose partner could have overcalled 1NT on 16+ balanced, and if he holds about 14, they're still favourites to make 3S instead of our making 3H. 2. Of course, one could bid 1H, but I don't like it. 3. It does. LHO could hold a 22-count AFAIC. I've seen a good player open 1S on AKQ10xx - void - AQxxx - AK recently. Reverse the pointed suits and you'll see the problem. Now this danger, at least, is over. So partner's tempo makes reopening less dangerous. [nige1] On the whole, I agree with Alain. 1. Pass. Too few points; too few spades; and too many diamonds. 2. 1H an X. I would consider and reject 1H but some of my friends would bid it. Double is also possible. The dangers of either call are that you may awake sleeping dogs and partner may place you with a better hand. 3. Partner was quite likely to have a diamond holding and high-card values, but his long hesitation makes this almost certain; also it implies that both are substantial. As Alain argues, this makes bidding much safer. Furthermore it suggests that a double is likely to be more rewarding than a 1H overcall. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Feb 25 14:48:00 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:48:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <47C297A1.7070707@ulb.ac.be> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <2008021502 38.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda10 4 c3@mail.gmail.com> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> < 2a 1c3a560802201324g7d328eafu5632fe7d37e2b593@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf81 4cb0 50ead26@mail.gmail.com><4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower .net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com><47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> <47C297A1.7070707@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47C2C710.6030506@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : >> no, i don't understand "incorporates" the same way than you. i >> understand it as "contains" or "is more precise than" > Well, if it "contains" or "incorporates" or "includes" or "embeds" the > information in the other bid, it is more precise indeed. The confusion > srpings from the fact that the set of hands it could correspond to is > included the other way. i agree with you but, nonetheless, if a majority of readers are confused, something has to be done in the writing of law to make them catch its intended meaning. > > If rules 1 and 2 are to be obeyed, it is more precise than, and > incorporates, the fact that rule 1 must be obeyed. > > But I'm not at all surprised by this difficulty ; I find it very > difficult to persuade my students (1st year college) that when axiom > system A embeds axiom system B, the set corresponding to A is embedded > into the set corresponding to B. this is logics. logics formalism is not intuitive, it's not accessible to non-specialists. ordinary readers need ordinary words, paraphrases and examples. jpr > > Best regards > > Alain > > [pour JPR : pas de panique : "college", ?a veut dire "enseignement > sup?rieur"] > > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 25 15:44:25 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:44:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Run away jury References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com> <003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN><47BF47CA.30607@NTLworld.com> <47BFFDE3.50604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001101c877c6$1efa9df0$b4d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Run away jury Guthrie a ?crit : > > For example ... > > [A] When a decision is subjective, different directors rule differently > on identical facts, in identical circumstances. But ara circumstances strictly identical ? You can't gainsay the fact that a good TD will rule MI for some non-alert while another TD, as good as the former one, will rule no MI, because what's standard in this club, or in this game, or among this class of players, is different, and both will be right. And we, on blml, are also influenced by our local background and the level of expertise of the players we're accustomed to directing. Deducing from the fact that two TDs have ruled differently that one should make the laws 100% mechanic is far-fetched. I'm not in favor of throwing fairness away for the sake of trying to eliminate the last atom of possible bias. Perhaps my experience as a teacher, and as such, on college "AC"'s , has something to do with this. Best regards Alain +=+ It is difficult to draw the line in the grey area between the offence that has no thinking element in it and the offence that is almost wholly judgemental. Optimally that line would separate the application of mechanical law from application of judgemental law in which the Director is called upon to empathize notionally with what the player should be thinking. But bridge is not a physical sport, it is a mind game at an elevated level so that purely mechanical laws do not serve it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 25 17:39:02 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:39:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] A new fun game - Alain's contribution References: <034901c86e91$0b1507a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47B42732.8070906@ulb.ac.be><011a01c870ad$c5d28360$9a493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> <47B93783.4020105@ulb.ac.be><001801c8720d$f8474220$65cd403e@Mildred> <47B94FFB.3030108@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001201c877cc$f21efd10$b4d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A new fun game - Alain's contribution this substitution should be allowed IMOBO. +=+ Seeker after truth enquires "is that 'obviously biased'?" +=+ In My Own Biased Opinion. Personal feeling is that everything that appears on blml could earn an IMOBO, IMOCO (Conceited) or at least IMNSHO (Not So Humble). The diffecrence is : I'm aware of that ;-P Best regards Alain +=+ Oh, I think we all know that our views are subjective - this list is populated with beings of the highest intelligence, subjectively speaking. ~ G ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Feb 25 15:09:55 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:09:55 +0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <2008021502 38.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104 c3@mail.gmail.com> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <2a 1c3a560802201324g7d328eafu5632fe7d37e2b593@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb0 50ead26@mail.gmail.com><4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <47C2CC33.3050904@NTLworld.com> {David Burn] Simpliciter: if all Xs are Ys, then the information "this is a Y" incorporates the information "this is an X". [Jean-Pierre Rocafort] no, i don't understand "incorporates" the same way than you. i understand it as "contains" or "is more precise than", and i think that it is the information "this is an X" that incorporates the information "this is an Y". but who am i, as an ignorant of english language, to give opinion on this issue? what is sure, is that it would be helpful to use less ambiguous words in the law. [nige1] The sides are well-balanced and evenly matched. Robert Geller, David Burn and co on one team. Grattan Endicott: Wayne Burrows and co on the other. It seems to depend on whether you go for the "common sense" or the "cybernetics" interpretation. As with all such disputes about the law-book, Jean-Pierre demonstrates that this is another storm in a tea-cup. If the law-book were clarified, such controversies would cease. As Robert Geller convincingly argues: Law-makers must first translate their intentions into clear *English* to give players, directors and foreign language translators a chance. It they could also render the rules more complete, simple and objective, their task would be easier (in the long run); and the game would be more fun for players. From wrgptfan at gmail.com Mon Feb 25 18:28:47 2008 From: wrgptfan at gmail.com (David Kent) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:28:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Run away jury In-Reply-To: <001101c877c6$1efa9df0$b4d5403e@Mildred> References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com> <003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN><47BF47CA.30607@NTLworld.com> <47BFFDE3.50604@ulb.ac.be> <001101c877c6$1efa9df0$b4d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Feb 25, 2008, at 9:44 AM, wrote: > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************** > It is perhaps only human that the sport > most widely followed throughout the > world is one in which a player may, and > frequently does, score against his own > team. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This is the first time I have heard hockey referred to as "the sport most widely followed throughout the world". ...Dave Kent >> >> From schoderb at msn.com Mon Feb 25 22:22:27 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:22:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Run away jury References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com><003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN><47BF47CA.30607@NTLworld.com><47BFFDE3.50604@ulb.ac.be> <001101c877c6$1efa9df0$b4d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: The sport Grattan must have been referring to is having a mistress when you have a wife. Certainly includes "widely followed" "frequently" and "score against his own team". Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kent" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 12:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Run away jury > > On Feb 25, 2008, at 9:44 AM, wrote: > > > > > Grattan Endicott > [following address discontinued: > > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > > ***************************** > > It is perhaps only human that the sport > > most widely followed throughout the > > world is one in which a player may, and > > frequently does, score against his own > > team. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > This is the first time I have heard hockey referred to as "the sport > most widely followed throughout the world". > > ...Dave Kent > >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Gampas at aol.com Mon Feb 25 23:35:14 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:35:14 EST Subject: [blml] A new fun game - Alain's contribution Message-ID: In a message dated 25/02/2008 16:45:52 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: Personal feeling is that everything that appears on blml could earn an IMOBO, IMOCO (Conceited) or at least IMNSHO (Not So Humble). I thought that in England we now had "A stroppy biased opinion" (ASBO) Paul Lamford From Gampas at aol.com Mon Feb 25 23:56:05 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:56:05 EST Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 Message-ID: In a message dated 22/02/2008 03:15:15 GMT Standard Time, wjburrows at gmail.com writes: "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." I see other problems with this wording. Let us say that we play 2C - 2D - 2H is Kokish, showing either hearts or some strong balanced hand. Partner's 2S bid is then a forced relay. After the auction starts 2C - (Pass) - 2D - (Pass) - 2H: a) The next person bids 2NT (minors, perhaps) and we bid 2S, not noticing it. There is no bid available which now incorporates the information (forced relay), unless we have an agreement that double is penalty-seeking and pass is just a relay (sensible). But even then the pass does not really incorporate the information in that it does not include hands that want to double. b) The next person bids 2NT (minors, perhaps) and we, say, play DOPI and ROPI now, but get confused and also bid 2NT. This has no meaning in the partnership, and we can therefore select any bid that has no partnership meaning, which is the set of all bids as the only bid that had any meaning was 2S. And I am sure that I can find many more examples. [paul lamford] From john at asimere.com Tue Feb 26 01:01:03 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:01:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Run away jury References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com><003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN><47BF47CA.30607@NTLworld.com><47BFFDE3.50604@ulb.ac.be><001101c877c6$1efa9df0$b4d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002301c8780a$ad63e3f0$0701a8c0@LIBRARY> ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 9:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Run away jury > The sport Grattan must have been referring to is having a mistress when > you have a wife. Certainly includes "widely followed" "frequently" and > "score against his own team". Functions also required are a cook and a housekeeper, just make sure they don't all meet :) > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Kent" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 12:28 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Run away jury > > >> >> On Feb 25, 2008, at 9:44 AM, wrote: >> >> > >> > Grattan Endicott> > [following address discontinued: >> > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> > ***************************** >> > It is perhaps only human that the sport >> > most widely followed throughout the >> > world is one in which a player may, and >> > frequently does, score against his own >> > team. >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> This is the first time I have heard hockey referred to as "the sport >> most widely followed throughout the world". >> >> ...Dave Kent >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Tue Feb 26 03:57:26 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:57:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200802211558.m1LFwIFE006563@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200802211558.m1LFwIFE006563@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47C38016.7060603@nhcc.net> > From: Guthrie > In America, for example, I'm told that players ask > selectively. Who told you that? I've never seen selective asking, though I don't claim to have played throughout the entire continent (nor at all in the southern one). From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Feb 26 04:39:34 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:39:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802252341.m1PNfT7d015341@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200802252341.m1PNfT7d015341@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47C389F6.1090207@nhcc.net> I think Wayne identified the problem: "more information" corresponds to "fewer hands." Thus a replacement bid "incorporating the information" of an IB is equivalent to the IB "incorporating the hands" of the replacement. The language in the Law seems clear enough to me, but evidently many people find it confusing. I suspect those are people who aren't used to thinking of "information" as quantitative. Pending new and improved language from the DSC, just keep in mind that "hands" and "information" go in opposite directions. Or ask a different question altogether, perhaps Robin's "Does the IB reveal anything the replacement bid does not?" > From: Gampas at aol.com > Let us say that we play 2C - 2D - 2H > is Kokish, showing either hearts or some strong balanced hand. Partner's 2S > bid is then a forced relay. If so, 2S gives no information whatsoever. (This is not an optimal agreement, but it's a common one.) > After the auction starts 2C - (Pass) - 2D - (Pass) - 2H: > a) The next person bids 2NT (minors, perhaps) and we bid 2S, not noticing > it. There is no bid available which now incorporates the information On the contrary, any legal call incorporates the information (none at all) given by the insufficient forced relay. Only non-jump bids, pass, and double will qualify under L27C2, of course, but the player should be free to choose any of these (or make a different bid that bars partner). This is an easy one. > b) The next person bids 2NT (minors, perhaps) and we, say, play DOPI and > ROPI now, but get confused and also bid 2NT. This has no meaning in the > partnership... If 2NT genuinely carries no meaning other than "I was confused," as you say there is no problem. In practice, the TD would have to judge whether the 2NT bid could have carried some meaning -- presumably a rare hand type -- even if not explicitly discussed. The difficult question, it seems to me, is how to assess what information was carried by the IB. On the surface, there's no way to tell what auction the IB'er saw and thus what the IB might have meant. One option discussed here is to ask the IB'er what he intended, but that makes no sense to me. No one else at the table (let alone the TD!) can possibly know what the IB'er intended except insofar as the bid itself and its circumstances may reveal something. (Probably not hard to guess about 1C, for example.) If there are multiple possibilities for why the IB was made, the bid carries very little information, and it isn't obvious why the IB'ers substitution options should be limited by his actual but unknown intention. (My opinion of rules that require mind reading will not surprise anyone reading this.) From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 26 04:40:41 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:40:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Run away jury References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com><003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN><47BF47CA.30607@NTLworld.com><47BFFDE3.50604@ulb.ac.be> <001101c877c6$1efa9df0$b4d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <003601c87829$6171cf60$5cd3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Run away jury > > On Feb 25, 2008, at 9:44 AM, wrote: > >> >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ***************************** >> It is perhaps only human that the sport >> most widely followed throughout the >> world is one in which a player may, and >> frequently does, score against his own >> team. >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > This is the first time I have heard hockey referred > to as "the sport most widely followed throughout the world". > > ...Dave Kent >>> +=+ There are a number of such games. The reader can decide for himself which is the most widely followed. Kojak's version of bodily contact sport could be the most interesting but probably fails the test owing to its special risk factor where Sharia Law holds good and in a few other societies. ~ G ~ +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 26 05:45:48 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:45:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47C38016.7060603@nhcc.net> References: <200802211558.m1LFwIFE006563@cfa.harvard.edu> <47C38016.7060603@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <47C3997C.2080909@NTLworld.com> [Nigel Guthrie] In America, for example, I'm told that players ask selectively. [Steve Willner] Who told you that? I've never seen selective asking, though I don't claim to have played throughout the entire continent (nor at all in the southern one). [Nige2] I've never had the pleasure of visiting America but many of my friends have played there. The impression of a few of them is that an opponent would *sometimes* ask but *not always*. -- although they admit that it is hard to be certain of a pattern unless you are prepared to kibitz a pair over a long period. If remember rightly, this topic has come up before on BLML and a contributor reported his recollection of similar behaviour. This is the kind of problem that might arise every couple of hands: suppose dummy cashes AKQ of spades, declarer following suit. If you have five spades, then you *know* partner is going to show out on the third round. If you normally ask but fail to ask on this occasion, then partner knows the exact spade distribution; and he can also guess the likely distribution when you do ask. Re-introducing this law will tempt our weaker brethren to give and use unauthorised information, perhaps subconsciously, in a practically undetectable way. I agree with Stefanie Rohan that this is a quite unnecessary additional handicap for those die-hards who rigidly comply with the laws. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 26 09:18:14 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:18:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47C3CB46.2050609@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > In a message dated 22/02/2008 03:15:15 GMT Standard Time, > wjburrows at gmail.com writes: > > "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." > > I see other problems with this wording. Let us say that we play 2C - 2D - 2H > is Kokish, showing either hearts or some strong balanced hand. Partner's 2S > bid is then a forced relay. After the auction starts 2C - (Pass) - 2D - > (Pass) - 2H: > > a) The next person bids 2NT (minors, perhaps) and we bid 2S, not noticing > it. There is no bid available which now incorporates the information (forced > relay), unless we have an agreement that double is penalty-seeking and pass is > just a relay (sensible). But even then the pass does not really incorporate > the information in that it does not include hands that want to double. > > So the pass is more precise than 2S would have been ? It is a subset of the set of hands that would have bid 2S ? Allowed. The pass incorporates all the information present in the 2S bid (which is very few indeed). May I once again recall : "incorporate the information" is just the contrary of "incorporate the set of hands". You seem to have confused those two. > b) The next person bids 2NT (minors, perhaps) and we, say, play DOPI and > ROPI now, but get confused and also bid 2NT. This has no meaning in the > partnership, and we can therefore select any bid that has no partnership meaning, > which is the set of all bids as the only bid that had any meaning was 2S. > > I don't see the point. If there is no 2nd step, you can't be playing DOPI ? But, apart from that, you're right. You may bid anything you fancy (nonjump), since the 2S IB didn't carry any information at all. Best regards Alain From geller at nifty.com Tue Feb 26 10:42:14 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:42:14 +0900 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <47C389F6.1090207@nhcc.net> References: <47C389F6.1090207@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <200802260942.AA12593@geller204.nifty.com> Dealer East, None Vul W N E S - - 1NT 1NT DIRECTOR!! Q1: What is "the information conveyed by the IB"? Suppose NS are playing weak (12-14) or mini (10-12) 1NT openings? If South thought he was opening 1NT then that's presumably what he'd have. But if North thought he was overcalling 1NT (due to some bizarre brain lock) then maybe the IB shows "15-18". Q2. In case the question of "the information conveyed by the IB" is important (most of the time it presumably won't be) how is the poor director to resolve this? Look at South's hand? Ask South directly? (maybe away from the table?). Or try to work out what the IB ought to show by some kind of logic? Q3. Suppose South is playing strong NT openings, and EW are playing weak NT. If South changes his IB to a replacement call of DBL should this be allowed? (This obviously depends on the meaning of "incorporate" in L27C1 as we all know by now. I'm not really very interested in the question of how the present L27C1 should be interpreted but rather am posing this question in the hope that the eagerly awaited WBFLC dictum will provide the poor director in the field with unambiguous guidlines for dealing with this type of infraction.) Cheers, Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 26 11:18:21 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:18:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <200802150238.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104c3@mail.gmail.com> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <2a1c3a560802201324g7d328eafu5632fe7d37e2b593@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb050ead26@mail.gmail.com><4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> Message-ID: <071901c87860$e9cdeec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> David Burn: > Whether or not [a replacement bid by South is allowed] may depend on > whether > he thought East bid 1H or whether he thought East passed. Again, this is a > question to which we expect him to respond truthfully, though it is > possible > that he may see some advantage in not doing so. But does North get to know the answer to this too? If so, the offenders are getting away with murder. But if not... I don't know. Does it matter? It seems that it does; otherwise, what possible information can systemically be contained in the 1S bid after 1C-2H? Isn't it illegal to have such an agreement? [barmy Kaplanesque stuff] Well, the old law was not ideal either. Remember, a decade ago, all the months this forum hammered out the question "What is a convention?" before getting virtually no further than "I know it when I see it"? I don't know how best to treat insufficient bids. I don't think the new Law is the way. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 26 13:33:07 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:33:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <0c6c01c87453$f0dfde50$0100a8c0@stefanie> <005101c874ca$da4b4180$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <07e901c87873$bdd627c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> John Probst > yep. The Zonal option to stop people enquiring "having none" was > introduced > to placate those who thought asling was cheating. Creation of UI is not a > problem, so even if I only ask when really surprised, it's my partner who > gets the UI and it's his problem to handle it. The lawyers will lawyer > away, > but it's been part of the rubber law for years and given rubber players > have > a far higher ethical standard than tournament players, and given they > think > it's ok, then let the lawyers moan - It's a sensible change (removing the > Zonal option) and I don't give a f**k about the lawyers. john John, I think you are being a bit naive here. It is not you and your partner I am worried about. Also I think you have it backwards about rubber bridge players -- they feel it's OK to ask *because* they have a high ethical standard. Or they don't really care; in my experience, hardly any of them ask, though I realise that you and I do not play rubber bridge at the same club. It is players without the ability/desire to "handle" the UI that worry me. And how do I know whether my opponents are these players? The first time an opponent asks/fails to ask/does something strange like asking when partner has shown out *again*, I will have to assume that there has been, either on this play or an earlier one, an exchange of UI. The director can sort it out after that. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 26 13:40:08 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:40:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Run away jury References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com> <003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47BF47CA.30607@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <07ff01c87874$b8d8bb10$0100a8c0@stefanie> [John (MadDog) Probst] That's a no-brainer in this quarter, Kojak. [Nige1] Surprisingly, for once, I agree with John. The trend towards laws that depend less on simple objective facts and rely instead on the sophisticated subjective judgement of directors is to be deplored :( [Stefanie] I do not see how this can be doubted. I really wonder what the lawmakers were/are thinking. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 26 13:48:19 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:48:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <200802260942.AA12593@geller204.nifty.com> References: <47C389F6.1090207@nhcc.net> <200802260942.AA12593@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47C40A93.5050007@ulb.ac.be> Robert Geller a ?crit : > Dealer East, None Vul > W N E S > - - 1NT 1NT > DIRECTOR!! > > Q1: What is "the information conveyed by the IB"? > Suppose NS are playing weak (12-14) or mini (10-12) > 1NT openings? If South thought he was opening 1NT > then that's presumably what he'd have. But if North > thought he was overcalling 1NT (due to some bizarre > brain lock) then maybe the IB shows "15-18". > > True, but most probably irrelevant. Since all those ranges are limited, and any bid or double over 1NT would bypass the range (unless one plays 2C = 12-14 T/O over a weak NT, which some do), I'm afraid I'll be compelled to rule "additional information from the IB". > Q2. In case the question of "the information conveyed > by the IB" is important (most of the time it presumably > won't be) how is the poor director to resolve this? > Look at South's hand? Ask South directly? (maybe away > from the table?). Or try to work out what the IB ought > to show by some kind of logic? > > Ask away from the table, ideally. > Q3. Suppose South is playing strong NT openings, and > EW are playing weak NT. If South changes his IB > to a replacement call of DBL should this be allowed? > (This obviously depends on the meaning of "incorporate" > in L27C1 as we all know by now. I'm not really very > interested in the question of how the present L27C1 > should be interpreted but rather am posing this > question in the hope that the eagerly awaited WBFLC dictum > will provide the poor director in the field with unambiguous > guidlines for dealing with this type of infraction.) > Nope. The double usually shows 14+ (or similar), while the IB showed 15-17 or the mile. The information that the doubler doesn't hold a stronger hand is UI, not incorporated into the meaning of the double. Ergo, illegitimate substitution. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 26 14:05:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:05:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Run away jury In-Reply-To: <07ff01c87874$b8d8bb10$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com> <003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47BF47CA.30607@NTLworld.com> <07ff01c87874$b8d8bb10$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47C40EA0.1030601@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > [John (MadDog) Probst] > That's a no-brainer in this quarter, Kojak. > > [Nige1] > Surprisingly, for once, I agree with John. The trend towards laws that > depend less on simple objective facts and rely instead on the > sophisticated subjective judgement of directors is to be deplored :( > > [Stefanie] > > I do not see how this can be doubted. I really wonder what the lawmakers > were/are thinking. > > I won't gainsay the existence of the subjectivity problem either. But I'd like to add two remarks : 1. In nearly all sports, the question about the intention is indeed relevant. The existence of a penalty, or its severity, depends on the intent of the player. When "mechanical" penalties are on, the outcry is often as indignant as ours. Think of anti-drug laws in cycling ("we don't need to know whether you did it on purpose. You did it and you're out"). Why should it be different at bridge, a sport where players often have precise intentions ? And look at the cases where mechanical rulings do exist at bridge, e.g. revokes. Do players love them ? 2. The very specific bridge notion of "restoring equity" means we have to guess what would have happened if ... We all know History could have been quite different if some event of lesser importance hadn't occurred, e.g. if the Italian invasion of Greece had been concluded two or three weeks earlier. But that can only be speculated about. Yes, we know adjudging lbw is more difficult than adjudging direct hits. And at bridge, even slow motion wouldn't help us. But battling against this remains me of /La Mancha/. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 26 14:20:43 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:20:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] Run away jury In-Reply-To: <07ff01c87874$b8d8bb10$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com> <003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47BF47CA.30607@NTLworld.com> <07ff01c87874$b8d8bb10$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47C4122B.7020808@NTLworld.com> [Nige1] The trend towards laws that depend less on simple objective facts and rely instead on the sophisticated subjective judgement of directors is to be deplored :( [Stefanie Rohan] I do not see how this can be doubted. I really wonder what the lawmakers were/are thinking. [Nige1] Spoilsport, Stefanie :( Naturally enough, lawmakers prefer to chat about other games or how to handle their mistresses :) In fact anything, rather than address the claimed drawbacks to their strategy :) From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 26 14:47:36 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:47:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <2008021502 38.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104 c3@mail.gmail.com> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <2a 1c3a560802201324g7d328eafu5632fe7d37e2b593@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb0 50ead26@mail.gmail.com><4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> On Feb 25, 2008, at 4:03 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > David Burn a ?crit : >> [EL] >> >>> From the first time I read it, I found L27C1 clear, unamibiguous >>> and not at >> all troublesome (at least through "continues", but that's the >> portion we're >> talking about). But so many people have had so much difficulty >> understanding it that I have become convinced that there must be a >> serious >> problem with the language that I do not see. >> >> [DALB] >> >> It's not so much that there is a problem with the language, but >> there is a >> problem with whether the language reflects the intent of the >> Lawmakers. >> >> Simpliciter: if all Xs are Ys, then the information "this is a Y" >> incorporates the information "this is an X". > no, i don't understand "incorporates" the same way than you. i > understand it as "contains" or "is more precise than", and i think > that > it is the information "this is an X" that incorporates the information > "this is an Y". but who am i, as an ignorant of english language, to > give opinion on this issue? what is sure, is that it would be > helpful to > use less ambiguous words in the law. Something like, "If the insufficient bid provides no information about the bidder's hand that is not available from the replacement call...", perhaps? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 26 14:57:04 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:57:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77BC6DA1-526D-4AEC-998D-A37B2887BC0E@starpower.net> On Feb 25, 2008, at 5:56 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 22/02/2008 03:15:15 GMT Standard Time, > wjburrows at gmail.com writes: > > "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." > > I see other problems with this wording. Let us say that we play 2C > - 2D - 2H > is Kokish, showing either hearts or some strong balanced hand. > Partner's 2S > bid is then a forced relay. After the auction starts 2C - (Pass) - > 2D - > (Pass) - 2H: > > a) The next person bids 2NT (minors, perhaps) and we bid 2S, not > noticing > it. There is no bid available which now incorporates the > information (forced > relay), unless we have an agreement that double is penalty-seeking > and pass is > just a relay (sensible). But even then the pass does not really > incorporate > the information in that it does not include hands that want to > double. > > b) The next person bids 2NT (minors, perhaps) and we, say, play > DOPI and > ROPI now, but get confused and also bid 2NT. This has no meaning > in the > partnership, and we can therefore select any bid that has no > partnership meaning, > which is the set of all bids as the only bid that had any meaning > was 2S. > > And I am sure that I can find many more examples. L27C1 sets conditions by which an IB can be corrected without penalty, but contains no guarantee that those conditions can be met in any given situation. If there is no bid available that incorporates the information from the IB, you don't get to take advantage of L27C1; any call you make will be dealt with under L27D. WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 26 15:07:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:07:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <2008021502 38.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104 c3@mail.gmail.com> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <2a 1c3a560802201324g7d328eafu5632fe7d37e2b593@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb0 50ead26@mail.gmail.com><4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> <498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47C41D28.4080001@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > Something like, "If the insufficient bid provides no information > about the bidder's hand that is not available from the replacement > call...", perhaps? > > AG : a bit dangerous IMNSHO. Double negations are difficult to handle properly. May I suggest : "provided all information about the bidder's hand, given by the insufficient bid, is available from the replacement call" I'm wondering whether similar considerations could apply to L25 ? In TFLB 2017 perhaps ? If all information from the withdrawn bid is also given by the replacement bid, the latter shall be allowed. e.g. 1C (1S) X, no, 2H. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 26 15:14:38 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:14:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <77BC6DA1-526D-4AEC-998D-A37B2887BC0E@starpower.net> References: <77BC6DA1-526D-4AEC-998D-A37B2887BC0E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47C41ECE.2050800@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Feb 25, 2008, at 5:56 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > > >> In a message dated 22/02/2008 03:15:15 GMT Standard Time, >> wjburrows at gmail.com writes: >> >> "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." >> >> I see other problems with this wording. Let us say that we play 2C >> - 2D - 2H >> is Kokish, showing either hearts or some strong balanced hand. >> Partner's 2S >> bid is then a forced relay. After the auction starts 2C - (Pass) - >> 2D - >> (Pass) - 2H: >> >> a) The next person bids 2NT (minors, perhaps) and we bid 2S, not >> noticing >> it. There is no bid available which now incorporates the >> information (forced >> relay), unless we have an agreement that double is penalty-seeking >> and pass is >> just a relay (sensible). But even then the pass does not really >> incorporate >> the information in that it does not include hands that want to >> double. >> >> b) The next person bids 2NT (minors, perhaps) and we, say, play >> DOPI and >> ROPI now, but get confused and also bid 2NT. This has no meaning >> in the >> partnership, and we can therefore select any bid that has no >> partnership meaning, >> which is the set of all bids as the only bid that had any meaning >> was 2S. >> >> And I am sure that I can find many more examples. >> > > L27C1 sets conditions by which an IB can be corrected without > penalty, but contains no guarantee that those conditions can be met > in any given situation. If there is no bid available that > incorporates the information from the IB, you don't get to take > advantage of L27C1; any call you make will be dealt with under L27D. > WTP? > Right. One can find many examples, of course. But in a), this is precisely the opposite case : there is no information from the IB, thus no problem whatsoever in finding a bid that is at least as precise. In b), one shouldn't confuse "impossible" with "undiscussed". If 2NT were impossible, one wouldn't bid it, except through a slip of the tongue, which is easily handled by L25, rather than L27; If it is undiscussed, it has a meaning nevetheless, and we should be doubly careful about accepting such an explanation. (BTW, in classical Kokish, 2S isn't automatic IIRC. One could show a 6-card suit in a moderate hand) Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 26 15:29:26 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:29:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <200802260942.AA12593@geller204.nifty.com> References: <47C389F6.1090207@nhcc.net> <200802260942.AA12593@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47512E3C-B923-4575-AF81-C58A0A12CC0D@starpower.net> On Feb 26, 2008, at 4:42 AM, Robert Geller wrote: > Dealer East, None Vul > W N E S > - - 1NT 1NT > DIRECTOR!! > > Q1: What is "the information conveyed by the IB"? > Suppose NS are playing weak (12-14) or mini (10-12) > 1NT openings? If South thought he was opening 1NT > then that's presumably what he'd have. But if North > thought he was overcalling 1NT (due to some bizarre > brain lock) then maybe the IB shows "15-18". > > Q2. In case the question of "the information conveyed > by the IB" is important (most of the time it presumably > won't be) how is the poor director to resolve this? ISTM it will be "important" in all but the most trivial cases. > Look at South's hand? Ask South directly? (maybe away > from the table?). Or try to work out what the IB ought > to show by some kind of logic? All of the above -- the director examines the available evidence and makes a finding. But 99.9999% of the time you ask, you get an answer consistent with the player's hand, and there you are. > Q3. Suppose South is playing strong NT openings, and > EW are playing weak NT. If South changes his IB > to a replacement call of DBL should this be allowed? In theory that depends on the partnership agreement about the double, but it's hard to imagine a case where a double would be allowed without penalty. The double would have to be made, by agreement, only with hands suitable for a 1NT opening/overcall (whichever was intended). > (This obviously depends on the meaning of "incorporate" > in L27C1 as we all know by now. I'm not really very > interested in the question of how the present L27C1 > should be interpreted but rather am posing this > question in the hope that the eagerly awaited WBFLC dictum > will provide the poor director in the field with unambiguous > guidlines for dealing with this type of infraction.) Here is an unambiguous guideline: Step 1: Imagine a legal auction through the RB with no IB having been made. What does the RB tell you about the bidder's hand? Step 2: Determine the intended meaning of the IB. What does that tell you about the bidder's hand that you didn't know from step 1 alone? Step 3: If the answer in step 2 is "nothing", apply L27C. Otherwise apply L27D. The language may be less than optimal, but applying it is really rather simple. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Feb 26 15:38:21 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:38:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <47512E3C-B923-4575-AF81-C58A0A12CC0D@starpower.net> References: <47C389F6.1090207@nhcc.net> <200802260942.AA12593@geller204.nifty.com> <47512E3C-B923-4575-AF81-C58A0A12CC0D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0802260638i1c516032lc561dc165b1a10c7@mail.gmail.com> One quick comment: I have the distinct feeling that we're putting the cart before the horse. I think that it is a mistake to be debating symantec issues like syntax at this point in time. Instead, we should be focusing on trying to establish consensus regarding what types of things should/should not be allowed. We should start by identifying a number of unabiguous examples of bids that we believe should be allowed. In a similar vein, we should seek to identify cases that we don't think should be permitted. Once we have a suitable corpus of hands that illustrate the boundaries we can try to wordsmith an effective description... -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 26 15:51:56 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:51:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <2008021502 38.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104 c3@mail.gmail.com> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <2a 1c3a560802201324g7d328eafu5632fe7d37e2b593@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb0 50ead26@mail.gmail.com><4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> <498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47C4278C.6060706@NTLworld.com> Eric Landau] Something like, "If the insufficient bid provides no information about the bidder's hand that is not available from the replacement call...", perhaps? [Nige1] Apart from multiple negatives, a problem with Eric's suggestion is that it includes the taboo word "information" that bedevils this this discussion. Better might be ... "Hands that satisfy the systemic requirements for the replacement call are a subset of the hands that satisfy the requirements of the insufficient bid." Arggh :( My feeble attempt highlights the *fundamental* problem with formulating this law. It is a problem, about which BLMLers have repeatedly chided the law-makers :( The *meaning* of an insufficient bid is a peculiarly sophisticated notion. (No wonder law-makers fall in love with it). - At best it is nebulous. - Arguably, however, it's *illegal* to endow IBs with *any* meaning. Far better to scupper the silly law than to sink to the sea-bed with the law-makers and their frustrating sirens :) A more sensible suggestion ... "An insufficient bid is replaced with a pass and any information arising from it is unauthorised to the insufficient bidder's partner." Perhaps this law should apply to *any* illegal call. An advantages of such a simplified law is that it prevents the *non-offending* side from benefiting from conventional opportunities created by the infraction. Currently, pairs of secretary birds have different elaborate agreements that depend on whether they condone the illegal call. From geller at nifty.com Tue Feb 26 15:54:04 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:54:04 +0900 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0802260638i1c516032lc561dc165b1a10c7@mail.gmail.com> References: <2da24b8e0802260638i1c516032lc561dc165b1a10c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200802261454.AA12605@geller204.nifty.com> The problem is, we already have 27C1. The people who wrote it overlooked the pitfalls, but for better or worse the clock is ticking on the time when the 2007 Laws must go into effect throughout the world. What I hope will happen is that the members of BLML will come up with lots of different scenarios that the lawmakers can use to try to either rewrite the law or provide a footnote or two clarifying what they meant.... Whatever is done has to be done very quickly...... -Bob richard willey writes: >One quick comment: > >I have the distinct feeling that we're putting the cart before the horse. > >I think that it is a mistake to be debating symantec issues like >syntax at this point in time. Instead, we should be focusing on >trying to establish consensus regarding what types of things >should/should not be allowed. > >We should start by identifying a number of unabiguous examples of bids >that we believe should be allowed. In a similar vein, we should seek >to identify cases that we don't think should be permitted. > >Once we have a suitable corpus of hands that illustrate the boundaries >we can try to wordsmith an effective description... > >-- >I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant >Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where >conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the >expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek > >Those were simpler times > >_______________________________________________ >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 Tue Feb 26 16:07:41 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:07:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <071901c87860$e9cdeec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <200802150238.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104c3@mail.gmail.com> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <2a1c3a560802201324g7d328eafu5632fe7d37e2b593@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb050ead26@mail.gmail.com><4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> <071901c87860$e9cdeec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <93FA3DB2-BA0B-4B96-A15B-319EF9A68B3C@starpower.net> On Feb 26, 2008, at 5:18 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > David Burn: > >> Whether or not [a replacement bid by South is allowed] may depend on >> whether >> he thought East bid 1H or whether he thought East passed. Again, >> this is a >> question to which we expect him to respond truthfully, though it is >> possible >> that he may see some advantage in not doing so. > > But does North get to know the answer to this too? In theory there's no reason why he shouldn't. L27C1 speaks of "the information contained in the IB" rather than "the information available to the bidder's partner from the IB". Presumably that was a deliberate choice; it should make L27C1 easier to apply in real- life situations. > If so, the offenders are > getting away with murder. How so? If the answer tells North anything he didn't otherwise know, he will be barred from the auction. > But if not... I don't know. Does it matter? It > seems that it does; otherwise, what possible information can > systemically be > contained in the 1S bid after 1C-2H? Actually, there's plenty of information, but it's uncertain (i.e. subject to probabilities). But a "deterministic" RB cannot "incorporate" "probabilistic" information, so, yes, we need to answer the question in order to decide whether we can apply L27C. > Isn't it illegal to have such an > agreement? Effectively (although not explicitly; L40B3 speaks of "any irregularity"). An IB, however, is always assumed to be "accidental", so any systemic agreement would not apply, as making an IB intentionally would be an explicit and serious infraction (L72B1). > [barmy Kaplanesque stuff] > > Well, the old law was not ideal either. Remember, a decade ago, all > the > months this forum hammered out the question "What is a convention?" > before > getting virtually no further than "I know it when I see it"? > > I don't know how best to treat insufficient bids. I don't think the > new Law > is the way. IMO it is likely to work better than the old one. As to whether it's "the way", we should have a much better idea by the time the WBF starts on the next lawbook (and maybe even they will too). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 26 16:23:21 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:23:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0802260638i1c516032lc561dc165b1a10c7@mail.gmail.com> References: <47C389F6.1090207@nhcc.net> <200802260942.AA12593@geller204.nifty.com> <47512E3C-B923-4575-AF81-C58A0A12CC0D@starpower.net> <2da24b8e0802260638i1c516032lc561dc165b1a10c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47C42EE9.4060707@ulb.ac.be> richard willey a ?crit : > One quick comment: > > I have the distinct feeling that we're putting the cart before the horse. > > I think that it is a mistake to be debating symantec issues like > syntax at this point in time. Instead, we should be focusing on > trying to establish consensus regarding what types of things > should/should not be allowed. > > We should start by identifying a number of unabiguous examples of bids > that we believe should be allowed. In a similar vein, we should seek > to identify cases that we don't think should be permitted. > > Once we have a suitable corpus of hands that illustrate the boundaries > we can try to wordsmith an effective description... > > I'll try my hand at some examples ; feel free to comment. 1. I open 2C, natural, 5+ cards, unbalanced, opening values. They tell me they opened 2D (weak). May I ... a) make a T/O double ? No, because it doesn't show 5 clubs. b) bid 3C, natural ? Yes, provided it denies 5332 pattern, which is probable. c) bid 2NT, showing 5+ clubs and unspecified 4-card major ? Yes, provided its range is included in the range for 2C. 2. I open 2C, as above, but could in a pinch be 5332. They tell me they opened 2C (a priori a transfer to 2D). Now, if a double shows length in clubs and constructive values, I'm allowed to double. 3. Partner opens 1C, I answer 1H, but they overcalled 1S. May I... a) double ? Yes, provided it unambiguously shows hearts. The fact that it's probably more constructive than a 1H response is irrelevant. b) bid 2H, natural and forcing ? Yes. c) bid 2H, natural and nonforcing ? No, because 1H is unlimited and 2H is limited. But change this answer if I'm a PH. d) bid 3H, strong with hearts ? No, because it's a jump bid. 4. I open 1C (Polish variant : natural 11+, or any 12-17 balanced with at least one 4-card major, or any 18+). 1D/H/S would have shown 5 cards. They tell me they opened 1D. May I double ? I'd say yes, however strange it might seem. Because all hands that would double 1D would open 1C in that system. whence 1C doesn't add any information. Okay, perhaps you would double on AKx-AKx-432-Q10xx, but that's marginal. And BTW I wouldn't. 5. I open 1C, K/S, either natural or 15-20 NT. They tell me they opened 1 plum. I may overcall 1NT (16-18). If the bidding was 1X-p-p, I may reopen 2NT (18-20), but not 1NT (11-15). 6. I open 1H. They tell me they opened 1S. Unless I'm playing very, very sound overcalls, neither 2H nor 3H nor double would be allowed, so I'm fixed. 7. The same, but 3rd in hand. If I can prove we routninely open light 1H/S on a fair suit, I'd say I'm allowed to change this to 2H. Best regards Alain From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 26 16:45:12 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:45:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Run away jury References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com> <003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47BF47CA.30607@NTLworld.com><07ff01c87874$b8d8bb10$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47C40EA0.1030601@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <08a201c8788e$92d57150$0100a8c0@stefanie> [AG] And look at the cases where mechanical rulings do exist at bridge, e.g. revokes. Do players love them ? [SR] I would not say that players love revoke rulings, but they do not mind them. Which is one reason I think that changing the relevant laws was a bizarre decision. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 26 17:00:23 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:00:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000801c874ae$6be5c150$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <08cc01c87890$b1dc2ec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> [Sven] I see no reason to suspect c****ing in association with legal questions on possible revokes even when such questions can reveal knowledge or uncertainty about voids. Surely systemic variations in asking such questions will soon be noticed and reacted upon. [Stefanie] Do you really think so? I doubt it, myself. Who is going to record and examine the defence of all possible violators (which would be any pair that ask but not every time) on every hand that they defend? And in fact, nowhere does it say that a player who asks must ask every time. So I do not even know whether, in the EBU, potential violators will get onto the radar. I really hate this law, though I agree with Bob G that if you can't penalise it you might as well allow it. Was anyone in the countries where asking was prohibited unhappy about that fact? Grattan? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 26 17:25:15 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:25:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <200802211558.m1LFwIFE006563@cfa.harvard.edu> <47C38016.7060603@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <090301c87894$2b676b30$0100a8c0@stefanie> From: "Steve Willner" >> From: Guthrie >> In America, for example, I'm told that players ask >> selectively. > > Who told you that? I've never seen selective asking, though I don't > claim to have played throughout the entire continent (nor at all in the > southern one). > I have seen it. In fact, the more I think about it, a defender who chooses to ask should ask every time partner shows out of the *same* suit, because to fail to do so gives partner the reassuring UI that you remember that he discarded (or ruffed) earlier. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 26 17:49:57 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:49:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] Return to Oz References: <47B96BF9.2080501@NTLworld.com><002f01c8723e$63fef050$44d0403e@Mildred><47B9BE45.90900@NTLworld.com><601084D4-9290-4000-B810-41EA51A5EBE0@starpower.net><003f01c874e9$bdd4a1d0$10d3403e@Mildred> <44A3A3D4-3B04-407B-95AB-068B1C45F200@starpower.net> Message-ID: <095901c87897$9e8573c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> From: "Eric Landau" >> > The question Nigel raises is whether his determination "in accordance > with the principle of the balance of probabilities" is confined to > the facts of the particular situation at hand, or whether they should > take into account the a priori probabilities of the cards being dealt > to favor one action over another. If the TD/AC determines that the > UI indicated a marginal game invitation, but did not indicate whether > it was only just strong enough (a near pass) or only just weak enough > (a near game-bid), is the player free to accept or decline the > invitation as he chooses? Again, my problem with this is that the player, subconsciously or otherwise, will have a better idea than the director or the AC of what his partner's problem was (assuming, of course, that they are not a brand-new partnership). For example, red at IMPs, players will know with considerable accuracy how aggressively partner invites game. > Or should a significant difference in the > a priori probabilities of partner's holding a near pass versus a near > game-bid be sufficient to suggest one action over the other? In my > experience, the latter is not a consideration in current practice, > which may bias me towards thinking that it shouldn't be, but I am far > from certain. I think that this would be a very good direction to go in. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 26 17:55:45 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:55:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <2008021502 38.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104 c3@mail.gmail.com> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <2a 1c3a560802201324g7d328eafu5632fe7d37e2b593@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb0 50ead26@mail.gmail.com><4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com><47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr><498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> <47C4278C.6060706@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <096701c87898$6e2b4230$0100a8c0@stefanie> NG: > An advantages of such a simplified law is that it prevents the > *non-offending* side from benefiting from conventional opportunities > created by the infraction. Currently, pairs of secretary birds have > different elaborate agreements that depend on whether they condone the > illegal call. Do you really think this is so bad? Players with more sophisticated agreements in legal situations benefit as well. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 26 18:01:05 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:01:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Run away jury In-Reply-To: <47C40EA0.1030601@ulb.ac.be> References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com> <003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47BF47CA.30607@NTLworld.com> <07ff01c87874$b8d8bb10$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47C40EA0.1030601@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47C445D1.3080906@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] I won't gainsay the existence of the subjectivity problem either. But I'd like to add two remarks : 1. In nearly all sports, the question about the intention is indeed relevant. The existence of a penalty, or its severity, depends on the intent of the player. When "mechanical" penalties are on, the outcry is often as indignant as ours. Think of anti-drug laws in cycling ("we don't need to know whether you did it on purpose. You did it and you're out"). [nige1] Those accused of breaking a law rarely like that law; but law-abiding players tend to prefer the rules to be as objective as possible. I'm happy to discuss Alain's analogies with other games. If a foot-baller (or God) handles the ball, most would prefer the law to take into account the intentions of either. Or take Alain's example ... - Drug-bans & cycling: Surely this is a good illustration of the difficulty of taking notice of "intention". Does Alain argue that it would be regarded as fair if the authorities exonerated one cyclist and his medical advisers but not another in an similar context, except for a different subjective judgement of "intention"? [Alain] Why should it be different at bridge, a sport where players often have precise intentions? And look at the cases where mechanical rulings do exist at bridge, e.g. revokes. Do players love them? [nige1] Players often have precise intentions but those that know the relevant law seem to find it easy to rationalise economy with the truth. Admittedly, directors' experiences may differ in this regard. For example, Robert Geller reports that players in Japan usually claim a slip of the *hand*. Whereas, John Probst tells us that Japanese players in this country admit to a slip of the *mind*. Unfortunately my team's experience of other players' behaviour seems nearer Bob's than John's. But even this assessment is unreliable as it still entails mind-reading. [Alain] 2. The very specific bridge notion of "restoring equity" means we have to guess what would have happened if ... We all know History could have been quite different if some event of lesser importance hadn't occurred, e.g. if the Italian invasion of Greece had been concluded two or three weeks earlier. But that can only be speculated about. [nige1] Alain is correct that the so-called "Equity" philosophy is at the heart of the problem. Resultant rulings are notoriously subjective and inconsistent. Many infractions go unreported. Some reported infractions do not attract adverse rulings. Hence, as currently applied, Equity Law neither deters law-breakers nor accords adequate redress to their victims. On the contrary, it encourages and rewards law-breakers because, at worst, they can expect restoration of the status quo. [Alain] Yes, we know adjudging lbw is more difficult than adjudging direct hits. And at bridge, even slow motion wouldn't help us. But battling against this remains me of /La Mancha/. [Nige1] Knights concerned for the future of Bridge keep tilting at bad laws and searching for better, however futile our quest may seem :) From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 26 18:13:11 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:13:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] Run away jury In-Reply-To: <47C445D1.3080906@NTLworld.com> References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com> <003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47BF47CA.30607@NTLworld.com> <07ff01c87874$b8d8bb10$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47C40EA0.1030601@ulb.ac.be> <47C445D1.3080906@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47C448A7.8020200@NTLworld.com> Sorry. I meant to write ... "If a foot-baller (or God) handles the ball, most would prefer the law to take into account the intentions of *neither*." Unfortunately I wrote "either" instead of "neither" :( From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Feb 26 18:31:11 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:31:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <47C4278C.6060706@NTLworld.com> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> <498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> <47C4278C.6060706@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0802260931o7963c71cp5c7da325cb018e19@mail.gmail.com> On 2/26/08, Guthrie wrote: > An advantages of such a simplified law is that it prevents the > *non-offending* side from benefiting from conventional opportunities > created by the infraction. Currently, pairs of secretary birds have > different elaborate agreements that depend on whether they condone the > illegal call. Out of curiousity, where do you play bridge? From the sounds of things, I really want to avoid this part of the world... In all seriousness, you come across as one of the most victimized players that I've ever heard of. On those rare occasions when these secretary birds aren't stealing you blind are your make an insufficient call some odious bastard is illegally opening a 9 count in third seat. I play a lot of bridge and, somehow, I don't ever seem to run into these same problems... I suppose that I'm just very lucky -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 26 18:34:22 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:34:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <096701c87898$6e2b4230$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <2008021502 38.AA12469@geller204.nifty.com> <2a1c3a560802172343i40375265v14517921cda104 c3@mail.gmail.com> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <2a 1c3a560802201324g7d328eafu5632fe7d37e2b593@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560802211914l10a66f19lfbf814cb0 50ead26@mail.gmail.com><4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com><47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr><498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> <47C4278C.6060706@NTLworld.com> <096701c87898$6e2b4230$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47C44D9E.4040301@NTLworld.com> [nige1] An advantages of such a simplified law is that it prevents the *non-offending* side from benefiting from conventional opportunities created by the infraction. Currently, pairs of secretary birds have different elaborate agreements that depend on whether they condone the illegal call. [Stefanie Rohan] Do you really think this is so bad? Players with more sophisticated agreements in legal situations benefit as well. [nige2] IMO it is bad. Bridge presents players with enough interesting challenges without expecting us to exploit obscure legal loop-holes. I concede that it would be less bad if there were a single complete source of relevant rules, easily available to players and directors alike. For example, the proposed amendments to L27C2 should be included *in place* in the law book. Otherwise, bridge-players who also direct, will have an unfair advantage in exploiting any new legal anomalies. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 26 19:09:03 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:09:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <200802210932.AA12537@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <0a3601c878a2$ab81ba60$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> But not so fast. Up till now we've all been assuming that >> South saw pard's 1S but overlooked RHO's 2H. But what if >> South overlooked BOTH pard's opener AND righty's overcall, >> and intended 1NT as a 15-17 opener? Then what? Eric Landau: > Then there is no substitution without penalty available. Not necessarily. The players in question might have a bid that shows balanced 15-17 over 2H. Presumably if it also shows a H stopper that is OK, since a more precise RB is supposed to be allowed. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Feb 26 19:34:32 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:34:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0802260931o7963c71cp5c7da325cb018e19@mail.gmail.com> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> <498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> <47C4278C.6060706@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0802260931o7963c71cp5c7da325cb018e19@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47C45BB8.2070009@NTLworld.com> [richard willey] Out of curiosity, where do you play bridge? From the sounds of things, I really want to avoid this part of the world... In all seriousness, you come across as one of the most victimized players that I've ever heard of. On those rare occasions when these secretary birds aren't stealing you blind are your make an insufficient call some odious bastard is illegally opening a 9 count in third seat. I play a lot of bridge and, somehow, I don't ever seem to run into these same problems... I suppose that I'm just very lucky [nige1] I play in the UK. My experience is typical. And my beef is with law-makers -- not with directors -- and certainly not with players. I don't castigate as "bastards" those who exploit the law -- or who seem to rationalise breaking it. Especially as so few directors and (even fewer players) appear to be able to understand the law :) Victor Mollo's caricatures are universally recognisable. He surmised that Bridge players are similar the world over. He claimed that their personalities (including traits like honesty) are a reflection of the world at large. For example, rationalisation of law-breaking has about the same frequency in the microcosm of the Bridge-club as in the outside macrocosm. In presume that Richard Willey plays in America. In spite of his protests, I'm sure that Americans are as prone to such foibles as Europeans :) In some areas of Bridge law, I *anticipate* problems: for example, I don't think I've met a pair at the table who admitted to conventional agreements that depend on whether or not they condone an insufficient bid. If reports in RGB are to be believed, however, more people will take up such exploits :( I fear that the "Equity" trend will further encourage law-breaking :( From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 26 19:46:33 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:46:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd References: <001701c874d3$acbb0bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200802220043.AA12539@geller204.nifty.com><871BD755-DDB5-408D-9EC9-E9A09D05D7C3@starpower.net> <47BEEE2E.2020004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <0a5401c878a7$e8c03000$0100a8c0@stefanie> AG: It makes sense to be harsh against revokers, because it might slip unnoticed. This means something should be done to avoid the "either it goes unnoticed, or I'm no worse than before" effect. SR: I agree with this, and think that relaxing the Laws on revokes was very wrong. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 26 20:38:55 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:38:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <47C42EE9.4060707@ulb.ac.be> References: <47C389F6.1090207@nhcc.net> <200802260942.AA12593@geller204.nifty.com> <47512E3C-B923-4575-AF81-C58A0A12CC0D@starpower.net> <2da24b8e0802260638i1c516032lc561dc165b1a10c7@mail.gmail.com> <47C42EE9.4060707@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <635D2F45-9A4F-4056-8573-A00B3B8AE5F8@starpower.net> On Feb 26, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I'll try my hand at some examples ; feel free to comment. [snip] > 5. I open 1C, K/S, either natural or 15-20 NT. They tell me they > opened > 1 plum. I may overcall 1NT (16-18). If the bidding was 1X-p-p, I may > reopen 2NT (18-20), but not 1NT (11-15). Picking a nit, you may not reopen with 2NT (without penalty), as L27C1, for reasons not at all clear, applies only to RBs "at the lowest legal level". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Feb 26 20:46:43 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:46:43 +1300 Subject: [blml] L74C5 Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802261146n773ec224xd80926fb81b4528@mail.gmail.com> "5. looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card (but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing an opponent's card*)." Am I correct in reading this that the position of the comma after 'auction and play' means that looking intently at any other player is a violation of procedure without the requirement to have the purpose of seeing his cards etc. Wayne From schoderb at msn.com Tue Feb 26 20:58:51 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:58:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] L74C5 References: <2a1c3a560802261146n773ec224xd80926fb81b4528@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 2:46 PM Subject: [blml] L74C5 > "5. looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, > or at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or > of observing the place from which he draws a card (but it is > appropriate to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing > an opponent's card*)." > > Am I correct in reading this that the position of the comma after > 'auction and play' means that looking intently at any other player is > a violation of procedure without the requirement to have the purpose > of seeing his cards etc. > > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From schoderb at msn.com Tue Feb 26 20:58:51 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:58:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] L74C5 References: <2a1c3a560802261146n773ec224xd80926fb81b4528@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 2:46 PM Subject: [blml] L74C5 > "5. looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, > or at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or > of observing the place from which he draws a card (but it is > appropriate to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing > an opponent's card*)." > > Am I correct in reading this that the position of the comma after > 'auction and play' means that looking intently at any other player is > a violation of procedure without the requirement to have the purpose > of seeing his cards etc. > > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From geller at nifty.com Tue Feb 26 22:12:29 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:12:29 +0900 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <47C42EE9.4060707@ulb.ac.be> References: <47C42EE9.4060707@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200802262112.AA12607@geller204.nifty.com> Alain Gottcheiner writes: >6. I open 1H. They tell me they opened 1S. Unless I'm playing very, very >sound overcalls, neither 2H nor 3H nor double would be allowed, so I'm >fixed. > >7. The same, but 3rd in hand. If I can prove we routninely open light >1H/S on a fair suit, I'd say I'm allowed to change this to 2H. Yes, but suppose you play strictly 5 card majors in 1st/2nd hand, but allow the occasional 4 card major opener in 3rd/4th hand. Then 2H would be unallowable if the 1H IB was meant as a 1H opener. If on the other hand the IB-er thought the opener was 1C and he was making a 1H overcall then the "meaning of the 1B" is more likely to be 5 cards in hearts (but 4 card overcalls are not unknown at the 1 level). So it seems questionable whether a replacement bid of 2H should be allowed. What a can of worms.... I question the wisdom of a law that depends on the concept of the meaning of the IB in determining whether or not the RB should be allowed.... ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From svenpran at online.no Tue Feb 26 23:17:31 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:17:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <08cc01c87890$b1dc2ec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000201c878c5$61825140$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > [Sven] > > I see no reason to suspect c****ing in association with legal questions on > possible revokes even when such questions can reveal knowledge or > uncertainty about voids. Surely systemic variations in asking such > questions > will soon be noticed and reacted upon. > > [Stefanie] > > Do you really think so? I doubt it, myself. Who is going to record and > examine the defence of all possible violators (which would be any pair > that ask but not every time) on every hand that they defend? > > And in fact, nowhere does it say that a player who asks must ask every > time. > So I do not even know whether, in the EBU, potential violators will get > onto the radar. > > I really hate this law, though I agree with Bob G that if you can't > penalise > it you might as well allow it. > > Was anyone in the countries where asking was prohibited unhappy about that > fact? Grattan? I believe I can answer for Norway: Very few if any player here does seem happy with the prohibition, nor do they seem troubled by the alleged possibility of UI. And yes, I do believe that a partnership using questions about possible revoke as a means to transmit UI will soon reveal them. Regards Sven From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 27 02:13:03 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:13:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000201c878c5$61825140$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <00a201c878dd$e6bde7d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> SR: >> Was anyone in the countries where asking was prohibited unhappy about >> that >> fact? Grattan? SP: > I believe I can answer for Norway: Very few if any player here does seem > happy with the prohibition, nor do they seem troubled by the alleged > possibility of UI. > I don't think that anyone here in the UK even notices. My guess would be that they will be unhappy when the prohibition is lifted. > And yes, I do believe that a partnership using questions about possible > revoke as a means to transmit UI will soon reveal them. I don't mean using some sort of pre-arranged system. I mean just being lazy and not asking when you know for sure or are highly expectant that partner will be showing out. If the director is not called and the hand examined every time a person changes their pattern, how will anything be revealed? Especially because it would be a very small proportion of hands where the UI actually affected the defence. And it will be difficult to prove that the UI really did cause the correct defence to be found. If "always asking" is going to be enforced, then it will not be as bad. I suppose. my optimistic prediction is that few people in England will take up the practice. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 27 02:24:17 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:24:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question References: <47C42EE9.4060707@ulb.ac.be> <200802262112.AA12607@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <00aa01c878df$78f3c1a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Bob Geller: > What a can of worms.... I question the wisdom of a law that depends > on the concept of the meaning of the IB in determining whether or > not the RB should be allowed.... > Yes, it is impossible to know what an IB "means", because legally it cannot mean anything. In any case, I think that it may well be a mistake to try to find out what the insufficient bidder thought the auction was. He should be "given" the imaginary auction that allows him a free correction. Why should his rights be affected by an auction that only ever existed in his head? Do we want a game ruled by thought police? Stefanie Rohan London, England From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 03:28:05 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:28:05 +1300 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <47C42EE9.4060707@ulb.ac.be> References: <47C389F6.1090207@nhcc.net> <200802260942.AA12593@geller204.nifty.com> <47512E3C-B923-4575-AF81-C58A0A12CC0D@starpower.net> <2da24b8e0802260638i1c516032lc561dc165b1a10c7@mail.gmail.com> <47C42EE9.4060707@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802261828q2ec044begbd036722ab6e74c8@mail.gmail.com> > 3. Partner opens 1C, I answer 1H, but they overcalled 1S. May I... > c) bid 2H, natural and nonforcing ? No, because 1H is unlimited and 2H > is limited. But change this answer if I'm a PH. Wrong. The limited 2H is more restrictive than the unlimited 1H so it should be allowed. More restrictive means more information and therefore that it might incorporate the information in a less restrictive bid. The hands that I bid 2H non-forcing on is a sub-set of the hands that I bid 1H forcing on this is what is allowed. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 03:31:45 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:31:45 +1300 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <635D2F45-9A4F-4056-8573-A00B3B8AE5F8@starpower.net> References: <47C389F6.1090207@nhcc.net> <200802260942.AA12593@geller204.nifty.com> <47512E3C-B923-4575-AF81-C58A0A12CC0D@starpower.net> <2da24b8e0802260638i1c516032lc561dc165b1a10c7@mail.gmail.com> <47C42EE9.4060707@ulb.ac.be> <635D2F45-9A4F-4056-8573-A00B3B8AE5F8@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802261831q6ad190b0nce6e67ae06862d7c@mail.gmail.com> On 27/02/2008, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 26, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > I'll try my hand at some examples ; feel free to comment. > > [snip] > > > 5. I open 1C, K/S, either natural or 15-20 NT. They tell me they > > opened > > 1 plum. I may overcall 1NT (16-18). If the bidding was 1X-p-p, I may > > reopen 2NT (18-20), but not 1NT (11-15). > > Picking a nit, you may not reopen with 2NT (without penalty), as > L27C1, for reasons not at all clear, applies only to RBs "at the > lowest legal level". > It is also not at all clear to me why a redouble would not be allowed. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 03:35:48 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:35:48 +1300 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <47C42EE9.4060707@ulb.ac.be> References: <47C389F6.1090207@nhcc.net> <200802260942.AA12593@geller204.nifty.com> <47512E3C-B923-4575-AF81-C58A0A12CC0D@starpower.net> <2da24b8e0802260638i1c516032lc561dc165b1a10c7@mail.gmail.com> <47C42EE9.4060707@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802261835u77a67402s9150ce669fcd7725@mail.gmail.com> > 6. I open 1H. They tell me they opened 1S. Unless I'm playing very, very > sound overcalls, neither 2H nor 3H nor double would be allowed, so I'm > fixed. Sometimes yes. You might be able to overcall 2S showing a two-suiter. My two-suiters should qualify if I am vulnerable but perhaps not if I am not vulnerable. The more I think about these examples the more I think that the new rule is more restrictive than the old rule. Previously if the bidding went (1S) 1H I could correct at the lowest level without penalty so long as 1H and 2H were both incontrovertibly not conventional. Now there are quite severe restrictions on when a correction is allowed. This seems to be the opposite of the stated intention of the lawmakers. Wayne From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 03:40:43 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:40:43 +1300 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <200802262112.AA12607@geller204.nifty.com> References: <47C42EE9.4060707@ulb.ac.be> <200802262112.AA12607@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802261840y701ee83dnba4fedb02c0f90f2@mail.gmail.com> On 27/02/2008, Robert Geller wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner writes: > >6. I open 1H. They tell me they opened 1S. Unless I'm playing very, very > >sound overcalls, neither 2H nor 3H nor double would be allowed, so I'm > >fixed. > > > >7. The same, but 3rd in hand. If I can prove we routninely open light > >1H/S on a fair suit, I'd say I'm allowed to change this to 2H. > > Yes, but suppose you play strictly 5 card majors in 1st/2nd hand, but > allow the occasional 4 card major opener in 3rd/4th hand. Then > 2H would be unallowable if the 1H IB was meant as a 1H opener. > Why? I think you have the logic around the wrong way here. > If on the other hand the IB-er thought the opener was 1C and he > was making a 1H overcall then the "meaning of the 1B" is more > likely to be 5 cards in hearts (but 4 card overcalls are not unknown > at the 1 level). > > So it seems questionable whether a replacement bid of 2H should be > allowed. > And again here. > What a can of worms.... I question the wisdom of a law that depends > on the concept of the meaning of the IB in determining whether or > not the RB should be allowed.... > This certainly seems to be causing problems and as i just said i think is far more restrictive than was intended. Wayne From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Feb 27 03:53:44 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:53:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200802262157.m1QLvbj9001826@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200802262157.m1QLvbj9001826@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47C4D0B8.2070602@nhcc.net> > From: Guthrie > I've never had the pleasure of visiting America but many of my friends > have played there. The impression of a few of them is that an opponent > would *sometimes* ask but *not always*. All I can say is that this is contrary to my own experience. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Feb 27 04:02:07 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:02:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <200802262205.m1QM5Mqw003859@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200802262205.m1QM5Mqw003859@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47C4D2AF.9040403@nhcc.net> ["the information contained in the IB"?] > From: Eric Landau > ISTM it will be "important" in all but the most trivial cases. Yes. > the director examines the available evidence and > makes a finding. But 99.9999% of the time you ask, you get an answer > consistent with the player's hand, and there you are. The question is whether the actual intention is relevant. > Step 1: Imagine a legal auction through the RB with no IB having > been made. What does the RB tell you about the bidder's hand? OK. > Step 2: Determine the intended meaning of the IB. Why is the intended meaning relevant? Why shouldn't it be the meaning conveyed to the rest of the table (and in particular to the IBer's partner)? > What does that > tell you about the bidder's hand that you didn't know from step 1 > alone? > > Step 3: If the answer in step 2 is "nothing", apply L27C. Otherwise > apply L27D. OK. > But a "deterministic" RB cannot > "incorporate" "probabilistic" information, so, yes, we need to answer > the question in order to decide whether we can apply L27C. Why can't the RB incorporate probabilistic information? It will be very interesting to see what the DSC comes up with. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Feb 27 04:26:47 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:26:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <200802262211.m1QMBulK005344@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200802262211.m1QMBulK005344@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47C4D877.9030404@nhcc.net> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > 1. I open 2C, natural, 5+ cards, unbalanced, opening values. They tell > me they opened 2D (weak). May I ... I'm going to assume that your intention to "open 2C" was obvious to the table, but in general that won't be certain. > a) make a T/O double ? No, because it doesn't show 5 clubs. > b) bid 3C, natural ? Yes, provided it denies 5332 pattern, which is > probable. > c) bid 2NT, showing 5+ clubs and unspecified 4-card major ? Yes, > provided its range is included in the range for 2C. All look OK to me, though b) is slightly tricky and may depend on exact distributional requirements. Also the 3C overcall has to promise opening values (which it will for most pairs). > 2. I open 2C, as above, but could in a pinch be 5332. They tell me they > opened 2C (a priori a transfer to 2D). > Now, if a double shows length in clubs and constructive values, I'm > allowed to double. The double needs to show opening values, of course. And deny a major suit that you would have opened. > 3. Partner opens 1C, I answer 1H, but they overcalled 1S. May I... > a) double ? Yes, provided it unambiguously shows hearts. The fact that > it's probably more constructive than a 1H response is irrelevant. > b) bid 2H, natural and forcing ? Yes. > c) bid 2H, natural and nonforcing ? No, because 1H is unlimited and 2H > is limited. But change this answer if I'm a PH. > d) bid 3H, strong with hearts ? No, because it's a jump bid. All OK except c). The RB is _more_ specific than the IB, so 2H either limited or unlimited should probably be allowed. There might be some question on b) if you play strong jump shifts but fit jumps or weak jumps in competition. Then the 1H bid was limited above, but the 2H RB is not. > 4. I open 1C (Polish variant : natural 11+, or any 12-17 balanced with > at least one 4-card major, or any 18+). 1D/H/S would have shown 5 cards. > They tell me they opened 1D. > May I double ? > I'd say yes, however strange it might seem. Because all hands that would > double 1D would open 1C in that system. whence 1C doesn't add any > information. > Okay, perhaps you would double on AKx-AKx-432-Q10xx, but that's > marginal. And BTW I wouldn't. What would a 1NT opening have been? Those hands are excluded from the 1C opener but possibly included in the double. I think you are OK if 1NT would have been 10-12 or so (you wouldn't double with those) and also if it would have been artificial. If 1NT was 15-17 or even 12-14, you're out of luck. Some of those hands, say with a doubleton diamond, would double but not open 1C. > 5. I open 1C, K/S, either natural or 15-20 NT. They tell me they opened > 1 plum. I may overcall 1NT (16-18). No. Some of those hands would have opened 1D. > If the bidding was 1X-p-p, I may > reopen 2NT (18-20), but not 1NT (11-15). Jump to 2NT bars partner. So does 1NT, as you say. So does 2C unless you play _very_ sound overcalls in balancing seat. > 6. I open 1H. They tell me they opened 1S. Unless I'm playing very, very > sound overcalls, neither 2H nor 3H nor double would be allowed, so I'm > fixed. 2H will be allowed for pairs who play sound overcalls; no need for "very, very." (That's fairly common in good competition around here.) > 7. The same, but 3rd in hand. If I can prove we routninely open light > 1H/S on a fair suit, I'd say I'm allowed to change this to 2H. The requirement is that your overcalls have to be at least as strong as your openings under the relevant conditions. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Feb 27 23:38:12 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:38:12 -0800 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0802260931o7963c71cp5c7da325cb018e19@mail.gmail.co m> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> <498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> <47C4278C.6060706@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0802260931o7963c71cp5c7da325cb018e19@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080227143432.02f8c048@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 09:31 AM 26/02/2008, you wrote: >On 2/26/08, Guthrie wrote: > > > An advantages of such a simplified law is that it prevents the > > *non-offending* side from benefiting from conventional opportunities > > created by the infraction. Currently, pairs of secretary birds have > > different elaborate agreements that depend on whether they condone the > > illegal call. > >Out of curiousity, where do you play bridge? From the sounds of >things, I really want to avoid this part of the world... In all >seriousness, you come across as one of the most victimized players >that I've ever heard of. > >On those rare occasions when these secretary birds aren't stealing you >blind are your make an insufficient call some odious bastard is >illegally opening a 9 count in third seat. > >I play a lot of bridge and, somehow, I don't ever seem to run into >these same problems... I suppose that I'm just very lucky Quite so. I use blml to cross off places where I would never like to play bridge. Sorry to say, USA went off years ago, although all the itinerant Americans who play here couldn't be more courteous. The only places left are YC and Oz, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Feb 27 04:55:09 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:55:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Revoke then concede (old laws) Message-ID: <2946C0C7342F43F7BBF988FA6ABE79F2@erdos> Under the old Laws, the penalty for a revoke is one or two tricks, but the penalty may not be determined until the hand is played out. If there is a claim or concession, the hand is not played out. If the revoking side claims and the penalty can either be one trick or two on normal plays, it should obviously be two. But what if the non-revoking side terminates play with a concession, and the conceded trick might or might not be won by the revoker? For example, clubs are trump, the lead is in dummy, everyone knows the DJ is high, and declarer revoked by not playing the SA on a previous spade trick: - AQx - - - x KJx x - x - - A - J K If declarer claims and does not say, "HA pitching the SA, ruff H, and DJ", then it is logical for him to pitch the DJ on the HA, or ruff the first heart, so the penalty is two tricks. (This is what happened at the table.) But suppose that instead West (who didn't know about the revoke, and thus believes that declarer has the CK and both diamonds) concedes the last three tricks, declarer accepts the concession, and then the revoke comes to light. Do you still impose the two-trick penalty, on the grounds that declarer's acceptance of the concession, like a claim, denies him the benefit of the doubt for his own infraction? From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Feb 27 23:53:01 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:53:01 -0800 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <47512E3C-B923-4575-AF81-C58A0A12CC0D@starpower.net> References: <47C389F6.1090207@nhcc.net> <200802260942.AA12593@geller204.nifty.com> <47512E3C-B923-4575-AF81-C58A0A12CC0D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080227144319.02f7cec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> > Eric: >Here is an unambiguous guideline: > >Step 1: Imagine a legal auction through the RB with no IB having >been made. What does the RB tell you about the bidder's hand? > >Step 2: Determine the intended meaning of the IB. What does that >tell you about the bidder's hand that you didn't know from step 1 >alone? > >Step 3: If the answer in step 2 is "nothing", apply L27C. Otherwise >apply L27D. > >The language may be less than optimal, but applying it is really >rather simple. I like this. But I don't want to find out about step 2, at least until after the hand is played out. I would rather make the IB unauthorised for the offending side. Then I would like to allow just about anything reasonable, quasi L25A, but I still have L27C2, L23 (the best), and of course L16 & L73C to mop up the stragglers, Tony (Sydney) vaguely reasonable, and I have From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Feb 27 08:08:55 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:08:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Revoke_then_concede_=28old_laws=29?= In-Reply-To: <2946C0C7342F43F7BBF988FA6ABE79F2@erdos> References: <2946C0C7342F43F7BBF988FA6ABE79F2@erdos> Message-ID: <1JUGPP-04cWxc0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> From: "David Grabiner" > Under the old Laws, the penalty for a revoke is one or two tricks, but > the penalty may not be determined until the hand is played out. ?If > there is a claim or concession, the hand is not played out. ?If the > revoking side claims and the penalty can either be one trick or two on > normal plays, it should obviously be two. ?But what if the > non-revoking side terminates play with a concession, and the conceded > trick might or might not be won by the revoker? > > For example, clubs are trump, the lead is in dummy, everyone knows the > DJ is high, and declarer revoked by not playing the SA on a previous > spade trick: > - > AQx > - > - > > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? x > KJx ? ? ? ? ?x > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? x > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? - > > A > - > J > K > > If declarer claims and does not say, "HA pitching the SA, ruff H, and > DJ", then it is logical for him to pitch the DJ on the HA, or ruff the > first heart, so the penalty is two tricks. ?(This is what happened at > the table.) > > But suppose that instead West (who didn't know about the revoke, and > thus believes that declarer has the CK and both diamonds) concedes the > last three tricks, declarer accepts the concession, and then the > revoke comes to light. ?Do you still impose the two-trick penalty, on > the grounds that declarer's acceptance of the concession, like a > claim, denies him the benefit of the doubt for his own infraction? yes, sure. Law 63 A3: "A revoke becomes established: when a member of the offending side [...] acquiesces in a [...] concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand (or in any other fashion)." And as long as the (revoking) offender does not actively prevents the card, that might establish a second-trick-penalty, from winning a trick, he won't get the benefit of the doubt. From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 27 08:52:13 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:52:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00a201c878dd$e6bde7d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000201c87915$aae68f90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > SR: > >> Was anyone in the countries where asking was prohibited unhappy about > >> that > >> fact? Grattan? > > SP: > > I believe I can answer for Norway: Very few if any player here does seem > > happy with the prohibition, nor do they seem troubled by the alleged > > possibility of UI. > > > I don't think that anyone here in the UK even notices. My guess would be > that they will be unhappy when the prohibition is lifted. > > > And yes, I do believe that a partnership using questions about possible > > revoke as a means to transmit UI will soon reveal them. > > I don't mean using some sort of pre-arranged system. I mean just being > lazy > and not asking when you know for sure or are highly expectant that partner > will be showing out. > > If the director is not called and the hand examined every time a person > changes their pattern, how will anything be revealed? Especially because > it > would be a very small proportion of hands where the UI actually affected > the > defence. And it will be difficult to prove that the UI really did cause > the > correct defence to be found. If "always asking" is going to be enforced, > then it will not be as bad. I suppose. my optimistic prediction is that > few > people in England will take up the practice. Have you experienced any problem on UI with players asking or not asking about calls (in particular those calls that are alerted) during the auction? The situation is precisely the same as when asking or not asking about possible revoke. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 27 08:56:11 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:56:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revoke then concede (old laws) In-Reply-To: <2946C0C7342F43F7BBF988FA6ABE79F2@erdos> Message-ID: <000301c87916$397d3f10$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of David Grabiner > Under the old Laws, the penalty for a revoke is one or two tricks, but the > penalty may not be determined until the hand is played out. If there is a > claim > or concession, the hand is not played out. If the revoking side claims > and the > penalty can either be one trick or two on normal plays, it should > obviously be > two. But what if the non-revoking side terminates play with a concession, > and > the conceded trick might or might not be won by the revoker? > > For example, clubs are trump, the lead is in dummy, everyone knows the DJ > is > high, and declarer revoked by not playing the SA on a previous spade > trick: > > - > AQx > - > - > - x > KJx x > - x > - - > A > - > J > K > > If declarer claims and does not say, "HA pitching the SA, ruff H, and DJ", > then > it is logical for him to pitch the DJ on the HA, or ruff the first heart, > so the > penalty is two tricks. (This is what happened at the table.) > > But suppose that instead West (who didn't know about the revoke, and thus > believes that declarer has the CK and both diamonds) concedes the last > three > tricks, declarer accepts the concession, and then the revoke comes to > light. Do > you still impose the two-trick penalty, on the grounds that declarer's > acceptance of the concession, like a claim, denies him the benefit of the > doubt for his own infraction? Let us just be happy this is one difficulty that disappears with the new laws! Regards Sven From Gampas at aol.com Wed Feb 27 09:49:12 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:49:12 EST Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 Message-ID: In a message dated 26/02/2008 08:18:57 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be writes: [paul lamford]: after the auction begins 2C - (Pass) - 2D - (Pass) - 2H (Kokish): [agot] b) The next person bids 2NT (minors, perhaps) and we, say, play DOPI and ROPI now, but get confused and also bid 2NT. This has no meaning in the partnership, and we can therefore select any bid that has no partnership meaning, which is the set of all bids as the only bid that had any meaning was 2S. I don't see the point. If there is no 2nd step, you can't be playing DOPI ? But, apart from that, you're right. You may bid anything you fancy (nonjump), since the 2S IB didn't carry any information at all. [paul lamford] then maybe I misunderstand the new law. Without the 2NT overcall by the opponent, we would have bid 2S (relay). Our agreement is if there is an intervention in a relay sequence we play, for example, that Double is a bad hand, Pass is a relay and other bids are natural and descriptive. If the intervention is Double, we play that redouble is a bad hand, pass is the relay, etc. Now after the 2NT overcall we make an insufficient bid of 2NT (not a 2S IB please note) which has no meaning without the opponent's 2NT opening and no meaning (obviously) with it. What we intended to bid was also 2NT, because we are stupid. Therefore we can make any bid, including reverting to our DOPI method, so that pass is again a relay. In fact we can do better, and play that the insufficient 2NT followed by pass (allowed with no penalty) is Lebensohl, showing a very bad hand. We do have "At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he judges that without assistance from the insufficient bid the contract could well have been different" to protect us, it is true. I don't think the law means that we can only substitute a bid that has no partnership agreement, on the basis that 2NT had no partnership agreement. What would we do if we have discussed the meaning of every bid (at the lowest level) after the 2NT overcall, in Meckwellian style? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 27 11:22:37 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:22:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Run away jury In-Reply-To: <47C445D1.3080906@NTLworld.com> References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com> <003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47BF47CA.30607@NTLworld.com> <07ff01c87874$b8d8bb10$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47C40EA0.1030601@ulb.ac.be> <47C445D1.3080906@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47C539ED.3070109@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Alain Gottcheiner] > I won't gainsay the existence of the subjectivity problem either. But > I'd like to add two remarks : > > 1. In nearly all sports, the question about the intention is indeed > relevant. The existence of a penalty, or its severity, depends on the > intent of the player. When "mechanical" penalties are on, the outcry is > often as indignant as ours. Think of anti-drug laws in cycling ("we > don't need to know whether you did it on purpose. You did it and you're > out"). > > [nige1] > Those accused of breaking a law rarely like that law; but law-abiding > players tend to prefer the rules to be as objective as possible. I'm > happy to discuss Alain's analogies with other games. If a foot-baller > (or God) handles the ball, most would prefer the law to take into > account the intentions of either. Well, it does. At least in the case of the human being. If the intent was protection, there is no foul, even if the player moved his hand. There was a well-known case, about 30 years ago, where a player raised the hand to signal an offside (all agreed that this was the intention), and hit the ball. He was given "hands" and a penalty shot ensued. But this seemed so ridiculous that instructions were given thereafter not to consider this as voluntary foul. Other examples include : Lawn hockey : P-C vs stroke. Basket-ball : "technical" vs. mundane foul. Rugby : a penalty try may only be given if it's obvious the infraction was voluntary. Cricket : did he do anything to play the ball ? ... and murder vs. manslaughter Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 27 12:03:41 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:03:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <47C45BB8.2070009@NTLworld.com> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> <498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> <47C4278C.6060706@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0802260931o7963c71cp5c7da325cb018e19@mail.gmail.com> <47C45BB8.2070009@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47C5438D.7050402@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > > In some areas of Bridge law, I *anticipate* problems: for example, I > don't think I've met a pair at the table who admitted to conventional > agreements that depend on whether or not they condone an insufficient > bid. If reports in RGB are to be believed, however, more people will > take up such exploits :( > It all depends what you call "conventional agreements" (classical problem on blml). It's bridge logic that when you condone the IB, you have reasons for doing so, and conversely. I'm sure most experienced players will know that when the bidding goes 1S (1H), partner's 1S would show less ODR than if partner had disallowed 1H, then bid 2S over 2H. And perhaps they'd brag about their well-tuned partnership when it shows useful. I must admit to having acted this way at least twice. And when you condone some 2S IB, then double for penalties, it's obvious that your double is so huge that you'd never dream to be able to double 3S, and prefer the bird in your hand. So, even if your motto is "don't leave doubles in with a void", you'd do it here. So, the combination "decision about the IB + call" means more than the mere call. Now if that the kind of "exploits" they speak of on RGB, WTP ? Or do some really pretend they (or others) use conventional agreements ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 27 12:07:52 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:07:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <200802262112.AA12607@geller204.nifty.com> References: <47C42EE9.4060707@ulb.ac.be> <200802262112.AA12607@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47C54488.5090903@ulb.ac.be> Robert Geller a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner writes: > >> 6. I open 1H. They tell me they opened 1S. Unless I'm playing very, very >> sound overcalls, neither 2H nor 3H nor double would be allowed, so I'm >> fixed. >> >> 7. The same, but 3rd in hand. If I can prove we routninely open light >> 1H/S on a fair suit, I'd say I'm allowed to change this to 2H. >> > > Yes, but suppose you play strictly 5 card majors in 1st/2nd hand, but > allow the occasional 4 card major opener in 3rd/4th hand. Then > 2H would be unallowable if the 1H IB was meant as a 1H opener. > > Nope. The 1H IB didn't tell you anything the 2H bid doesn't. Still that "inclusion" problem. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 27 12:09:19 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:09:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560802261828q2ec044begbd036722ab6e74c8@mail.gmail.com> References: <47C389F6.1090207@nhcc.net> <200802260942.AA12593@geller204.nifty.com> <47512E3C-B923-4575-AF81-C58A0A12CC0D@starpower.net> <2da24b8e0802260638i1c516032lc561dc165b1a10c7@mail.gmail.com> <47C42EE9.4060707@ulb.ac.be> <2a1c3a560802261828q2ec044begbd036722ab6e74c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47C544DF.6080702@ulb.ac.be> Wayne Burrows a ?crit : >> 3. Partner opens 1C, I answer 1H, but they overcalled 1S. May I... >> c) bid 2H, natural and nonforcing ? No, because 1H is unlimited and 2H >> is limited. But change this answer if I'm a PH. >> > > Wrong. The limited 2H is more restrictive than the unlimited 1H so it > should be allowed. > right ! From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Feb 27 12:16:29 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:16:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c87915$aae68f90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000201c87915$aae68f90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47C5468D.3090305@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] Have you experienced any problem on UI with players asking or not asking about calls (in particular those calls that are alerted) during the auction? The situation is precisely the same as when asking or not asking about possible revoke. [nige1] Not *precisely* the same because you often need to know the meaning of opponents' conventional calls but your partner never needs to renege. But similar enough, in that the same simple solution obtains: ask *always* or *never*. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 27 12:26:23 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:26:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <47C4D877.9030404@nhcc.net> References: <200802262211.m1QMBulK005344@cfa.harvard.edu> <47C4D877.9030404@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <47C548DF.5040206@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : > >> 2. I open 2C, as above, but could in a pinch be 5332. They tell me they >> opened 2C (a priori a transfer to 2D). >> Now, if a double shows length in clubs and constructive values, I'm >> allowed to double. >> > > The double needs to show opening values, of course. And deny a major > suit that you would have opened. > > Okay. But very few would double 2C on 55 distirbution, so it seems settled. >> 3. Partner opens 1C, I answer 1H, but they overcalled 1S. May I... >> a) double ? Yes, provided it unambiguously shows hearts. The fact that >> it's probably more constructive than a 1H response is irrelevant. >> b) bid 2H, natural and forcing ? Yes. >> c) bid 2H, natural and nonforcing ? No, because 1H is unlimited and 2H >> is limited. But change this answer if I'm a PH. >> d) bid 3H, strong with hearts ? No, because it's a jump bid. >> > > All OK except c). The RB is _more_ specific than the IB, so 2H either > limited or unlimited should probably be allowed. > > Okay, I got it wrong. >> 4. I open 1C (Polish variant : natural 11+, or any 12-17 balanced with >> at least one 4-card major, or any 18+). 1D/H/S would have shown 5 cards. >> They tell me they opened 1D. >> May I double ? >> I'd say yes, however strange it might seem. Because all hands that would >> double 1D would open 1C in that system. whence 1C doesn't add any >> information. >> Okay, perhaps you would double on AKx-AKx-432-Q10xx, but that's >> marginal. And BTW I wouldn't. >> > > What would a 1NT opening have been? 15?-17?, balanced, no major. Those hands aren't included in the double : they bid 1NT. So it's ok, I think. > Some of those hands, say with a doubleton diamond, > would double but not open 1C. > > With a 4-card major, open 1C. .So there remains the case of 3325. The doubler's partner has the additional information that partner doesn't hold a 3325 pattern with so-so clubs and 16-17 HCP. I think that's the kind of marginal oversteppings that might be allowed, unless we intend to read 30 pages of notes before deciding whether a RB will be allowed. >> 5. I open 1C, either natural or 15-20 NT. They tell me they opened >> 1 plum. I may overcall 1NT (16-18). >> > > No. Some of those hands would have opened 1D. > I should have been more precise. 1C is either natural or ANY 15-20 NT (whence not pure K/S). That's my favourite system, BTW. >> 6. I open 1H. They tell me they opened 1S. Unless I'm playing very, very >> sound overcalls, neither 2H nor 3H nor double would be allowed, so I'm >> fixed. >> > > 2H will be allowed for pairs who play sound overcalls; no need for > "very, very." (That's fairly common in good competition around here.) > > That's the most interesting item of the list. I routinely open 2H (not 1H) on AQJxxx of hearts and an outside King. Do you suggest that in your group, one doesn't overcall 1S with 2H on such a hand ? If they don't, then OK. >> 7. The same, but 3rd in hand. If I can prove we routninely open light >> 1H/S on a fair suit, I'd say I'm allowed to change this to 2H. >> > > The requirement is that your overcalls have to be at least as strong as > your openings under the relevant conditions. > > Well said. So items #6 and 7 could serve as an interesting set of discriminating examples, I hope. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 27 12:26:23 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:26:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <47C4D877.9030404@nhcc.net> References: <200802262211.m1QMBulK005344@cfa.harvard.edu> <47C4D877.9030404@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <47C548DF.5040206@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : > >> 2. I open 2C, as above, but could in a pinch be 5332. They tell me they >> opened 2C (a priori a transfer to 2D). >> Now, if a double shows length in clubs and constructive values, I'm >> allowed to double. >> > > The double needs to show opening values, of course. And deny a major > suit that you would have opened. > > Okay. But very few would double 2C on 55 distirbution, so it seems settled. >> 3. Partner opens 1C, I answer 1H, but they overcalled 1S. May I... >> a) double ? Yes, provided it unambiguously shows hearts. The fact that >> it's probably more constructive than a 1H response is irrelevant. >> b) bid 2H, natural and forcing ? Yes. >> c) bid 2H, natural and nonforcing ? No, because 1H is unlimited and 2H >> is limited. But change this answer if I'm a PH. >> d) bid 3H, strong with hearts ? No, because it's a jump bid. >> > > All OK except c). The RB is _more_ specific than the IB, so 2H either > limited or unlimited should probably be allowed. > > Okay, I got it wrong. >> 4. I open 1C (Polish variant : natural 11+, or any 12-17 balanced with >> at least one 4-card major, or any 18+). 1D/H/S would have shown 5 cards. >> They tell me they opened 1D. >> May I double ? >> I'd say yes, however strange it might seem. Because all hands that would >> double 1D would open 1C in that system. whence 1C doesn't add any >> information. >> Okay, perhaps you would double on AKx-AKx-432-Q10xx, but that's >> marginal. And BTW I wouldn't. >> > > What would a 1NT opening have been? 15?-17?, balanced, no major. Those hands aren't included in the double : they bid 1NT. So it's ok, I think. > Some of those hands, say with a doubleton diamond, > would double but not open 1C. > > With a 4-card major, open 1C. .So there remains the case of 3325. The doubler's partner has the additional information that partner doesn't hold a 3325 pattern with so-so clubs and 16-17 HCP. I think that's the kind of marginal oversteppings that might be allowed, unless we intend to read 30 pages of notes before deciding whether a RB will be allowed. >> 5. I open 1C, either natural or 15-20 NT. They tell me they opened >> 1 plum. I may overcall 1NT (16-18). >> > > No. Some of those hands would have opened 1D. > I should have been more precise. 1C is either natural or ANY 15-20 NT (whence not pure K/S). That's my favourite system, BTW. >> 6. I open 1H. They tell me they opened 1S. Unless I'm playing very, very >> sound overcalls, neither 2H nor 3H nor double would be allowed, so I'm >> fixed. >> > > 2H will be allowed for pairs who play sound overcalls; no need for > "very, very." (That's fairly common in good competition around here.) > > That's the most interesting item of the list. I routinely open 2H (not 1H) on AQJxxx of hearts and an outside King. Do you suggest that in your group, one doesn't overcall 1S with 2H on such a hand ? If they don't, then OK. >> 7. The same, but 3rd in hand. If I can prove we routninely open light >> 1H/S on a fair suit, I'd say I'm allowed to change this to 2H. >> > > The requirement is that your overcalls have to be at least as strong as > your openings under the relevant conditions. > > Well said. So items #6 and 7 could serve as an interesting set of discriminating examples, I hope. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 27 12:32:11 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:32:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47C54A3B.4030201@ulb.ac.be> Gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > [agot] > b) The next person bids 2NT (minors, perhaps) and we, say, play DOPI and > ROPI now, but get confused and also bid 2NT. This has no meaning in the > partnership, and we can therefore select any bid that has no partnership > meaning, > which is the set of all bids as the only bid that had any meaning was 2S. > > I don't see the point. If there is no 2nd step, you can't be playing DOPI ? > But, apart from that, you're right. You may bid anything you fancy > (nonjump), since the 2S IB didn't carry any information at all. > > [paul lamford] then maybe I misunderstand the new law. Without the 2NT > overcall by the opponent, we would have bid 2S (relay). Our agreement is if there > is an intervention in a relay sequence we play, for example, that Double is a > bad hand, Pass is a relay and other bids are natural and descriptive. If the > intervention is Double, we play that redouble is a bad hand, pass is the > relay, etc. > > Now after the 2NT overcall we make an insufficient bid of 2NT (not a 2S IB > please note) which has no meaning without the opponent's 2NT opening and no > meaning (obviously) with it. What we intended to bid was also 2NT, because we > are stupid. As a TD, I just won't accept the explanation "2NT doesn't exist in our system, but I intended to bid it on 2H". A bit toot self-serving, isn't it ? From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Feb 27 13:07:09 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:07:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] Run away jury In-Reply-To: <47C539ED.3070109@ulb.ac.be> References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com> <003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47BF47CA.30607@NTLworld.com> <07ff01c87874$b8d8bb10$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47C40EA0.1030601@ulb.ac.be> <47C445D1.3080906@NTLworld.com> <47C539ED.3070109@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47C5526D.2020507@NTLworld.com> [nige1] If a foot-baller (or God) handles the ball, most would prefer the law to take into account the intentions of neither. [Alain Gottcheiner] Well, it does. At least in the case of the human being. If the intent was protection, there is no foul, even if the player moved his hand. There was a well-known case, about 30 years ago, where a player raised the hand to signal an offside (all agreed that this was the intention), and hit the ball. He was given "hands" and a penalty shot ensued. But this seemed so ridiculous that instructions were given thereafter not to consider this as voluntary foul. Other examples include : Lawn hockey : P-C vs stroke. Basket-ball : "technical" vs. mundane foul. Rugby : a penalty try may only be given if it's obvious the infraction was voluntary. Cricket : did he do anything to play the ball ? ... and murder vs. manslaughter [Nige2] I accept the validity of Alain's examples. I agree that in the case of criminal law, intent is important and subjective judgement is vital. Some subjective judgement is usually necessary in the rules of a game, but I feel that it should be kept to a minimum. In particular, I think that law-makers should try to avoid rules that depend on mind-reading. Many subjective rules are kept in spectator sports to foster controversy and maintain public interest in what are lucrative commercial enterprises. - At football, supporters of perennial losing teams can plausibly complain "We wiz robbed" -- at least to each other :) - At tennis, umpires tolerated John McEnroe's antics to avoid alienating spectators and to generate publicity. More people *play* "mind sports" than *watch* them. Hence I don't think games such as Bridge require so much subjectivity in their laws. From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 27 13:48:24 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:48:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47C5468D.3090305@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Guthrie > [Sven Pran] > Have you experienced any problem on UI with players asking or not asking > about calls (in particular those calls that are alerted) during the > auction? > > The situation is precisely the same as when asking or not asking about > possible revoke. > > [nige1] > Not *precisely* the same because you often need to know the meaning of > opponents' conventional calls but your partner never needs to renege. > > But similar enough, in that the same simple solution obtains: ask > *always* or *never*. Or better still: Sufficiently randomly so that no pattern is apparent. Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 27 14:14:25 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:14:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Run away jury In-Reply-To: <47C5526D.2020507@NTLworld.com> References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com> <003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47BF47CA.30607@NTLworld.com> <07ff01c87874$b8d8bb10$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47C40EA0.1030601@ulb.ac.be> <47C445D1.3080906@NTLworld.com> <47C539ED.3070109@ulb.ac.be> <47C5526D.2020507@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47C56231.3000609@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > > [Nige2] > I accept the validity of Alain's examples. I agree that in the case of > criminal law, intent is important and subjective judgement is vital. > > Some subjective judgement is usually necessary in the rules of a game, > but I feel that it should be kept to a minimum. In particular, I think > that law-makers should try to avoid rules that depend on mind-reading. > > Many subjective rules are kept in spectator sports to foster controversy > and maintain public interest in what are lucrative commercial enterprises. > - At football, supporters of perennial losing teams can plausibly > complain "We wiz robbed" -- at least to each other :) > - At tennis, umpires tolerated John McEnroe's antics to avoid > alienating spectators and to generate publicity. > > (AG) I don't think football (and cricket) authorities are unwilling to use images for the mere sake of preserving the supporters' rigths to show less-than-good faith. The most probable reasons are : preserving at least a bit of respect for the men in black ; allowing for the person-in-the-street's (and their own) reticence about modern gadgetry ; and admitting that sport is a human activity and the players' acts may have very different motivations that aren't apparent on film. Do you feel automatical filming is better than a policeman's sight for assessing light jumping ? I don't, because there could be so many reason for doing it, and because the flash doesn't tell us whether the action was dangerous or not in that precise case. AFAIC, the feeling of being robbed would be much bigger, at bridge, when I get an automatical penalty, out of proportion with the damage done (could happen with exposed cards for example) that when a human being errs in assessing the possible damage, if only because in the latter case judgment could be reversed. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Feb 27 14:19:26 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:19:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47C5635E.1080402@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] Have you experienced any problem on UI with players asking or not asking about calls (in particular those calls that are alerted) during the auction? The situation is precisely the same as when asking or not asking about possible revoke. [nige1] Not *precisely* the same because you often need to know the meaning of opponents' conventional calls but your partner never needs to renege. But similar enough, in that the same simple solution obtains: ask *always* or *never*. [Sven2] Or better still: Sufficiently randomly so that no pattern is apparent. [nige2] Sven is not the first to come up with this impractical suggestion :) If you ask *randomly* about alerted calls then you must sometimes refrain from asking when you need to know. That is a possible strategy but it is insanely masochistic :) If you always ask when you need to know but not always otherwise, then you are *not* asking randomly. For example, partner knows that you aren't interested when you don't ask. Obviously, however, it is a cunning ploy to *claim* that you follow a "random" strategy because it is so difficult to prove that you don't :) From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 27 14:21:25 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:21:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47C563D5.8010109@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > Or better still: Sufficiently randomly so that no pattern is apparent. > > Yep. But you'll bump into the well-known inability of humans to simulate random patterns. We've seen this with random timing behind screens : do players really use random timing ? I think there is some pattern in it. Players use it most when they think the probability of timing being a problem is bigger. I've toyed with the idea of taking my 15 seconds on the first or second round of bidding whenever the first card I pulled was an 8 or a 9 , but this isn't random at all, because it means I'll random-time more often on weak hands (not to mention that partner could get the pattern, and UI). Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 27 14:38:16 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:38:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <200802262112.AA12607@geller204.nifty.com> References: <47C42EE9.4060707@ulb.ac.be> <200802262112.AA12607@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <50457892-DE15-4605-9264-51B7926D3BF1@starpower.net> On Feb 26, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Robert Geller wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner writes: >> 6. I open 1H. They tell me they opened 1S. Unless I'm playing >> very, very >> sound overcalls, neither 2H nor 3H nor double would be allowed, so >> I'm >> fixed. >> >> 7. The same, but 3rd in hand. If I can prove we routninely open light >> 1H/S on a fair suit, I'd say I'm allowed to change this to 2H. > > Yes, but suppose you play strictly 5 card majors in 1st/2nd hand, but > allow the occasional 4 card major opener in 3rd/4th hand. Then > 2H would be unallowable if the 1H IB was meant as a 1H opener. No it wouldn't (given that the ranges match). If the overcall shows five or more hearts, the IB, showing four or more hearts, adds no information. You can't have five or more hearts without having four or more hearts. > If on the other hand the IB-er thought the opener was 1C and he > was making a 1H overcall then the "meaning of the 1B" is more > likely to be 5 cards in hearts (but 4 card overcalls are not unknown > at the 1 level). Again, whether the RB shows 4+ or 5+, the IB, which shows 4+, provides no additional information. > So it seems questionable whether a replacement bid of 2H should be > allowed. > > What a can of worms.... I question the wisdom of a law that depends > on the concept of the meaning of the IB in determining whether or > not the RB should be allowed.... That's another issue. But I still do not understand why, given the "meaning of the IB", applying the language of L27C1 should prove difficult. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 27 14:52:12 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:52:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47C5635E.1080402@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <001901c87947$f4842900$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Guthrie > [Sven Pran] > Have you experienced any problem on UI with players asking or not asking > about calls (in particular those calls that are alerted) during the > auction? > > The situation is precisely the same as when asking or not asking about > possible revoke. > > [nige1] > Not *precisely* the same because you often need to know the meaning of > opponents' conventional calls but your partner never needs to renege. > > But similar enough, in that the same simple solution obtains: ask > *always* or *never*. > > [Sven2] > Or better still: Sufficiently randomly so that no pattern is apparent. > > [nige2] > > Sven is not the first to come up with this impractical suggestion :) > > If you ask *randomly* about alerted calls then you must sometimes > refrain from asking when you need to know. That is a possible strategy > but it is insanely masochistic :) > > If you always ask when you need to know but not always otherwise, then > you are *not* asking randomly. For example, partner knows that you > aren't interested when you don't ask. > > Obviously, however, it is a cunning ploy to *claim* that you follow a > "random" strategy because it is so difficult to prove that you don't :) All the comments I have seen on this thread are of course true, but I still haven't seen anybody claiming experience that asking or not asking questions has really caused any problem with UI? Maybe because this is really not any problem except in some peoples' imagination? Regards Sven From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 14:51:33 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:51:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <47C5438D.7050402@ulb.ac.be> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> <498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> <47C4278C.6060706@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0802260931o7963c71cp5c7da325cb018e19@mail.gmail.com> <47C45BB8.2070009@NTLworld.com> <47C5438D.7050402@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0802270551n6fb6a00at3eac4a9f7f1ed535@mail.gmail.com> On 2/27/08, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > So, the combination "decision about the IB + call" means more than the > mere call. > Now if that the kind of "exploits" they speak of on RGB, WTP ? Or do > some really pretend they (or others) use conventional agreements ? The "classic" discussion typically focuses on so-called meta agreements. Assume for the moment that partner and I are playing a relay system with well defined rules describing competitive bidding sequences. RHO intervenes with an insufficient bid? Are we permitted to condone the insufficient bid and take advanatge of the additional bidding space? If relay sequences aren't your thing, consider the following: Partner has just bid 4NT (Simple Blackwood). We have the agreement that we play DOP1 (Double = Zero, pass = 1) after interference. RHO now bids an insufficient 4H. Does the existence of a DOP1 agreement bar me from accepting the insufficient bid? -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 27 15:02:51 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:02:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question In-Reply-To: <47C4D2AF.9040403@nhcc.net> References: <200802262205.m1QM5Mqw003859@cfa.harvard.edu> <47C4D2AF.9040403@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Feb 26, 2008, at 10:02 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > ["the information contained in the IB"?] > >> From: Eric Landau >> ISTM it will be "important" in all but the most trivial cases. > > Yes. > >> the director examines the available evidence and >> makes a finding. But 99.9999% of the time you ask, you get an answer >> consistent with the player's hand, and there you are. > > The question is whether the actual intention is relevant. > >> Step 1: Imagine a legal auction through the RB with no IB having >> been made. What does the RB tell you about the bidder's hand? > > OK. > >> Step 2: Determine the intended meaning of the IB. > > Why is the intended meaning relevant? Why shouldn't it be the meaning > conveyed to the rest of the table (and in particular to the IBer's > partner)? It could have been either, and I read L27C1 as intending the former. Yesterday I wrote, 'L27C1 speaks of "the information contained in the IB" rather than "the information available to the bidder's partner from the IB". Presumably that was a deliberate choice...' >> What does that >> tell you about the bidder's hand that you didn't know from step 1 >> alone? >> >> Step 3: If the answer in step 2 is "nothing", apply L27C. Otherwise >> apply L27D. > > OK. > >> But a "deterministic" RB cannot >> "incorporate" "probabilistic" information, so, yes, we need to answer >> the question in order to decide whether we can apply L27C. > > Why can't the RB incorporate probabilistic information? I suppose in a sense it could -- we could read "the information contained in the IB" as "the totality of the information that may have been contained in the IB, regardless of the bidder's intention". That's not quite the same as "incorporating" an x% probability of meaning A, but is not unreasonable. However, ISTM that that would make the "incorporation" test so discriminating as to turn L27C1 into close to a no-op. > It will be very interesting to see what the DSC comes up with. I just hope they don't muddy things up. As written, "incorporates the information" gives us a "bright line". If the DSC takes that away, as some have suggested (i.e. interpret "incorporates" along the lines of "essentially incorporates" or "substantially incorporates", the wheels will come off. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Wed Feb 27 15:17:28 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:17:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question References: <200802262205.m1QM5Mqw003859@cfa.harvard.edu><47C4D2AF.9040403@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001001c8794b$7ba38040$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Today's L27C question > On Feb 26, 2008, at 10:02 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > >> ["the information contained in the IB"?] >> >>> From: Eric Landau >>> ISTM it will be "important" in all but the most trivial cases. >> >> Yes. >> >>> the director examines the available evidence and >>> makes a finding. But 99.9999% of the time you ask, you get an answer >>> consistent with the player's hand, and there you are. >> >> The question is whether the actual intention is relevant. >> >>> Step 1: Imagine a legal auction through the RB with no IB having >>> been made. What does the RB tell you about the bidder's hand? >> >> OK. >> >>> Step 2: Determine the intended meaning of the IB. >> >> Why is the intended meaning relevant? Why shouldn't it be the meaning >> conveyed to the rest of the table (and in particular to the IBer's >> partner)? > > It could have been either, and I read L27C1 as intending the former. > Yesterday I wrote, 'L27C1 speaks of "the information contained in the > IB" rather than "the information available to the bidder's partner > from the IB". Presumably that was a deliberate choice...' > >>> What does that >>> tell you about the bidder's hand that you didn't know from step 1 >>> alone? >>> >>> Step 3: If the answer in step 2 is "nothing", apply L27C. Otherwise >>> apply L27D. >> >> OK. >> >>> But a "deterministic" RB cannot >>> "incorporate" "probabilistic" information, so, yes, we need to answer >>> the question in order to decide whether we can apply L27C. >> >> Why can't the RB incorporate probabilistic information? > > I suppose in a sense it could -- we could read "the information > contained in the IB" as "the totality of the information that may > have been contained in the IB, regardless of the bidder's > intention". That's not quite the same as "incorporating" an x% > probability of meaning A, but is not unreasonable. However, ISTM > that that would make the "incorporation" test so discriminating as to > turn L27C1 into close to a no-op. > >> It will be very interesting to see what the DSC comes up with. > > I just hope they don't muddy things up. As written, "incorporates > the information" gives us a "bright line". If the DSC takes that > away, as some have suggested (i.e. interpret "incorporates" along the > lines of "essentially incorporates" or "substantially incorporates", > the wheels will come off. I do accept this point, but ISTM that the intention was to allow the the same degree of flexibility to substitute a call in an auction that was not "natural" as already exists in a "natural" auction. Maybe the intention is to make the non-"natural" substitution much tighter. I can live with either intent, and to be honest will have little difficulty applying either interpretation. Grattan, which way will I be jumping on july 1st? john > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Feb 27 15:18:02 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:18:02 +0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901c87947$f4842900$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <001901c87947$f4842900$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47C5711A.8040006@NTLworld.com> [Sven Pran] All the comments I have seen on this thread are of course true, but I still haven't seen anybody claiming experience that asking or not asking questions has really caused any problem with UI? Maybe because this is really not any problem except in some peoples' imaginations. [Nigel] In the UK, you are not meant to ask about an opponent's alerted call unless you hold a hand on which you are thinking of acting. Hence, whenever you don't ask you deny such a hand. Thus, even the most ethical player must regularly impart unauthorised information. Do partners ever act on such information, consciously or unconsciously? Sven is right that it's hard to prove, either way. But are we asking the right question? Surely a better question is "Should the law facilitate and encourage the use of unauthorised information, in virtually undetectable ways?" From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 27 15:47:47 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:47:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd In-Reply-To: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <01B95723-C8BA-4076-BEA7-10FCFC5B9C95@starpower.net> On Feb 27, 2008, at 7:48 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Guthrie >> [Sven Pran] >> Have you experienced any problem on UI with players asking or not >> asking >> about calls (in particular those calls that are alerted) during the >> auction? >> >> The situation is precisely the same as when asking or not asking >> about >> possible revoke. >> >> [nige1] >> Not *precisely* the same because you often need to know the >> meaning of >> opponents' conventional calls but your partner never needs to renege. >> >> But similar enough, in that the same simple solution obtains: ask >> *always* or *never*. > > Or better still: Sufficiently randomly so that no pattern is apparent. That does eliminate the UI concern, but it also counters the reason for asking, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If you randomly decide whether to ask or not each time, you will perforce fail to ask on some occasions when you genuinely need the information about a call, or when partner has in fact revoked. So it's probably not a viable solution. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 27 15:56:01 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:56:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0802270551n6fb6a00at3eac4a9f7f1ed535@mail.gmail.com> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> <498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> <47C4278C.6060706@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0802260931o7963c71cp5c7da325cb018e19@mail.gmail.com> <47C45BB8.2070009@NTLworld.com> <47C5438D.7050402@ulb.ac.be> <2da24b8e0802270551n6fb6a00at3eac4a9f7f1ed535@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <15D58B15-DAAF-4675-B2DC-CFB2C0CFE9A4@starpower.net> On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:51 AM, richard willey wrote: > On 2/27/08, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> So, the combination "decision about the IB + call" means more than >> the >> mere call. >> Now if that the kind of "exploits" they speak of on RGB, WTP ? Or do >> some really pretend they (or others) use conventional agreements ? > > The "classic" discussion typically focuses on so-called meta > agreements. > > Assume for the moment that partner and I are playing a relay system > with well defined rules describing competitive bidding sequences. RHO > intervenes with an insufficient bid? Are we permitted to condone the > insufficient bid and take advanatge of the additional bidding space? > > If relay sequences aren't your thing, consider the following: Partner > has just bid 4NT (Simple Blackwood). We have the agreement that we > play DOP1 (Double = Zero, pass = 1) after interference. RHO now bids > an insufficient 4H. > > Does the existence of a DOP1 agreement bar me from accepting the > insufficient bid? L27A1: "Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender?s LHO." There is nothing in L27, or anywhere else in TFLB for that matter, that bars a player from accepting an IB under any circumstances. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 16:04:41 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:04:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <15D58B15-DAAF-4675-B2DC-CFB2C0CFE9A4@starpower.net> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> <498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> <47C4278C.6060706@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0802260931o7963c71cp5c7da325cb018e19@mail.gmail.com> <47C45BB8.2070009@NTLworld.com> <47C5438D.7050402@ulb.ac.be> <2da24b8e0802270551n6fb6a00at3eac4a9f7f1ed535@mail.gmail.com> <15D58B15-DAAF-4675-B2DC-CFB2C0CFE9A4@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0802270704l655860bcm582a743de046ca95@mail.gmail.com> On 2/27/08, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:51 AM, richard willey wrote: > > > On 2/27/08, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > >> So, the combination "decision about the IB + call" means more than > >> the > >> mere call. > >> Now if that the kind of "exploits" they speak of on RGB, WTP ? Or do > >> some really pretend they (or others) use conventional agreements ? > > > > The "classic" discussion typically focuses on so-called meta > > agreements. > > > > Assume for the moment that partner and I are playing a relay system > > with well defined rules describing competitive bidding sequences. RHO > > intervenes with an insufficient bid? Are we permitted to condone the > > insufficient bid and take advanatge of the additional bidding space? > > > > If relay sequences aren't your thing, consider the following: Partner > > has just bid 4NT (Simple Blackwood). We have the agreement that we > > play DOP1 (Double = Zero, pass = 1) after interference. RHO now bids > > an insufficient 4H. > > > > Does the existence of a DOP1 agreement bar me from accepting the > > insufficient bid? > > L27A1: "Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at > the option of offender's LHO." There is nothing in L27, or anywhere > else in TFLB for that matter, that bars a player from accepting an IB > under any circumstances. Fine and dandy: Let's consider the example of the insufficient 4H bid after partner's Blackwood. Let's assume that we've agreed to play DOP1 after interference. Can I legally accept the insufficient 4H bid and then pass the bid to show 1 Ace? -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 27 16:15:06 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:15:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0802270551n6fb6a00at3eac4a9f7f1ed535@mail.gmail.com> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> <498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> <47C4278C.6060706@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0802260931o7963c71cp5c7da325cb018e19@mail.gmail.com> <47C45BB8.2070009@NTLworld.com> <47C5438D.7050402@ulb.ac.be> <2da24b8e0802270551n6fb6a00at3eac4a9f7f1ed535@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47C57E7A.8010303@ulb.ac.be> richard willey a ?crit : > The "classic" discussion typically focuses on so-called meta agreements. > > Assume for the moment that partner and I are playing a relay system > with well defined rules describing competitive bidding sequences. RHO > intervenes with an insufficient bid? Are we permitted to condone the > insufficient bid and take advanatge of the additional bidding space? > > If relay sequences aren't your thing, consider the following: Partner > has just bid 4NT (Simple Blackwood). We have the agreement that we > play DOP1 (Double = Zero, pass = 1) after interference. RHO now bids > an insufficient 4H. > > Does the existence of a DOP1 agreement bar me from accepting the > insufficient bid? > > I tink it has been said before that there can be no *new* agreements. So, in the latter case, DOPI could still be used. Now, let's tackle relay auctions. Say you play that, after letting know a 2-suited hand, the 1st step is a relay, asking for step responses, e.g. 1st step 64, 2nd 5422 etc. You may play this after an IB. The same holds when there is an IB over the relay.. If bidding an "impossible" suit shows shortness (like in Beta system), you may do this "economically". If the pass of an overcall says "no stopper", you may do this over an insufficient overcall. But if the meaning of bids are fixed, e.g. 2NT after showing a 2-suited hand always shows 55+, regardless of the number of steps it takes away, you may not use any other bid to show this. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Feb 27 17:33:46 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:33:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Unfair advantage? In-Reply-To: <47C5438D.7050402@ulb.ac.be> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> <498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> <47C4278C.6060706@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0802260931o7963c71cp5c7da325cb018e19@mail.gmail.com> <47C45BB8.2070009@NTLworld.com> <47C5438D.7050402@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47C590EA.8030700@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] ... When you condone some 2S IB, then double for penalties, it's obvious that your double is so huge that you'd never dream to be able to double 3S, and prefer the bird in your hand. So, even if your motto is "don't leave doubles in with a void", you'd do it here. ... Now if that the kind of "exploits" they speak of on RGB, WTP ? Or do some really pretend they (or others) use conventional agreements ? [Nige1] I agree with Alain's example. BLML has discussed similar attempts to gain extra advantage from opponents infractions, in various different contexts. [A] For example, you are dealer but RHO opens 3H. The director explains your options. You elect to condone the bid and then double. Tim West-Meads and I argue that "bridge logic" means that X here must be *penalty* even if your system says that a normal X of a 3H opener is *take-out*. Interestingly, if I remember rightly, Grattan Endicott disagrees with our interpretation of the law. He opines that the double should be still be take-out. On RGB, reputable legal authorities argue that, under the old law, a pair can legally agree *new* conventions contingent on whether the illegal bid is condoned. The local legislature can ban such agreements; but let's assume that they don't. [B] Take one of Alain's examples: an insufficient 4H bid by RHO over partner's RKCB 4N. An elaborate conventional structure could be ... - Condone it: Then X is penalty; 4S and 4N are natural and non-constructive; 5C/D/H/S retain their normal RKCB meaning. - Refuse to accept it: Now, if RHO corrects to 5H (or whatever), then DOPI applies. If he passes, then you give your normal RKCB response. In all cases where you refuse to accept the insufficient bid, you also promise a heart *void*. What is the BLML view about the legality of such agreements under the new law? From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 27 17:34:06 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:34:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000201c87915$aae68f90$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <025601c8795e$9212ee20$0100a8c0@stefanie> SP: > Have you experienced any problem on UI with players asking or not asking > about calls (in particular those calls that are alerted) during the > auction? Of course, many times. > > The situation is precisely the same as when asking or not asking about > possible revoke. I wouldn't say precisely. But yes, it is very similar. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 27 17:42:49 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:42:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <029201c8795f$ca2b52b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> But similar enough, in that the same simple solution obtains: ask >> *always* or *never*. Sven: > Or better still: Sufficiently randomly so that no pattern is apparent. > No, I don't think that "randomly" asking about possible revokes can work. First of all, it defeats the purpose of asking, which is protecting partner from a possible revoke. It seems that one who chooses to ask must always ask when he is rather surprised by the show-out, and therefore must always ask. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 27 17:50:59 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:50:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com><47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> <498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> <47C4278C.6060706@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0802260931o7963c71cp5c7da325cb018e19@mail.gmail.com> <47C45BB8.2070009@NTLworld.com><47C5438D.7050402@ulb.ac.be><2da24b8e0802270551n6fb6a00at3eac4a9f7f1ed535@mail.gmail.com> <47C57E7A.8010303@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <029401c87960$ee3437c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> AG: I think it has been said before that there can be no *new* agreements [after their insufficient bid]. So, in the latter case, DOPI could still be used. SR: This may have been true under the old Laws (I don't think so), but is definitely not true under the new Laws. See 40B3. AG: Now, let's tackle relay auctions. (snip) But if the meaning of bids are fixed, e.g. 2NT after showing a 2-suited hand always shows 55+, regardless of the number of steps it takes away, you may not use any other bid to show this. SR: Perhaps not, but with a 2-suited hand you can improvise with the bids made available. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Gampas at aol.com Wed Feb 27 17:53:51 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:53:51 EST Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 Message-ID: In a message dated 27/02/2008 11:32:55 GMT Standard Time, agot at ulb.ac.be writes: [paul lamford] after the start 2C - (pass) - 2D - (pass) - 2H (Kokish), the next hand bids 2NT minors and then so do we. [agot] As a TD, I just won't accept the explanation "2NT doesn't exist in our system, but I intended to bid it on 2H". A bit too self-serving, isn't it ? [paul lamford] That is not what is being suggested. Here the person has just made a meaningless bid (either without the 2NT overcall, or more obviously with it), maybe thinking it would be a relay, unless perchance 2NT in response to Kokish has some agreement (which it would with my regular partnership for example). Which bid are we trying to work out contains which information? Another example might be 1NT - (2NT, minors, say) - 2NT intended perhaps as Lebensohl to show a competitive 3H bid but obviously insufficient. Are we now comparing 1NT - 2NT - invitational or a transfer to diamonds, perhaps to find a bid that "incorporates the same information"? What nonsense. There is a fundamental difference also depending on whether the insufficient bidder saw the intervening bid, or saw his partner's bid correctly. Mr Burn suggests we ask him what he thought, but when he says, "what does thought mean?", we are still struggling. Another example might be 2NT - 2S, uncontested. Here the 2S bidder might have needed spectacles and thought his partner bid 1NT, when 2S might be Baronic or clubs or whatever, or he might have intended to bid 3S with whatever meaning - which he can then substitute I presume. The law makes no mention of his intention as far as I can see. I am delighted that the WBF LDS is addressing the wording of this law which I think is very poor and puts a huge strain on the time and resources of directors. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 27 17:56:21 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:56:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47C5635E.1080402@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <029801c87961$add7aa80$0100a8c0@stefanie> From: "Guthrie" > Sven is not the first to come up with this impractical suggestion :) > > If you ask *randomly* about alerted calls then you must sometimes > refrain from asking when you need to know. That is a possible strategy > but it is insanely masochistic :) > > If you always ask when you need to know but not always otherwise, then > you are *not* asking randomly. For example, partner knows that you > aren't interested when you don't ask. > > Obviously, however, it is a cunning ploy to *claim* that you follow a > "random" strategy because it is so difficult to prove that you don't :) I do not know the solution to the problem of asking about the opponents' bids. Asking always is just too intrusive and boring. The EBU's solution of asking only when it may affect your action is absurd. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 27 18:02:16 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:02:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] Run away jury References: <47BE0356.7030601@aol.com> <003601c8757f$32d75b90$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47BF47CA.30607@NTLworld.com> <07ff01c87874$b8d8bb10$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47C40EA0.1030601@ulb.ac.be> <47C445D1.3080906@NTLworld.com> <47C539ED.3070109@ulb.ac.be><47C5526D.2020507@NTLworld.com> <47C56231.3000609@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <029a01c87962$81ec6bd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> (AG) AFAIC, the feeling of being robbed would be much bigger, at bridge, when I get an automatical penalty, out of proportion with the damage done (could happen with exposed cards for example) that when a human being errs in assessing the possible damage, if only because in the latter case judgment could be reversed. (SR) I feel quite the opposite. An automatic penalty is what it is; you don't have to bother questioning it or objecting to it, and it (potentially) applies equally across the entire field, so it is completely fair. If the penalty is out of proportion to the damage done, as, for example, is sometimes the case in a two-trick revoke penalty, I will probably resolve to do better; in this case, to follow suit. Remember, no one has forced me to commit an irregularity. Stefanie Rohan London, England From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 27 18:03:16 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:03:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47C5711A.8040006@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000001c87962$a5f93df0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Guthrie > [Sven Pran] > All the comments I have seen on this thread are of course true, but I > still haven't seen anybody claiming experience that asking or not asking > questions has really caused any problem with UI? Maybe because this is > really not any problem except in some peoples' imaginations. > > [Nigel] > In the UK, you are not meant to ask about an opponent's alerted call > unless you hold a hand on which you are thinking of acting. This must IMHO be an entirely improper attitude. > Hence, whenever you don't ask you deny such a hand. Exactly! > Thus, even the most ethical player must regularly > impart unauthorised information. Well, we have solid ground for claiming that creating (or imparting) UI in itself is not illegal, it is the use of UI that is a violation of law. Still, I believe it must be best for bridge if players are encouraged to act in such ways that extraneous information from their asking or not asking questions is reduced to a minimum, and this can only be the result if the mere fact that a question asked of not asked conveys no information, i.e. does not reveal whether the asker needed any response to the question. > Do partners ever act on such information, consciously or unconsciously? My experience is that they do so only in exceptional cases. But then we have in Norway little tradition for partnerships that create elaborate means for exchanging UI. I suppose there is not enough (prize) money in bridge in Norway. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 27 18:05:16 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:05:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <025601c8795e$9212ee20$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000101c87962$ed492990$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > SP: > > > Have you experienced any problem on UI with players asking or not asking > > about calls (in particular those calls that are alerted) during the > > auction? > > Of course, many times. Not so in Norway. Could it be because there is little money in Norwegian bridge? Regards Sven From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 27 18:11:05 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:11:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001901c87947$f4842900$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47C5711A.8040006@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <02ac01c87963$bcf3da00$0100a8c0@stefanie> > [Sven Pran] > All the comments I have seen on this thread are of course true, but I > still haven't seen anybody claiming experience that asking or not asking > questions has really caused any problem with UI? Maybe because this is > really not any problem except in some peoples' imaginations. > > [Nigel] > In the UK, you are not meant to ask about an opponent's alerted call > unless you hold a hand on which you are thinking of acting. Hence, > whenever you don't ask you deny such a hand. Thus, even the most ethical > player must regularly impart unauthorised information. > > Do partners ever act on such information, consciously or unconsciously? They do, even if it is only to bend over backwards. Recently I asked a question about an alerted call, and my partner felt that she was constrained by UI, thus did not make the obviously correct bid. [Nigel] > Sven is right that it's hard to prove, either way. But are we asking > the right question? Surely a better question is "Should the law > facilitate and encourage the use of unauthorised information, in > virtually undetectable ways?" Certainly not. So what we need to do is come up with a solution (and not a silly one like "always ask" or "announcement bridge"). Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 27 18:21:26 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:21:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Unfair advantage? References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> <498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> <47C4278C.6060706@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0802260931o7963c71cp5c7da325cb018e19@mail.gmail.com> <47C45BB8.2070009@NTLworld.com><47C5438D.7050402@ulb.ac.be> <47C590EA.8030700@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <02b601c87965$2f81c270$0100a8c0@stefanie> Nigel: > What is the BLML view about the legality of such agreements under the > new law? > 40B3. The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity. Clearly legal, I think. But I think I must misunderstand this Law, because I do not see how understandings can be permitted to be varied following a question asked or a response to the question. Can I really play that "If they ask about your bid, my response means X; if they don't ask, my response means Y"? Yet what else can the Law mean? As regards the response to a question (I think we can assume that we are talking about the opponents' actions only, thought we cannot be sure since it doesn't say so), I don't see how we even could vary our understandings, because presumably their responses to our questions simply describe their system. I think it is pretty serious, actually, that this Law doesn't say that it is the opponents' actions we are talking about; otherwise "any irregularity" means that you can have agreements about your own illegal bids, penalty cards, etc. And of course it also means, as far as I can tell, that you may vary your understandings based on your own questions or failures to ask questions, and responses. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 27 18:36:56 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:36:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0802270704l655860bcm582a743de046ca95@mail.gmail.com> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> <498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> <47C4278C.6060706@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0802260931o7963c71cp5c7da325cb018e19@mail.gmail.com> <47C45BB8.2070009@NTLworld.com> <47C5438D.7050402@ulb.ac.be> <2da24b8e0802270551n6fb6a00at3eac4a9f7f1ed535@mail.gmail.com> <15D58B15-DAAF-4675-B2DC-CFB2C0CFE9A4@starpower.net> <2da24b8e0802270704l655860bcm582a743de046ca95@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3C509C51-9231-4E18-B0F3-3EC378F34119@starpower.net> On Feb 27, 2008, at 10:04 AM, richard willey wrote: > On 2/27/08, Eric Landau wrote: > >> L27A1: "Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at >> the option of offender's LHO." There is nothing in L27, or anywhere >> else in TFLB for that matter, that bars a player from accepting an IB >> under any circumstances. > > Fine and dandy: Let's consider the example of the insufficient 4H bid > after partner's Blackwood. > > Let's assume that we've agreed to play DOP1 after interference. Can I > legally accept the insufficient 4H bid and then pass the bid to show 1 > Ace? Yes. Why would anyone think otherwise? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 27 18:44:35 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:44:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Unfair advantage? In-Reply-To: <47C590EA.8030700@NTLworld.com> References: <0DC45222-EA85-496A-B7B5-97CE7C14802F@starpower.net> <39EC7A42-F414-4647-AEC7-D43CF634E891@starpower.net> <4E829D65-7BCD-43A1-A288-DA4E71ED7A38@starpower.net> <000001c875af$755fac30$601f0490$@com> <47C28477.4030007@meteo.fr> <498DA977-B1F7-4B1F-A11C-0A73F2DD2AF7@starpower.net> <47C4278C.6060706@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0802260931o7963c71cp5c7da325cb018e19@mail.gmail.com> <47C45BB8.2070009@NTLworld.com> <47C5438D.7050402@ulb.ac.be> <47C590EA.8030700@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <20168139-D273-4ADB-95EA-EA59E8533868@starpower.net> On Feb 27, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Guthrie wrote: > [Alain Gottcheiner] > ... When you condone some 2S IB, then double for penalties, it's > obvious > that your double is so huge that you'd never dream to be able to > double > 3S, and prefer the bird in your hand. So, even if your motto is "don't > leave doubles in with a void", you'd do it here. > > ... Now if that the kind of "exploits" they speak of on RGB, WTP ? Or > do some really pretend they (or others) use conventional agreements ? > > [Nige1] > I agree with Alain's example. BLML has discussed similar attempts to > gain extra advantage from opponents infractions, in various different > contexts. > > [A] For example, you are dealer but RHO opens 3H. The director > explains > your options. You elect to condone the bid and then double. Tim > West-Meads and I argue that "bridge logic" means that X here must be > *penalty* even if your system says that a normal X of a 3H opener is > *take-out*. > > Interestingly, if I remember rightly, Grattan Endicott disagrees with > our interpretation of the law. He opines that the double should be > still > be take-out. > > On RGB, reputable legal authorities argue that, under the old law, a > pair can legally agree *new* conventions contingent on whether the > illegal bid is condoned. > > The local legislature can ban such agreements; but let's assume that > they don't. > > [B] Take one of Alain's examples: an insufficient 4H bid by RHO over > partner's RKCB 4N. An elaborate conventional structure could be ... > > - Condone it: Then X is penalty; 4S and 4N are natural and > non-constructive; 5C/D/H/S retain their normal RKCB meaning. > > - Refuse to accept it: Now, if RHO corrects to 5H (or whatever), then > DOPI applies. If he passes, then you give your normal RKCB response. > > In all cases where you refuse to accept the insufficient bid, you also > promise a heart *void*. > > What is the BLML view about the legality of such agreements under the > new law? They are legal. This is made explicit in L40B3, which says that "the RA may disallow" them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 27 18:54:58 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:54:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd In-Reply-To: <029801c87961$add7aa80$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47C5635E.1080402@NTLworld.com> <029801c87961$add7aa80$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <06FC0A3A-E6C3-4908-AAE3-91F7EABB0DE1@starpower.net> On Feb 27, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > I do not know the solution to the problem of asking about the > opponents' > bids. Asking always is just too intrusive and boring. The EBU's > solution of > asking only when it may affect your action is absurd. Might the solution not be to ask the meaning of the opponent's call whenever you don't know the meaning of the opponent's call (regardless of whether it may affect your action)? Or is that too easy, or too obvious? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 27 19:17:55 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:17:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Today's L27C question References: <200802262205.m1QM5Mqw003859@cfa.harvard.edu><47C4D2AF.9040403@nhcc.net> <001001c8794b$7ba38040$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <003d01c8796d$61a83970$60d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Today's L27C question >>>> >> I just hope they don't muddy things up. As written, "incorporates >> the information" gives us a "bright line". If the DSC takes that >> away, as some have suggested (i.e. interpret "incorporates" along the >> lines of "essentially incorporates" or "substantially incorporates", >> the wheels will come off. > > I do accept this point, but ISTM that the intention was to allow the > same degree of flexibility to substitute a call in an auction that was not > "natural" as already exists in a "natural" auction. Maybe the intention is > to make the non-"natural" substitution much tighter. I can live with > either > intent, and to be honest will have little difficulty applying either > interpretation. Grattan, which way will I be jumping on July 1st? john > +=+ I guess 'up in the air' through joy or 'over a cliff' out of frustration. Our discussions seem almost to have reached the point of exhaustion, and there has to be a limit on the time we can now take. However, it may be said that rarely have we found it so difficult to progress; to quote a colleague, "we have all been running madly in different directions", which you will understand gets us nowhere!. But there is now a proposal on the table that may gradually be winning support. Wild speculation leads me to gamble on a result by Wednesday of next week .... but we are not home and dry and , O, how rash it is to predict the unpredictable in this! ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 27 19:49:56 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:49:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <029201c8795f$ca2b52b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000201c87971$8caa1040$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > >> But similar enough, in that the same simple solution obtains: ask > >> *always* or *never*. > > Sven: > > > Or better still: Sufficiently randomly so that no pattern is apparent. > > > No, I don't think that "randomly" asking about possible revokes can work. > First of all, it defeats the purpose of asking, which is protecting > partner > from a possible revoke. It seems that one who chooses to ask must always > ask > when he is rather surprised by the show-out, and therefore must always > ask. Sure as long as we are talking about revoke questions, but if I remember correct I commented on asking or not asking after alerts. What I had in mind here was certainly about questions during the auction. Frankly I have a problem seeing how "always" asking for possible revoke can cause UI. Regards Sven From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 27 20:37:50 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:37:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000201c87971$8caa1040$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <034101c87978$3cfba3e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> SP: > Frankly I have a problem seeing how "always" asking for possible revoke > can > cause UI. I don't think it can. As long as "always" doesn't mean "virtually always". It will, however, be annoying when people start asking. Stefanie Rohan London, England From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 27 21:17:17 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:17:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <034101c87978$3cfba3e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000301c8797d$c0308fa0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan > SP: > > > Frankly I have a problem seeing how "always" asking for possible revoke > > can > > cause UI. > > I don't think it can. As long as "always" doesn't mean "virtually always". > > It will, however, be annoying when people start asking. I learned that until the law change in 1987 it was routine to protect partner by asking when he did not follow suit, and nobody seemed annoyed by that. Regards Sven From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Feb 28 00:12:13 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:12:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] Announcement Bridge In-Reply-To: <02ac01c87963$bcf3da00$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <001901c87947$f4842900$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47C5711A.8040006@NTLworld.com> <02ac01c87963$bcf3da00$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47C5EE4D.7080801@NTLworld.com> [Nigel] Do partners ever act on such information, consciously or unconsciously? Sven is right that it's hard to prove, either way. But are we asking the right question? Surely a better question is ... "Should the law facilitate and encourage the use of unauthorised information, in virtually undetectable ways?" [Stefanie Rohan] Certainly not. So what we need to do is come up with a solution (and not a silly one like "always ask" or "announcement bridge"). [Nige1] I've agreed with most of Stefanie's arguments in recent posts; so I'm disappointed that she seems to dismiss *announcement* bridge without discussion and without suggesting anything better. Please, Stefanie, reconsider ... *Announcement* bridge would solve most of the problems high-lighted in recent posts. In particular, it would drastically simplify the law-book, save rain-forests of local regulations, speed up the game, and remove many opportunities for unauthorised information. A simple version is ... - You *announce* every call that partner makes e.g. "20-22 flat" or "strong artificial" or whatever. No longer do you need to remember which bids are alertable or announceable. This saves the time taken by alerts and questions. You also avoid the unauthorised information from selective questioning. If opponents prefer, you can "announce", by *pointing* to your convention card (assuming that the meaning is explained therein). - Opponents have the option to *switch-off* your partnership's announcements completely; this further accelerates the game and removes more unauthorised information. - At the end of the auction, you can still ask what opponents' calls mean; or (once again) you can save time with a *Sven Pran* question: "What do your partner's calls systemically reveal about his hand?" From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 28 00:16:29 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:16:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Announcement Bridge References: <001901c87947$f4842900$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47C5711A.8040006@NTLworld.com><02ac01c87963$bcf3da00$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47C5EE4D.7080801@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <03ae01c87996$c8867750$0100a8c0@stefanie> > *Announcement* bridge would solve most of the problems high-lighted in > recent posts. In particular, it would drastically simplify the law-book, > save rain-forests of local regulations, speed up the game, and remove > many opportunities for unauthorised information. A simple version is ... > > - You *announce* every call that partner makes e.g. "20-22 flat" or > "strong artificial" or whatever. No longer do you need to remember which > bids are alertable or announceable. This saves the time taken by alerts > and questions. You also avoid the unauthorised information from > selective questioning. If opponents prefer, you can "announce", by > *pointing* to your convention card (assuming that the meaning is > explained therein). I just think that the potential for UI is far too great. Stefanie Rohan London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 28 10:34:39 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:34:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd In-Reply-To: <06FC0A3A-E6C3-4908-AAE3-91F7EABB0DE1@starpower.net> References: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47C5635E.1080402@NTLworld.com> <029801c87961$add7aa80$0100a8c0@stefanie> <06FC0A3A-E6C3-4908-AAE3-91F7EABB0DE1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47C6802F.1010906@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Feb 27, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > >> I do not know the solution to the problem of asking about the >> opponents' >> bids. Asking always is just too intrusive and boring. The EBU's >> solution of >> asking only when it may affect your action is absurd. >> > > Might the solution not be to ask the meaning of the opponent's call > whenever you don't know the meaning of the opponent's call > (regardless of whether it may affect your action)? Or is that too > easy, or too obvious? > > Who said : "There is a solution to every human problem, easy, efficient, understandable and wrong" ? Doing so has some drawbacks : - taking some time, which can be too much when they conduct nine rounds of relay bidding ; - occasionally allowing them to land on their feet, in situations where UI use is difficult to detect ; - not covering all cases, e.g. you know but want to know whether they know, in order to issue a double when they don't (I can give examples) ; - giving away UI that you don't know (yes, it can be relevant, I can give cases there too). Best regards Alain From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Feb 28 14:04:19 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:04:19 -0600 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd In-Reply-To: <47C6802F.1010906@ulb.ac.be> References: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47C5635E.1080402@NTLworld.com> <029801c87961$add7aa80$0100a8c0@stefanie> <06FC0A3A-E6C3-4908-AAE3-91F7EABB0DE1@starpower.net> <47C6802F.1010906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0802280504v3a8e9874w39d34659640d9304@mail.gmail.com> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > On Feb 27, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > > > > >> I do not know the solution to the problem of asking about the > >> opponents' > >> bids. Asking always is just too intrusive and boring. The EBU's > >> solution of > >> asking only when it may affect your action is absurd. > >> > > > > Might the solution not be to ask the meaning of the opponent's call > > whenever you don't know the meaning of the opponent's call > > (regardless of whether it may affect your action)? Or is that too > > easy, or too obvious? > > > > > Who said : "There is a solution to every human problem, easy, efficient, > understandable and wrong" ? > > Doing so has some drawbacks : > > - taking some time, which can be too much when they conduct nine rounds > of relay bidding ; > - occasionally allowing them to land on their feet, in situations where > UI use is difficult to detect ; > - not covering all cases, e.g. you know but want to know whether they > know, in order to issue a double when they don't (I can give examples) ; > - giving away UI that you don't know (yes, it can be relevant, I can > give cases there too). > I would like to see an example of your last case: Giving away (by asking) the simple information that you did not know an opponent's agreement being determined as UI that results in you receiving an adverse ruling. Are you thinking of a case where you ask too late? Jerry Fusselman From B.Schelen at IAE.NL Thu Feb 28 15:28:15 2008 From: B.Schelen at IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:28:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Old Law40E2 Message-ID: <00ec01c87a18$ff0c7770$61493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> Old Law40E2: Referring to opponents' Convention Card During the auction and play, any player EXCEPT DUMMY . . . . . Is this explicit restriction no longer necessary in the new Laws? Ben From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Feb 28 16:15:15 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:15:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd In-Reply-To: <06FC0A3A-E6C3-4908-AAE3-91F7EABB0DE1@starpower.net> References: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47C5635E.1080402@NTLworld.com> <029801c87961$add7aa80$0100a8c0@stefanie> <06FC0A3A-E6C3-4908-AAE3-91F7EABB0DE1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47C6D003.4090806@NTLworld.com> [Eric Landau] Might the solution not be to ask the meaning of the opponent's call whenever you don't know the meaning of the opponent's call (regardless of whether it may affect your action)? Or is that too easy, or too obvious? [Alain Gottcheiner] Who said : "There is a solution to every human problem, easy, efficient, understandable and wrong" ? Doing so has some drawbacks : - taking some time, which can be too much when they conduct nine rounds of relay bidding ; - occasionally allowing them to land on their feet, in situations where UI use is difficult to detect ; - not covering all cases, e.g. you know but want to know whether they know, in order to issue a double when they don't (I can give examples) ; - giving away UI that you don't know (yes, it can be relevant, I can give cases there too). [Nige1] Eric Landau's solution seems to be simple and effective. Alain Gottcheiner's aphorism is amusing but a bit cynical and defeatist. I think that Alain's detailed objections apply to most current disclosure protocols, in one form or another. Here are more quibbles ... - You are rarely *sure* that you know opponent's methods. For example, their system card may specify a convention only by name. Even when you know they play roughly the same as you do, there are usually differences in some of their understandings. - In particular, when you are thinking of bidding or doubling, it is sensible for you to take out insurance and check that their bidding really means what you think it does. Hence, when you don't ask, you still convey unathourised information that you are unintereted in competing. - If you follow Eric's protocol, you still ask *selectively*. Thus, your behaviour is virtually indistinguishable from that of a player who is asking to transmit unauthorised information. Hence Eric's protocol does not help a player or director to diagnose or to police the giving and use of UI. From john at asimere.com Thu Feb 28 17:33:33 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:33:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Old Law40E2 References: <00ec01c87a18$ff0c7770$61493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> Message-ID: <000f01c87a27$a91666f0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Schelen" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:28 PM Subject: [blml] Old Law40E2 > Old Law40E2: Referring to opponents' Convention Card > During the auction and play, any player EXCEPT DUMMY . . . . . > > Is this explicit restriction no longer necessary in the new Laws? To be honest, I hadn't even thought about it. It's generally true however that dummy has limited rights (except it's his job to fetch the beer!) and I'd be surprised if this has significantly changed. There are changes, but I hadn't noticed them here. john > > Ben > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Feb 28 17:34:23 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:34:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Old__Law40E2?= In-Reply-To: <00ec01c87a18$ff0c7770$61493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> References: <00ec01c87a18$ff0c7770$61493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> Message-ID: <1JUliB-0Vzzrk0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> From: "Ben Schelen" > Old Law40E2: Referring to opponents' Convention Card > During the auction and play, any player EXCEPT DUMMY . . . . . > > Is this explicit restriction no longer necessary in the new Laws? 2007 Law 40 B2c: "Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may consult his opponent?s system card (i) prior to the commencement of the auction, (ii) during the Clarification Period, and (iii) during the auction and during the play but only at his turn to call or play." I consider the dummy not to "play" at any time during the play period. From john at asimere.com Thu Feb 28 17:35:15 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:35:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd References: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47C5635E.1080402@NTLworld.com> <029801c87961$add7aa80$0100a8c0@stefanie><06FC0A3A-E6C3-4908-AAE3-91F7EABB0DE1@starpower.net> <47C6D003.4090806@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <001401c87a27$e5b2c270$0901a8c0@JOHN> Nigel says > - In particular, when you are thinking of bidding or doubling, it is > sensible for you to take out insurance and check that their bidding > really means what you think it does. Hence, when you don't ask, you > still convey unathourised information that you are unintereted in > competing. > > - If you follow Eric's protocol, you still ask *selectively*. Thus, > your behaviour is virtually indistinguishable from that of a player who > is asking to transmit unauthorised information. Hence Eric's protocol > does not help a player or director to diagnose or to police the giving > and use of UI. > We are NOT required to police the "giving" of UI, just the use of it. Players don't seem to know the difference. John > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 28 21:48:26 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:48:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Old Law40E2 References: <00ec01c87a18$ff0c7770$61493dd4@bcgji0fs56kz43> <1JUliB-0Vzzrk0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <003601c87a4b$58081640$fecf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 4:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Old Law40E2 From: "Ben Schelen" > Old Law40E2: Referring to opponents' Convention Card > During the auction and play, any player EXCEPT DUMMY . . . . . > > Is this explicit restriction no longer necessary in the new Laws? 2007 Law 40 B2c: "Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may consult his opponent's system card (i) prior to the commencement of the auction, (ii) during the Clarification Period, and (iii) during the auction and during the play but only at his turn to call or play." I consider the dummy not to "play" at any time during the play period. +=+ Law 41D supports that view. The footnotes are quite clear about it, I think. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ______________________________________________ From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Feb 29 02:55:51 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:55:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <200802271646.m1RGkuhl019914@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200802271646.m1RGkuhl019914@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47C76627.1010806@nhcc.net> SW> Why is the intended meaning [of the IB] relevant? > From: Eric Landau > I read L27C1 as intending [that]. > Yesterday I wrote, 'L27C1 speaks of "the information contained in the > IB" rather than "the information available to the bidder's partner > from the IB". Presumably that was a deliberate choice...' You could be right, though the "information contained in the IB" is (in general) less than the information that would be contained if the intent is known too. We'll have to see what the DSC comes out with. > I just hope they don't muddy things up. I hope they come out with something that can be used at the table by real TDs, even in the ACBL. > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Okay, I got it wrong. What worries me is that if even someone as smart and careful as Alain can get one wrong, how is the average TD going to do? And that's not even to speak of the average ACBL TD. SW> 2H will be allowed for pairs who play sound overcalls; > That's the most interesting item of the list. > I routinely open 2H (not 1H) on AQJxxx of hearts and an outside King. Many 2/1 players would open 2H. For K-S, strong club, or Acol players, that's more likely a 1H bid. > Do > you suggest that in your group, one doesn't overcall 1S with 2H on such > a hand ? Many, including nearly all weak players, would overcall 2H without much thought. Among strong players, I think there would be a mix of opinions, but 3H might well be more popular. You might even find a few passers at unfavorable vul. > Basket-ball : "technical" vs. mundane foul. > ... and murder vs. manslaughter I don't understand the other examples, but these two don't apply to _score adjustment_ matters. I think nearly everyone agrees that intent is relevant in _disciplinary_ matters. > I tink it has been said before that there can be no *new* agreements. [after an accepted IB] Where does it say that? Some RA's (possibly but not certainly including the ACBL, whose regulations are not at all clear) may have such a rule, but I don't think it's widespread. In general, I'd expect any convention that is otherwise legal still to be legal after an accepted IB or after an IB is corrected. RA's can, of course, adopt whatever rules they want, but I don't see any reason they would wish to restrict agreements by the NOS (other than banning brown sticker equivalents or whatever else they ban in general). > From: Tony Musgrove > I would rather make the IB unauthorised > for the offending side. Then I would like to allow just about anything > reasonable, quasi L25A, but I still have L27C2, L23 (the best), and > of course L16 & L73C to mop up the stragglers, That would seem simpler. Cancel the IB (assuming it's not accepted), let IB'er do what he wants, and the IB is UI to partner. Or, as David Stevenson suggested, let the IB'er correct but only to the lowest sufficient level of the IB suit (whether conventional or not), and again the IB is UI. As Tony wrote, L23 and others make sure the IB'er isn't trying to gain. For better or worse, what we have is nothing at all like Tony's idea. > From: "Wayne Burrows" > It is also not at all clear to me why a redouble would not be allowed. You mean why the DSC decided not to include redouble? Apparently, from something Grattan wrote, there just wasn't anyone on the DSC who advocated including it. If you mean more generally, why only at most seven possible calls, my _guess_ would be that this whole approach was regarded as experimental, and the DSC didn't want to risk too many unforeseen problems. We'll have to see what really happens when the new Laws take effect, but for now it looks like the unforeseen problems have to do with "incorporates" rather than what replacement call is selected. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Feb 29 03:01:12 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:01:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Unfair advantage? In-Reply-To: <200802271831.m1RIVFKS027864@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200802271831.m1RIVFKS027864@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47C76768.5060706@nhcc.net> > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > 40B3. The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership > to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question > asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity. > But I think I must misunderstand this Law, because I > do not see how understandings can be permitted to be varied following a > question asked or a response to the question. When we open our artificial 1D bid, the practical defense is that if LHO bids 2D without asking a question, it's Michaels, whereas ask and then bid 2D is natural. Of course the explanation of 2D is always "undiscussed." Given that everyone at the table knows what 2D really means in either case, why shouldn't we be allowed to vary our own agreements accordingly? Yes, the did ask/didn't ask info is UI to the opponents, but in real life...? From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Feb 29 03:29:40 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:29:40 +1300 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <47C76627.1010806@nhcc.net> References: <200802271646.m1RGkuhl019914@cfa.harvard.edu> <47C76627.1010806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560802281829r627b945csc371416bb34ba4ab@mail.gmail.com> > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > It is also not at all clear to me why a redouble would not be allowed. > > You mean why the DSC decided not to include redouble? Apparently, from > something Grattan wrote, there just wasn't anyone on the DSC who > advocated including it. If you mean more generally, why only at most > seven possible calls, my _guess_ would be that this whole approach was > regarded as experimental, and the DSC didn't want to risk too many > unforeseen problems. We'll have to see what really happens when the new > Laws take effect, but for now it looks like the unforeseen problems have > to do with "incorporates" rather than what replacement call is selected. > If just seems arbitary to me. There could easily be a pair that play transfers starting at XX after intervention. Allowing a XX if it incorporates the meaning of some natural suit seems to be no cost and in accordance with my understanding of the intention of the new law. Wayne From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 29 10:46:12 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:46:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0802280504v3a8e9874w39d34659640d9304@mail.gmail.com> References: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47C5635E.1080402@NTLworld.com> <029801c87961$add7aa80$0100a8c0@stefanie> <06FC0A3A-E6C3-4908-AAE3-91F7EABB0DE1@starpower.net> <47C6802F.1010906@ulb.ac.be> <2b1e598b0802280504v3a8e9874w39d34659640d9304@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47C7D464.7030401@ulb.ac.be> Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> >>> On Feb 27, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I do not know the solution to the problem of asking about the >>>> opponents' >>>> bids. Asking always is just too intrusive and boring. The EBU's >>>> solution of >>>> asking only when it may affect your action is absurd. >>>> >>>> >>> Might the solution not be to ask the meaning of the opponent's call >>> whenever you don't know the meaning of the opponent's call >>> (regardless of whether it may affect your action)? Or is that too >>> easy, or too obvious? >>> >>> >>> >> Who said : "There is a solution to every human problem, easy, efficient, >> understandable and wrong" ? >> >> Doing so has some drawbacks : >> >> - taking some time, which can be too much when they conduct nine rounds >> of relay bidding ; >> - occasionally allowing them to land on their feet, in situations where >> UI use is difficult to detect ; >> - not covering all cases, e.g. you know but want to know whether they >> know, in order to issue a double when they don't (I can give examples) ; >> - giving away UI that you don't know (yes, it can be relevant, I can >> give cases there too). >> >> > > I would like to see an example of your last case: Giving away (by > asking) the simple information that you did not know an opponent's > agreement being determined as UI that results in you receiving an > adverse ruling. > I don't claim there was an adverse ruling. I claim there was UI. In a way, that's worse (I mean, UI that goes unnioticed). South had been playing opponents' system for a while (she helped in its elaboration). After several rounds of relay bidding, West bid 3S, asking for Aces, got a 3NT answer (2), asked for Kings, got a 4D answer (2), which was somewhat strange, because that plus West's range plus her own count totalled more than 40 HCP. At this point, South asked, since she realized that perhaps she didn't understand the bidding. She did, but East didn't. His 3NT was meant to show 22 in the remaining suits (which he had in fact already said), and his 4D meant two Aces. The question was strange enough (why ask at this point) that North somehow knew something was happening. Now, if North had understood partner's problem and doubled (with a barren hand, but unexpected trump length), couldn't the opponents claim that UI about South's strength was transmitted ? It's North who asked me this question. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 29 10:57:43 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:57:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd In-Reply-To: <47C6D003.4090806@NTLworld.com> References: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47C5635E.1080402@NTLworld.com> <029801c87961$add7aa80$0100a8c0@stefanie> <06FC0A3A-E6C3-4908-AAE3-91F7EABB0DE1@starpower.net> <47C6D003.4090806@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47C7D717.9040004@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner's aphorism is amusing but a bit cynical and defeatist. > I'll add one more aphorism : "being cynical consists in depicting things as they are rather than as one would like to imagine they are". Yes, cynical I am. TDs have the duty to examine naked truth. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 29 11:00:00 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:00:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd In-Reply-To: <001401c87a27$e5b2c270$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47C5635E.1080402@NTLworld.com> <029801c87961$add7aa80$0100a8c0@stefanie><06FC0A3A-E6C3-4908-AAE3-91F7EABB0DE1@starpower.net> <47C6D003.4090806@NTLworld.com> <001401c87a27$e5b2c270$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <47C7D7A0.10109@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > Nigel says > >> - In particular, when you are thinking of bidding or doubling, it is >> sensible for you to take out insurance and check that their bidding >> really means what you think it does. Hence, when you don't ask, you >> still convey unathourised information that you are unintereted in >> competing. >> >> - If you follow Eric's protocol, you still ask *selectively*. Thus, >> your behaviour is virtually indistinguishable from that of a player who >> is asking to transmit unauthorised information. Hence Eric's protocol >> does not help a player or director to diagnose or to police the giving >> and use of UI. >> >> > We are NOT required to police the "giving" of UI, just the use of it. > Players don't seem to know the difference. John > > IBTD. Opportunity makes the thief. Less UI means less use, less TD calls and less unsatisfied customers. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 29 11:47:24 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:47:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <200802271646.m1RGkuhl019914@cfa.harvard.edu><47C76627.1010806@nhcc.net> <2a1c3a560802281829r627b945csc371416bb34ba4ab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000201c87ac5$c8262c30$b2ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 2:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The new L27C2 >> > From: "Wayne Burrows" >> > It is also not at all clear to me why a redouble would not be allowed. >> >> You mean why the DSC decided not to include redouble? Apparently, from >> something Grattan wrote, there just wasn't anyone on the DSC who >> advocated including it. If you mean more generally, why only at most >> seven possible calls, my _guess_ would be that this whole approach was >> regarded as experimental, and the DSC didn't want to risk too many >> unforeseen problems. We'll have to see what really happens when the new >> Laws take effect, but for now it looks like the unforeseen problems have >> to do with "incorporates" rather than what replacement call is selected. >> > > If just seems arbitary to me. There could easily be a pair that play > transfers starting at XX after intervention. Allowing a XX if it > incorporates the meaning of some natural suit seems to be no cost and > in accordance with my understanding of the intention of the new law. > > Wayne > +=+ I think there is some truth in the thought that there just wasn't anyone on the DSC who advocated including it, and also in the guess that follows it. However, I also think it highly probable this whole discussion is about to be aborted by the WBF Laws Drafting Subcommittee. But the decision making moment is slightly deferred while replies come in from the widely off-set Time Zones of the DSC members, following which (hopefully) we will have some 'due process' to complete. Please be patient just a little longer. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 29 12:42:08 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:42:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd References: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47C5635E.1080402@NTLworld.com> <029801c87961$add7aa80$0100a8c0@stefanie> <06FC0A3A-E6C3-4908-AAE3-91F7EABB0DE1@starpower.net><47C6D003.4090806@NTLworld.com> <47C7D717.9040004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003201c87ac8$244c57d0$b2ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Oh my Gourd TDs have the duty to examine naked truth. (Francis Bacon) "Nakedness is uncomely as well in mind, as body." From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 29 12:54:42 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:54:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <200802271646.m1RGkuhl019914@cfa.harvard.edu> <47C76627.1010806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <008201c87acc$321baa10$b2ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott What worries me is that if even someone as smart and > careful as Alain can get one wrong, how is the average > TD going to do? < +=+ I can assure you that such has been an active concern of the DSC in its further review of Law 27, and especially in the submissions from Max Bavin and Bill Schoder. Whether we have dealt with it successfully will no doubt be a blml theme when we open up our decision (if we have one - this is what I am about to find out). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 29 13:58:37 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:58:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Occasionally useful information. Message-ID: <00f101c87ad2$d1164e80$b2ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott References: <200802271646.m1RGkuhl019914@cfa.harvard.edu> <47C76627.1010806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <1EF3D104-4D54-4DF2-A865-B3C63706EE9F@starpower.net> On Feb 28, 2008, at 8:55 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Wayne Burrows" >> It is also not at all clear to me why a redouble would not be >> allowed. > > You mean why the DSC decided not to include redouble? Apparently, > from > something Grattan wrote, there just wasn't anyone on the DSC who > advocated including it. If you mean more generally, why only at most > seven possible calls, my _guess_ would be that this whole approach was > regarded as experimental, and the DSC didn't want to risk too many > unforeseen problems. We'll have to see what really happens when > the new > Laws take effect, but for now it looks like the unforeseen problems > have > to do with "incorporates" rather than what replacement call is > selected. The restriction to just seven calls won't present any enforcement problem -- it's certainly clear and unambiguous -- but seems completely arbitrary. Here's an example: I pick up x/AQJxxx/xx/AKxx and open 1H. Oops. It seems I was in second seat, and my RHO had opened 1S. Under the old L27, I could have bid 2H without penalty. Under the new law I cannot, as a 2H overcall could be made on a much weaker hand than a 1H opening. OTOH, I have a "textbook" 3H bid, which fully incorporates the information from my attempted 1H opening (by agreement, it shows at least a sound opening bid, very good 5- card or 6+-card suit; partner should play me for about 8-8-1/2 tricks by LTC). But I cannot bid 3H without penalty, as L27C1 explicitly excludes jump bids. That would appear, at least superficially, to be contrary to the intended purpose of the new L27. I'm sure the DSC had their reason for imposing this particular limitation. I'm just as sure that, as a low-level TD on the firing line, I will be asked why it is there. It would be really helpful if the DSC (or whoever is now the appropriate authority) chose to share their rationale with the rest of us. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 29 17:30:13 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:30:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 In-Reply-To: <1EF3D104-4D54-4DF2-A865-B3C63706EE9F@starpower.net> References: <200802271646.m1RGkuhl019914@cfa.harvard.edu> <47C76627.1010806@nhcc.net> <1EF3D104-4D54-4DF2-A865-B3C63706EE9F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47C83315.2060705@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > O > The restriction to just seven calls won't present any enforcement > problem -- it's certainly clear and unambiguous -- but seems > completely arbitrary. Here's an example: I pick up x/AQJxxx/xx/AKxx > and open 1H. Oops. It seems I was in second seat, and my RHO had > opened 1S. Under the old L27, I could have bid 2H without penalty. > Under the new law I cannot, as a 2H overcall could be made on a much > weaker hand than a 1H opening. OTOH, I have a "textbook" 3H bid, > which fully incorporates the information from my attempted 1H opening > (by agreement, it shows at least a sound opening bid, very good 5- > card or 6+-card suit; partner should play me for about 8-8-1/2 tricks > by LTC). But I cannot bid 3H without penalty, as L27C1 explicitly > excludes jump bids. That would appear, at least superficially, to be > contrary to the intended purpose of the new L27. > > I'm sure the DSC had their reason for imposing this particular > limitation. I'm just as sure that, as a low-level TD on the firing > line, I will be asked why it is there. It would be really helpful if > the DSC (or whoever is now the appropriate authority) chose to share > their rationale with the rest of us. > AG : fully agree. Another good example is 1C 1H transfer (oops they bid 1H) :I'd like to bid a weak 2S. From john at asimere.com Fri Feb 29 17:38:41 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:38:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd References: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47C5635E.1080402@NTLworld.com> <029801c87961$add7aa80$0100a8c0@stefanie><06FC0A3A-E6C3-4908-AAE3-91F7EABB0DE1@starpower.net> <47C6D003.4090806@NTLworld.com><001401c87a27$e5b2c270$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47C7D7A0.10109@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001401c87af1$8afd6b30$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Oh my Gourd John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > Nigel says > >> - In particular, when you are thinking of bidding or doubling, it is >> sensible for you to take out insurance and check that their bidding >> really means what you think it does. Hence, when you don't ask, you >> still convey unathourised information that you are unintereted in >> competing. >> >> - If you follow Eric's protocol, you still ask *selectively*. Thus, >> your behaviour is virtually indistinguishable from that of a player who >> is asking to transmit unauthorised information. Hence Eric's protocol >> does not help a player or director to diagnose or to police the giving >> and use of UI. >> >> > We are NOT required to police the "giving" of UI, just the use of it. > Players don't seem to know the difference. John > > IBTD. Opportunity makes the thief. Less UI means less use, less TD calls and less unsatisfied customers. OK, Nigel, I concede this point. I guess I'm used to playing in circles where the avoidance of use of UI is so automatic it's not remarked on, and the giving of UI is quite common in order not to create MI. John _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 29 20:26:36 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:26:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Unfair advantage? References: <200802271831.m1RIVFKS027864@cfa.harvard.edu> <47C76768.5060706@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <066701c87b09$001530d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Steve Willner: > When we open our artificial 1D bid, the practical defense is that if LHO > bids 2D without asking a question, it's Michaels, whereas ask and then > bid 2D is natural. Of course the explanation of 2D is always > "undiscussed." Given that everyone at the table knows what 2D really > means in either case, why shouldn't we be allowed to vary our own > agreements accordingly? Well, since you know what the 2D is, you are not actually varying your agreements; you are playing whatever your agreements are over natural/Michaels 2D. > > Yes, the did ask/didn't ask info is UI to the opponents, but in real > life...? Well, a face-value reading of the law suggests that your opponents' defence is legal. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 29 20:35:48 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:35:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd References: <001601c8793f$0b029bc0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47C5635E.1080402@NTLworld.com> <029801c87961$add7aa80$0100a8c0@stefanie> <06FC0A3A-E6C3-4908-AAE3-91F7EABB0DE1@starpower.net><47C6D003.4090806@NTLworld.com><47C7D717.9040004@ulb.ac.be> <003201c87ac8$244c57d0$b2ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <06af01c87b0a$49497760$0100a8c0@stefanie> Grattan: > (Francis Bacon) > "Nakedness is uncomely as well in mind, as body." > Nakedness is uncomely in body? From mustikka at charter.net Mon Feb 25 20:28:40 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:28:40 -0800 Subject: [blml] What the heck is going on? References: <000001c8701d$1e022a40$1510a8c0@FK27.local> Message-ID: <006501c877e4$a0c7b2f0$33175e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: Andre Steffens To: blml at amsterdamned.org Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 1:52 PM Subject: [blml] What the heck is going on? Playing for IMPs, all vulnerable, South dealing, being West you hold: 9x AJTxxx 9xx xx The auction goes: (pass) pass (1 :d:) pass (pass) ??? You play with a pickup partner with whom you have agreed to play four card majors,15-17NT, Multi 2 D and semiforcing 2H/2S openings. 1.What call do you make? 2. What other calls do you consider making? However, after the 1D (5 card major, lowest minor) partner hesitates visibly and passes. 3. Does this hesitation suggest one of the calls you were considering? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is impossible to suggest what call(s) I would make or consider making in the given auction because I would not have passed the hand originally. I would have opened a weak two, or as is their system, 2D Multi. I think this poll shuld be only among those people who AGREE that Pass on the first round was correct - if you find such people :) Raija -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080225/6d59bdd4/attachment.htm From defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr Thu Feb 28 17:39:40 2008 From: defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr (Henri DEFRANCHI) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:39:40 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] re old law 40 E Message-ID: <5433835.123931204216780806.JavaMail.www@wwinf1a23> To my knowledge,the new Law 40 B 2c says : " a player ( no restriction )......" To be checked ! Riton from Marseille -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080228/9b7f8d8f/attachment.htm