From henk at amsterdamned.org Sat Mar 1 01:01:00 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 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 Sat Mar 1 01:01:01 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 01:01:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for February 2008 Posts From ----- ---- 146 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 117 hermandw (at) skynet.be 78 ehaa (at) starpower.net 73 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 65 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 63 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 57 Guthrie (at) NTLworld.com 41 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 41 geller (at) nifty.com 39 svenpran (at) online.no 35 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 27 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 23 swillner (at) nhcc.net 23 john (at) asimere.com 20 guthrie (at) ntlworld.com 13 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 11 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 10 schoderb (at) msn.com 9 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 7 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 7 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 6 mustikka (at) charter.net 5 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 5 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 5 adam (at) irvine.com 4 sater (at) xs4all.nl 4 Gampas (at) aol.com 3 adam (at) tameware.com 3 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 2 hirsch9000 (at) verizon.net 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 2 blml (at) dybdal.dk 2 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 2 andre.steffens (at) hccnet.nl 2 B.Schelen (at) IAE.NL 1 wrgptfan (at) gmail.com 1 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 1 picatou (at) picatou.com 1 ken.deri31 (at) ntlworld.com 1 jkljkl (at) gmx.de 1 emu (at) fwi.net.au From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Mar 1 02:54:06 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 01:54:06 -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> <06af01c87b0a$49497760$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000301c87b3f$90d2f680$94d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 7:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Oh my Gourd > Grattan: > >> (Francis Bacon) >> "Nakedness is uncomely as well in mind, as body." >> > > Nakedness is uncomely in body? > +=+ This was apparently the opinion circa AD 1620 +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Mar 2 11:05:11 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 10:05:11 -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$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47C7D7A0.10109@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <09d701c87c4c$e772ac70$0100a8c0@stefanie> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > We are NOT required to police the "giving" of UI, just the use of it. > Players don't seem to know the difference. John > > Meanwhile, back in the real world, if every use of UI in the average club game were brought to the attention of the director, we would need approximately one director for every four tables. Also, the average player does know, I think, the difference between receipt of UI and use of UI, but knows that he cannot tell the difference, if you know what I mean. This is one of the reasons why it is important to try to minimise the creation of UI. It makes people unhappy even if they are not damaged by it (or if, for various reasons, the director is never called in the first place). Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Mar 2 11:09:02 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 10:09:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000101c87962$ed492990$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <09d801c87c4d$70eb8b70$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> SP: >> >> > Have you experienced any problem on UI with players asking or not >> > asking >> > about calls (in particular those calls that are alerted) during the >> > auction? >> >> Of course, many times. > > Not so in Norway. Could it be because there is little money in Norwegian > bridge? There is virtually no money at all in English bridge. You have to achieve a high place in all events in a weekend tournament to make up what you would have saved by staying home for the weekend. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Mar 2 13:21:00 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 12:21:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] The new L27C2 References: <200802271646.m1RGkuhl019914@cfa.harvard.edu> <47C76627.1010806@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <09f601c87c5f$e01e2b30$0100a8c0@stefanie> Steve Willner: > 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. Personally, I think that "incorporates" is difficult but potentially workable. What I find impossible is determining the "meaning" of an IB; after all it is illegal for them to have any meaning at all. I had been thinking the same thing that another poster suggested, ie to cancel the IB and let the IBer make any call, with the IB UI to the OS. I think that this is in line with the apparent goal of the DSC. But the UI rulings would be way too tough for many directors, particularly those at the club level. One thing the WBF must take into account is that many clubs are member-run, and use volunteer playing directors, often with no training. The further the Laws move away from automatic/mechanical adjustments towards judgement rulings, the more difficult it is for them to be properly applied at club level. Also, automatic/mechanical adjustments are received well by the players. There is no bad feeling resulting from perceived bias/incompetence by the director. People shrug their shoulders and resolve not to make infractions in future. (Would just like to take a moment to once again express my disappointment about the new gain/break even revoke Laws. I think that this is one case where a deterrent effect is desirable.) Stefanie Rohan London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 2 13:51:56 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 12:51:56 -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$0901a8c0@JOHN><47C7D7A0.10109@ulb.ac.be> <09d701c87c4c$e772ac70$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000201c87c64$78f783c0$40d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Oh my Gourd Also, the average player does know, I think, the difference between receipt of UI and use of UI, but knows that he cannot tell the difference, if you know what I mean. This is one of the reasons why it is important to try to minimise the creation of UI. It makes people unhappy even if they are not damaged by it (or if, for various reasons, the director is never called in the first place). +=+ I am reading this topic but I am not altogether sure where it is leading. Law 16 has attempted to make as clear as possible the treatment of UI. Presumably magazines and pundits, appeals committees, tournament directors quietly, will devote attention to the 'education' of players who have difficulty with the subject. It is unlikely that an esoteric message board will have the breadth of readership to get the message across where it is needed. But, Stefanie, explain for me a little more of your thinking. Where do you suggest change is both desirable and possible? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Mar 2 22:12:50 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 21:12:50 -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$0901a8c0@JOHN><47C7D7A0.10109@ulb.ac.be><09d701c87c4c$e772ac70$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000201c87c64$78f783c0$40d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <003401c87caa$2c2843e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Grattan Endicott > > Presumably magazines and pundits, appeals > committees, tournament directors quietly, will devote attention to > the 'education' of players who have difficulty with the subject. [UI, its > creation and use] > It is unlikely that an esoteric message board will have the breadth > of readership to get the message across where it is needed. True, but I think that messages like this seldom get heard by very many players, particularly those who don't attend tournaments. > But, Stefanie, explain for me a little more of your thinking. > Where do you suggest change is both desirable and possible? In the post referred to I was not advocating change. I was reacting to Probst's post, in which I thought he displayed a rather blas? attitude towards creation of UI. All I was saying is that it wouldn't do for directors and lawmakers to hold such an attitude, because creation of UI upsets average players. Stefanie Rohan London, England From geller at nifty.com Mon Mar 3 00:06:36 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:06:36 +0900 Subject: [blml] wish UPON a star? (L84, L85) In-Reply-To: <09d801c87c4d$70eb8b70$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <09d801c87c4d$70eb8b70$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <200803022306.AA12663@geller204.nifty.com> Dear BLMLers, Is there any reason why L84 says the Director is "called to rule" but L85 says the Director is "called upon to rule"... (see below)? Or is this just random editing? (No comments about Persian rugs being flawed please.) LAW 84 - RULINGS ON AGREED FACTS When the Director is called to rule on a point of law or regulation LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From geller at nifty.com Mon Mar 3 00:20:09 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:20:09 +0900 Subject: [blml] L53B ("the nad from which declarer led")? In-Reply-To: <000301c87b3f$90d2f680$94d2403e@Mildred> References: <000301c87b3f$90d2f680$94d2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200803022320.AA12664@geller204.nifty.com> Dear BLMLers, We're now working on polishing the Japanese translation of the 2007 Laws, and I'd like to check opinions on one point. L53B says: ************************************************ B. Wrong Defender Plays Card to Declarer?s Irregular Lead If the defender at the right of the hand from which declarer?s lead out of turn was made plays to the irregular lead (but see C), the lead stands and Law 57 applies. ************************************************ My question involves the meaning of the following phrase: "the hand from which declarer?s lead out of turn was made" It appears to me that this means either dummy or declarer's own hand, as the case may be, but one of my colleagues (who is not a native speaker of English9 would like to see if everyone agrees with this (or if maybe it applies only to declarer's own hand). Opinions please. Incidentally, to my mind this is a classic example of the kinds of problems the laws (as now drafted) can present to translators. It could have been avoided by rewording the above phase (proposed changes in capitals) as follows, ************************************************ B. Wrong Defender Plays Card to Declarer?s Irregular Lead If the defender at the right of the hand from which declarer?s lead out of turn was made (EITHER HIS OWN HAND OR DUMMY) plays to the irregular lead (but see C), the lead stands and Law 57 applies. ************************************************ even though many native speakers of English might (not without some justification) regard the proposed words as unnecessary. Thanks. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From geller at nifty.com Mon Mar 3 00:34:42 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:34:42 +0900 Subject: [blml] L17E2 questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200803022334.AA12665@geller204.nifty.com> Dear BLMLers, We're now trying to understand L17E2 (see below) in order to translate it correctly. *********************************************************** L17E2. When a call has been followed by three passes the auction does not end if one of those passes was out of rotation, depriving a player of his right to call at that turn. When this occurs the auction reverts to the player who missed his turn, all subsequent passes are cancelled and the auction proceeds normally. Law 16D applies to the cancelled calls, any player who has passed out of rotation being an offender. ********************************************************** Let's consider as simple example. West North East South 1C (no call) Pass Pass Pass L17E2 says the three passes are cancelled and the auction everts to North. This part is clear. But my (our) question is about the meaning of "any player who has passed out of rotation." It is clear that East has passed out of rotation. But (as defined in L17E2) are South and West also regarded as "players who have passed out of rotation"? Or does this designation apply only to East? Our uncertainty regarding this point arises because South passed in rotation with respect to East, but after the auction had been corrupted by East's POOT. My guess is that L17E2 should be interpreted as designating only East as "a player who has passed out of rotation," but I'm not completely confident about this, and would appreciate everyone's opinions on this point. Thanks. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 3 02:03:59 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 01:03:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] wish UPON a star? (L84, L85) References: <09d801c87c4d$70eb8b70$0100a8c0@stefanie> <200803022306.AA12663@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <001601c87cca$7b5846c0$33d6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 11:06 PM Subject: [blml] wish UPON a star? (L84, L85) > Dear BLMLers, > > Is there any reason why L84 says the Director is "called to rule" but > L85 says the Director is "called upon to rule"... (see below)? Or is > this > just random editing? (No comments about Persian rugs being flawed > please.) > > LAW 84 - RULINGS ON AGREED FACTS > When the Director is called to rule on a point of law or regulation > > LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS > When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation > > > -Bob > +=+ The languiage is that of the 1997 laws. 'called to' = summoned to do 'called upon to' = requested to do. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 3 04:25:38 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:25:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] L17E2 questions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200803022334.AA12665@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Robert Geller: [snip] >Let's consider as simple example. > >West North East South >1C (no call) Pass Pass >Pass > >L17E2 says the three passes are cancelled and the auction everts to North. >This part is clear. But my (our) question is about the meaning of >"any player who has passed out of rotation." It is clear that East has >passed out of rotation. But (as defined in L17E2) are South and West >also regarded as "players who have passed out of rotation"? Or does >this designation apply only to East? Our uncertainty regarding this >point arises because South passed in rotation with respect to East, but >after the auction had been corrupted by East's POOT. > >My guess is that L17E2 should be interpreted as designating only East >as "a player who has passed out of rotation," but I'm not completely >confident about this, and would appreciate everyone's opinions on this >point. Thanks. Richard Hills: The Law 30 (Pass Out of Rotation) preamble cross-references Law 29A, which gives South the option to accept East's POOT. Because South exercised a legal option South cannot thereby be deemed to be an offending player. Although West has not committed an infraction, East has, so East-West are the offending side. Thus when the three passes are cancelled, any information from them is AI to North-South but UI to East-West. 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Mar 3 05:46:01 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 04:46:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] L17E2 questions In-Reply-To: <200803022334.AA12665@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200803022334.AA12665@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <001101c87ce9$7bacb740$730625c0$@com> [RG] Let's consider as simple example. West opens 1C; North did not act because East, South and West all passed. [DALB] Random thoughts occurs to me: what information if any is authorised to the players at the table? What methods are North-South permitted to play? Suppose the hands look like this (game all, dealer West): West (playing a strong no trump) xxx KQx Axx KJxx North (the victim) KQxxx Axx xx Axx East (absent-minded) AJ10x J109xx Kxxx None South (das Weltkind unterdessen) x xx QJ10x Q109xxx West opens 1C. East, thinking that it was his deal, passes before North has a chance to act. South, not displeased to accept 1C as a final contract, passes also. Now the auction reverts to North. Should he overcall 1S in sixth position (as he would have done in second position without East's manque de pr?sence ? la table? Is he allowed to know why East passed West's 1C? Clearly if he does bid, he is going to get a worse score than if he had passed out 1C. Is he supposed to work this out? Suppose he bids 1S anyway, as players will. Is he then allowed to pass South's 2C? Should South's 2C be natural or a cue bid in this position? Are North-South allowed to have any understanding on the matter? Can you see now why I think East-West should just get average minus (or be fined two tops or 24 IMPs if I had my way) rather than have North-South sweating out this kind of position under their own steam? If you want equity (as the 2007 Lawmakers wish to implement it), you will find it in the dictionary between "equine" and "excrement", and that is where it richly deserves to be. David Burn London, England From geller at nifty.com Mon Mar 3 06:38:13 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:38:13 +0900 Subject: [blml] L17E2 questions In-Reply-To: <001101c87ce9$7bacb740$730625c0$@com> References: <001101c87ce9$7bacb740$730625c0$@com> Message-ID: <200803030538.AA12672@geller204.nifty.com> Hi David, In your example L17E2 would not apply, because West has not yet passed. L17E2 applies only if there are THREE passes in a row, a player having been skipped. In your example of W N E S 1C (no call) Pass Pass ? South's pass, for better or worse, has condoned East's POOT and it is now West's legitimate turn to call, if I understand it, with the important exception that West is free to make any legal call he wants to and have the auction continue, EXCEPT that if West passes then (and only then), due to L17E2, the auction reverts back to North, with East being treated as an offender under L16. The more I think about it this is very strange, because L29A says ********************************************************** LAW 29 - PROCEDURE AFTER A CALL OUT OF ROTATION A. Forfeiture of Right to Rectification Following a call out of rotation offender?s LHO may elect to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification. ********************************************************** It appears to me that after South's pass of East's POOT South has condoned the POOT, thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification. Under those circumstances, West should have the right to pass, thereby being able to declare 1C if he chooses to. Yet because of the contradiction between L17E2 (which, being more specific, should take precedence over L29A) and L29A, West is apparently no longer able to elect to play 1C undoubled. Am I missing something here Or am I correct in now thinking this whole business is much worse than I initially thought, and that L17E2 and L29A are contradictory? Did the DSC carefully consider the relation between L17E2 and L29A? (Perhaps not, as there is no cross-referencing.) -Bob David Burn ????????: >[RG] > >Let's consider as simple example. > >West opens 1C; North did not act because East, South and West all passed. > >[DALB] > >Random thoughts occurs to me: what information if any is authorised to the >players at the table? What methods are North-South permitted to play? > >Suppose the hands look like this (game all, dealer West): > >West (playing a strong no trump) > >xxx KQx Axx KJxx > >North (the victim) > >KQxxx Axx xx Axx > >East (absent-minded) AJ10x J109xx Kxxx None > >South (das Weltkind unterdessen) > >x xx QJ10x Q109xxx > >West opens 1C. East, thinking that it was his deal, passes before North has >a chance to act. South, not displeased to accept 1C as a final contract, >passes also. > >Now the auction reverts to North. Should he overcall 1S in sixth position >(as he would have done in second position without East's manque de pr?ence >?la table? Is he allowed to know why East passed West's 1C? Clearly if he >does bid, he is going to get a worse score than if he had passed out 1C. Is >he supposed to work this out? > >Suppose he bids 1S anyway, as players will. Is he then allowed to pass >South's 2C? Should South's 2C be natural or a cue bid in this position? Are >North-South allowed to have any understanding on the matter? > >Can you see now why I think East-West should just get average minus (or be >fined two tops or 24 IMPs if I had my way) rather than have North-South >sweating out this kind of position under their own steam? If you want equity >(as the 2007 Lawmakers wish to implement it), you will find it in the >dictionary between "equine" and "excrement", and that is where it richly >deserves to be. > >David Burn >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 PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Mar 3 08:17:09 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:17:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?L53B_=28=22the_nad_from_which_declarer_led?= =?iso-8859-15?q?=22=29=3F?= In-Reply-To: <200803022320.AA12664@geller204.nifty.com> References: <000301c87b3f$90d2f680$94d2403e@Mildred> <200803022320.AA12664@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <1JW4v7-1n0o9Q0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> > L53B says: > ************************************************ > B. Wrong Defender Plays Card to Declarer’s Irregular Lead If > the defender at the right of the hand from which declarer’s > lead out of turn was made plays to the irregular lead (but see C), the > lead stands and Law 57 applies. > ************************************************ > > My question involves the meaning of the following phrase: > "the hand from which declarer’s lead out of turn was made" It > appears to me that this means either dummy or declarer's own hand, as > the case may be, but one of my colleagues (who is not a native speaker > of English9 would like to see if everyone agrees with this (or if > maybe it applies only to declarer's own hand). ?Opinions please. If the lawmakers wanted only leads from declarer's hand to be included in this law, they would have said so: e.g. "If declarer's RHO, after a lead out of turn from declarer's hand, plays to the irregular lead ..." But they did not say so. The construct "... of the hand from which declarer's lead out of turn was made ..." is unique. Declarer made the lead - because he plays both hands -, but the mere hand from which he does so is arbitrary. From ken.deri31 at ntlworld.com Mon Mar 3 09:23:19 2008 From: ken.deri31 at ntlworld.com (Ken Richardson) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 08:23:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] L17E2 questions In-Reply-To: <200803030538.AA12672@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: And what if it went 1D, (no call), pass, 1C not condoned and corrected to pass, pass ? Ken -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Robert Geller Sent: 03 March 2008 05:38 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] L17E2 questions Hi David, In your example L17E2 would not apply, because West has not yet passed. L17E2 applies only if there are THREE passes in a row, a player having been skipped. In your example of W N E S 1C (no call) Pass Pass ? South's pass, for better or worse, has condoned East's POOT and it is now West's legitimate turn to call, if I understand it, with the important exception that West is free to make any legal call he wants to and have the auction continue, EXCEPT that if West passes then (and only then), due to L17E2, the auction reverts back to North, with East being treated as an offender under L16. The more I think about it this is very strange, because L29A says ********************************************************** LAW 29 - PROCEDURE AFTER A CALL OUT OF ROTATION A. Forfeiture of Right to Rectification Following a call out of rotation offender?s LHO may elect to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification. ********************************************************** It appears to me that after South's pass of East's POOT South has condoned the POOT, thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification. Under those circumstances, West should have the right to pass, thereby being able to declare 1C if he chooses to. Yet because of the contradiction between L17E2 (which, being more specific, should take precedence over L29A) and L29A, West is apparently no longer able to elect to play 1C undoubled. Am I missing something here Or am I correct in now thinking this whole business is much worse than I initially thought, and that L17E2 and L29A are contradictory? Did the DSC carefully consider the relation between L17E2 and L29A? (Perhaps not, as there is no cross-referencing.) -Bob David Burn ????????: >[RG] > >Let's consider as simple example. > >West opens 1C; North did not act because East, South and West all passed. > >[DALB] > >Random thoughts occurs to me: what information if any is authorised to the >players at the table? What methods are North-South permitted to play? > >Suppose the hands look like this (game all, dealer West): > >West (playing a strong no trump) > >xxx KQx Axx KJxx > >North (the victim) > >KQxxx Axx xx Axx > >East (absent-minded) AJ10x J109xx Kxxx None > >South (das Weltkind unterdessen) > >x xx QJ10x Q109xxx > >West opens 1C. East, thinking that it was his deal, passes before North has >a chance to act. South, not displeased to accept 1C as a final contract, >passes also. > >Now the auction reverts to North. Should he overcall 1S in sixth position >(as he would have done in second position without East's manque de pr?ence >?la table? Is he allowed to know why East passed West's 1C? Clearly if he >does bid, he is going to get a worse score than if he had passed out 1C. Is >he supposed to work this out? > >Suppose he bids 1S anyway, as players will. Is he then allowed to pass >South's 2C? Should South's 2C be natural or a cue bid in this position? Are >North-South allowed to have any understanding on the matter? > >Can you see now why I think East-West should just get average minus (or be >fined two tops or 24 IMPs if I had my way) rather than have North-South >sweating out this kind of position under their own steam? If you want equity >(as the 2007 Lawmakers wish to implement it), you will find it in the >dictionary between "equine" and "excrement", and that is where it richly >deserves to be. > >David Burn >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 _______________________________________________ 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: 269.21.2/1305 - Release Date: 29/02/2008 18:32 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1305 - Release Date: 29/02/2008 18:32 From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 3 09:29:11 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:29:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] L17E2 questions In-Reply-To: <200803030538.AA12672@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000101c87d08$a85c22c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > Hi David, > > In your example L17E2 would not apply, because West has not yet passed. > L17E2 applies only if there are THREE passes in a row, a player having > been > skipped. In your example of > W N E S > 1C (no call) Pass Pass > ? > > South's pass, for better or worse, has condoned East's POOT and > it is now West's legitimate turn to call, if I understand it, with the > important exception that West is free to make any legal call > he wants to and have the auction continue, EXCEPT that if > West passes then (and only then), due to L17E2, the auction reverts > back to North, with East being treated as an offender under L16. > > The more I think about it this is very strange, because L29A says > ********************************************************** > LAW 29 - PROCEDURE AFTER A CALL OUT OF ROTATION > A. Forfeiture of Right to Rectification > Following a call out of rotation offender's LHO may elect to call > thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification. > ********************************************************** > It appears to me that after South's pass of East's POOT South has > condoned the POOT, thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification. > Under those circumstances, West should have the right to pass, > thereby being able to declare 1C if he chooses to. Yet because of > the contradiction between L17E2 (which, being more specific, > should take precedence over L29A) and L29A, West is apparently no longer > able to elect to play 1C undoubled. > > Am I missing something here Or am I correct in now thinking this whole > business is much worse than I initially thought, and that L17E2 and L29A > are > contradictory? I think you are simply missing the fact that if West passes then the auction would be concluded without North participating in the final round. What Law 17E2 does is to guarantee that no player can be deprived of his right to accept (by passing) or reject (by making another call) the last call other than pass to determine the contract on that board. If West does not make the third pass in a row the auction will not end and North can again enter the auction, but if West tries to conclude the auction with a third pass in a row then L17E2 gives North back his turn to call. Straight enough if you ask me. Regards Sven From geller at nifty.com Mon Mar 3 09:34:14 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:34:14 +0900 Subject: [blml] L17E2 questions In-Reply-To: <000101c87d08$a85c22c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000101c87d08$a85c22c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <200803030834.AA12681@geller204.nifty.com> Sven Pran writes: >If West does not make the third pass in a row the auction will not end and >North can again enter the auction, but if West tries to conclude the auction >with a third pass in a row then L17E2 gives North back his turn to call. But if we accept your argument (which is not unreasonable), then shouldn't "(but see Law 17E2)" be added to L29A? If this addition were made to the laws then the ambiguity would be removed. As it now stands a director who looks only at L29A will make a ruling that conflicts with L17E2. -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From geller at nifty.com Mon Mar 3 10:01:14 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:01:14 +0900 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) In-Reply-To: <000101c87d08$a85c22c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <000101c87d08$a85c22c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <200803030901.AA12682@geller204.nifty.com> March 3, 2008 Dear BLMLers (especially DSC members or people involved in translating the Laws), I'm hoping you can help me out. As you know I'm one of several people working on checking and editing the Japanese version of the 2007 Laws. First, a general philosophical question. I'm sure that in principle everyone agrees that the translators of the Laws ought to respect the original English version and not make arbitrary changes to the meaning. But in many cases the 2007 Laws (like earlier versions) have various minor flaws. Q1.When it appears clear to the translators that there are minor flaws in the laws, should they: A. Nonetheless strive to translate the Laws as closely as possible. B. Aim at a reasonable translation, but use commonsense to make minor changes as needed. C. Other (please specify) Next let's look a concrete example. This is not really important one way or the other in itself, but serves as a litmus test. Let's consider the case of "board" and "deal." As I'm sure most BLMLers know (see definitions, excerpt in attached file), the "definitions" section of the 2007 Laws allows either to be used interchangeably as the unit of the bidding and play of a board. In looking at the English version of the 2007 Laws it seems that most of the time "board" is used as the unit of play, but once in a while "deal" is also used (I suspect the latter is mostly a holdover from the rubber bridge laws, but some may result from a reluctance to use the word "board" twice in one sentence.) Anyway in the cases where "deal" and "board" are used in an interchangeable sense I'd like to use one term only in the Japanese edition. Since "board" is used more often by far in the present edition, and also because "board" is more familiar to ordinary Japanese players and directors than "deal," I'd like to use "board" in all such cases. (Needless to say, in the cases where "deal" is use to indicate the distribution of the cards I'd leave this as is.) To assist you in understanding what I mean I've gone through the English edition (see next two pages) and indicated each place where I'm proposing to replace "deal" by "board" in the Japanese edition. Q2. What is your opinion of the proposed change? A. Strictly forbidden. "Deal" may not be replaced by "board" even where the meaning is unchanged. B. No problem. Such minor commonsense alterations are OK. C. Other (please specify. Thanks for your help. Cheers, Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: blml deal vs board question.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 38713 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080303/bb871691/attachment-0001.pdf From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 3 10:29:44 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:29:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] L17E2 questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c87d11$1e0ccad0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Ken Richardson > And what if it went 1D, (no call), pass, 1C not condoned and corrected to > pass, pass ? > > Ken L27D1, but see also L23 ! Sven From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Mar 3 10:55:16 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:55:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Unfair advantage? In-Reply-To: <066701c87b09$001530d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <200802271831.m1RIVFKS027864@cfa.harvard.edu><47C76768.5060706@n hcc.net> <066701c87b09$001530d0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47CBCB04.4050503@meteo.fr> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > 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. i hope you are wrong and L40A2 forbids this behaviour. otherwise you could use the same bid to describe 2 different sorts of hands according to your needs. suppose you agree to play michael's against 1D except when 1D doesn't warrant diamonds, which is a perfectly authorized agreement. your rho opens 1D, alerted. when you are dealt a major 2-suiter, you don't ask and overcall 2D: partner will understand as he knows you can't know that rho doesn't hold diamonds. when you are dealt diamonds, you ask then overcall 2D: partner will understand you have diamonds. please, tell me it can't be that way. jpr > > Stefanie Rohan > 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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 3 10:33:12 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:33:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] L53B ("the nad from which declarer led")? References: <000301c87b3f$90d2f680$94d2403e@Mildred><200803022320.AA12664@geller204.nifty.com> <1JW4v7-1n0o9Q0@fwd33.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <008901c87d15$c3b98640$efce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 7:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L53B ("the nad from which declarer led")? > L53B says: > ************************************************ > B. Wrong Defender Plays Card to Declarer’s Irregular Lead If > the defender at the right of the hand from which declarer’s > lead out of turn was made plays to the irregular lead (but see C), the > lead stands and Law 57 applies. > ************************************************ > > My question involves the meaning of the following phrase: > "the hand from which declarer’s lead out of turn was made" It > appears to me that this means either dummy or declarer's own hand, as > the case may be, but one of my colleagues (who is not a native speaker > of English9 would like to see if everyone agrees with this (or if > maybe it applies only to declarer's own hand). Opinions please. If the lawmakers wanted only leads from declarer's hand to be included in this law, they would have said so: e.g. "If declarer's RHO, after a lead out of turn from declarer's hand, plays to the irregular lead ..." But they did not say so. The construct "... of the hand from which declarer's lead out of turn was made ..." is unique. Declarer made the lead - because he plays both hands -, but the mere hand from which he does so is arbitrary. +=+ Correct. The construction of the language is such that there are evidently alternative possibilities as to which hand declarer has led from. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 3 10:41:19 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:41:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] L17E2 questions References: <200803022334.AA12665@geller204.nifty.com> <001101c87ce9$7bacb740$730625c0$@com> Message-ID: <008a01c87d15$c4aa4ee0$efce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 4:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L17E2 questions If you want equity (as the 2007 Lawmakers wish to implement it), you will find it in the dictionary between "equine" and "excrement", and that is where it richly deserves to be. < +=+ Very close to "equivalence". +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 3 11:04:13 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:04:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] L17E2 questions In-Reply-To: <200803030834.AA12681@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <000f01c87d15$ef16c050$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > Sven Pran writes: > > If West does not make the third pass in a row the auction > > will not end and North can again enter the auction, > > but if West tries to conclude the auction with a third pass > > in a row then L17E2 gives North back his turn to call. > > But if we accept your argument (which is not unreasonable), > then shouldn't "(but see Law 17E2)" be added to L29A? > If this addition were made to the laws then the ambiguity > would be removed. As it now stands a director who looks > only at L29A will make a ruling that conflicts with L17E2. Which demonstrates why it is important for a director to know (all) the laws, but yes - I think such an added reference from L29A would have its merits. L17E2 is a specific law concerning only one particular exceptional case and as such must precede any general law (e.g. L29A) that happens to incorporate the same case. A more important question is the situation pointed out by Ken Richardson: 1D, (no call), pass, 1C not condoned and corrected to pass, pass ? In this particular situation I believe we should end up in L27D1 (and L23), but I believe there can be similar cases not so trivial, for example: West: 1D, East (out of turn): pass, South: pass, West: 1C North may now condone the insufficient 1C bid and continue the auction as if no irregularity has occurred, but what if he decides not to condone and West then replaces his insufficient bid with a pass? Regards Sven From hermy at hdw.be Mon Mar 3 11:15:41 2008 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:15:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) In-Reply-To: <200803030901.AA12682@geller204.nifty.com> References: <000101c87d08$a85c22c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200803030901.AA12682@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47CBCFCD.9070706@hdw.be> Robert Geller wrote: > > Q1.When it appears clear to the translators that > there are minor flaws in the laws, should they: > A. Nonetheless strive to translate the > Laws as closely as possible. > > Q2. What is your opinion of the proposed change? > A. Strictly forbidden. "Deal" may not be replaced by "board" > even where the meaning is unchanged. This one is probably a WBF mistake; there should be only one word used. But we don't know that. Maybe in their infinite wisdom they come up with an explanation for this usage. Rather than tweek the translation, we should ask the WBF to change the lawbook. If that is only possible in 2018, so be it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 3 11:16:38 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:16:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) In-Reply-To: <200803030901.AA12682@geller204.nifty.com> References: <000101c87d08$a85c22c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200803030901.AA12682@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47CBD006.6000307@skynet.be> Robert Geller wrote: > > Q1.When it appears clear to the translators that > there are minor flaws in the laws, should they: > A. Nonetheless strive to translate the > Laws as closely as possible. > > Q2. What is your opinion of the proposed change? > A. Strictly forbidden. "Deal" may not be replaced by "board" > even where the meaning is unchanged. This one is probably a WBF mistake; there should be only one word used. But we don't know that. Maybe in their infinite wisdom they come up with an explanation for this usage. Rather than tweek the translation, we should ask the WBF to change the lawbook. If that is only possible in 2018, so be it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 3 11:20:11 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:20:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) In-Reply-To: <200803030901.AA12682@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <001a01c87d18$2ac74a50$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> I believe the difference between "board" and "deal" becomes clearer if you consider tournaments where at the same time several copies of the same board are in use. "Deal" then refers to how the 52 cards are split between the four hands as the result of a dealing process while "board" refers to each individual physical implementation of this deal. Thus you can have only one deal with a particular number while you can have several boards with the same number. In fact the board number need not even match the deal number; for instance the board number for deal 33 in an event is frequently 1 (and so on). Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Robert Geller > Sent: 3. mars 2008 10:01 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) > > March 3, 2008 > > Dear BLMLers (especially DSC members or people > involved in translating the Laws), > > I'm hoping you can help me out. As you know I'm one > of several people working on checking and editing the > Japanese version of the 2007 Laws. > > First, a general philosophical question. I'm sure that in > principle everyone agrees that the translators of the Laws > ought to respect the original English version and not make > arbitrary changes to the meaning. But in many cases the > 2007 Laws (like earlier versions) have various minor flaws. > > Q1.When it appears clear to the translators that > there are minor flaws in the laws, should they: > A. Nonetheless strive to translate the > Laws as closely as possible. > B. Aim at a reasonable translation, but use > commonsense to make minor changes as needed. > C. Other (please specify) > > Next let's look a concrete example. This is not really > important one way or the other in itself, but serves as > a litmus test. Let's consider the case of "board" > and "deal." As I'm sure most BLMLers know (see > definitions, excerpt in attached file), the "definitions" > section of the 2007 Laws allows either to be used > interchangeably as the unit of the bidding and play > of a board. In looking at the English version of the > 2007 Laws it seems that most of the time "board" > is used as the unit of play, but once in a while "deal" > is also used (I suspect the latter is mostly a holdover > from the rubber bridge laws, but some may result from > a reluctance to use the word "board" twice in one sentence.) > > Anyway in the cases where "deal" and "board" are used > in an interchangeable sense I'd like to use one term only in > the Japanese edition. Since "board" is used more often by > far in the present edition, and also because "board" is more > familiar to ordinary Japanese players and directors than "deal," > I'd like to use "board" in all such cases. (Needless to say, > in the cases where "deal" is use to indicate the distribution > of the cards I'd leave this as is.) To assist you in understanding > what I mean I've gone through the English edition (see next two > pages) and indicated each place where I'm proposing to replace > "deal" by "board" in the Japanese edition. > > Q2. What is your opinion of the proposed change? > A. Strictly forbidden. "Deal" may not be replaced by "board" > even where the meaning is unchanged. > B. No problem. Such minor commonsense alterations are OK. > C. Other (please specify. > > Thanks for your help. > > Cheers, > Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 3 11:42:57 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:42:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] L53B ("the nad from which declarer led")? References: <000301c87b3f$90d2f680$94d2403e@Mildred> <200803022320.AA12664@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <008a01c87d20$935ab540$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 11:20 PM Subject: [blml] L53B ("the nad from which declarer led")? > Dear BLMLers, > > We're now working on polishing the Japanese translation of the 2007 Laws, > and I'd like to check opinions on one point. > > L53B says: > ************************************************ > B. Wrong Defender Plays Card to Declarer’s Irregular Lead > If the defender at the right of the hand from which declarer’s lead out > of turn was made plays to the irregular lead (but see C), the lead > stands and Law 57 applies. > ************************************************ > > My question involves the meaning of the following phrase: > "the hand from which declarer’s lead out of turn was made" > It appears to me that this means either dummy or declarer's own hand, as > the case may be, but one of my colleagues (who is not a native speaker > of English9 would like to see if everyone agrees with this (or if maybe > it applies only to declarer's own hand). Opinions please. > Declarer or dummy; It's not clear, but it is the intent. Dummy's hand is played by declarer. john From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 3 11:52:00 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:52:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] L17E2 questions References: <200803022334.AA12665@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <008b01c87d20$93690d20$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 11:34 PM Subject: [blml] L17E2 questions > Dear BLMLers, > > We're now trying to understand L17E2 (see below) in order to translate > it correctly. > *********************************************************** > L17E2. When a call has been followed by three passes the auction does not > end if one of those passes was out of rotation, depriving a player of > his right to call at that turn. When this occurs the auction reverts to > the player who missed his turn, all subsequent passes are cancelled and > the auction proceeds normally. Law 16D applies to the cancelled calls, > any player who has passed out of rotation being an offender. > ********************************************************** > > Let's consider as simple example. > West North East South > 1C (no call) Pass Pass > Pass > > L17E2 says the three passes are cancelled and the auction everts to North. > This part is clear. But my (our) question is about the meaning of > "any player who has passed out of rotation." It is clear that East has > passed out of rotation. But (as defined in L17E2) are South and West > also regarded as "players who have passed out of rotation"? Or does > this designation apply only to East? Our uncertainty regarding this > point > arises because South passed in rotation with respect to East, but after > the auction had been corrupted by East's POOT. > > My guess is that L17E2 should be interpreted as designating only East > as "a player who has passed out of rotation," but I'm not completely > confident about this, and would appreciate everyone's opinions on this > point. Thanks. I have always ruled that it would be East alone who has transgressed. Try 1H P P P P. 4th seat has ben deprived, but 3rd seat and 1st seat have POOT. However2nd seat has had an opportunity to pass albeit on the 2nd round, so the auction reverts to 4th seat. It's the last 3 passes that count. If it then gets corrected to 1H P P P 2nd seat no longer has had an opportunity to pass so he gets another go because his pass has been cancelled I see no other way to apply the Law 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 Mon Mar 3 12:00:20 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:00:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] L17E2 questions References: <000101c87d08$a85c22c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200803030834.AA12681@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <008c01c87d20$937c1ff0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L17E2 questions > Sven Pran writes: >>If West does not make the third pass in a row the auction will not end and >>North can again enter the auction, but if West tries to conclude the >>auction >>with a third pass in a row then L17E2 gives North back his turn to call. > > But if we accept your argument (which is not unreasonable), then shouldn't > "(but see Law 17E2)" be added to L29A? If this addition were made to the > laws then the ambiguity would be removed. As it now stands a director > who > looks only at L29A will make a ruling that conflicts with L17E2. Yes, Bob; we are taught to check for this. It's a trick question for TDs. heaven help the amateurs :) john > > -Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 3 12:30:30 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:30:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) References: <000101c87d08$a85c22c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <200803030901.AA12682@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <008d01c87d21$fcb9ffe0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" > Q2. What is your opinion of the proposed change? > A. Strictly forbidden. "Deal" may not be replaced by "board" > even where the meaning is unchanged. > B. No problem. Such minor commonsense alterations are OK. > C. Other (please specify. > > Thanks for your help. > So I stroll over to mrs Suzuki who has limited but some English and find out the problem. It's ok, I work out what needs to be done. You don't need a common language for that. I give the ruling in English (sometimes in pidgin) as I'm required to do in a EBU sponsored game and show her the translation (which is how I do it with the Japanese ladies circle, and it works well). Even though I'm confident that the translation expresses the intent I have a problem because the phrase which I use in English does not translate as my customer expects. This is not a criticism of your translation - it may well be that "deal" is so stretched that it jars on the Japanese mind and as such IS a poor translation. We have this problem for all translations, given that the definitive and only acceptable version of the Law is English, the translation is what the player knows and yet has no force in Law. It is without doubt a cause of problems in International matches. My view is that if "deal" can be understood in Japanese it should remain as deal, but if it is truly a stretch then it should be translated as "board". I am minded of the notes at the beginning of Nakatani's 1997 translation where he sets out "must" "may" "may not" etc with specific Japanese translations and explanation. My Japanese friends comment that this passage is very useful, and clearly Nakatani must have strayed from the English in order for him to have thought to _add_ to the law with this clarification. It may well be the case that another such note/notes regarding board/deal and other quirks would be the best resolution of the problems. When I was translating for a living, I used to write TNs (translator's notes) occasionally when I felt the translation completely failed the writer's intent and I would then translate the intent, commenting on what the object language actually said. I noted pack/deck some while ago here, although no-one picked up the thread. It would be another example. Pack is British English; deck is American English. Which language is in use? :) John > Cheers, > 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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 3 12:28:41 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:28:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) References: <000101c87d08$a85c22c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><200803030901.AA12682@geller204.nifty.com> <47CBD006.6000307@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003601c87d21$cf7938c0$efce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) > Robert Geller wrote: >> >> Q1.When it appears clear to the translators that >> there are minor flaws in the laws, should they: >> A. Nonetheless strive to translate the >> Laws as closely as possible. >> >> Q2. What is your opinion of the proposed change? >> A. Strictly forbidden. "Deal" may not be replaced by "board" >> even where the meaning is unchanged. > > This one is probably a WBF mistake; there should be only one word > used. But we don't know that. Maybe in their infinite wisdom they come > up with an explanation for this usage. Rather than tweek the > translation, we should ask the WBF to change the lawbook. If that is > only possible in 2018, so be it. > +=+ Changes are totally unauthorized. The Laws are a subject of copyright - see the WBF notice upon the matter. (They may be printed subject to the conditions on which the WBF assigns copyright to NBOs.) This does not prevent adoption of the appropriate words in languages other than English. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 3 12:37:15 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:37:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] L17E2 questions References: <000f01c87d15$ef16c050$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <009a01c87d22$ee201860$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" > > In this particular situation I believe we should end up in L27D1 (and > L23), > but I believe there can be similar cases not so trivial, for example: > > West: 1D, East (out of turn): pass, South: pass, West: 1C > > North may now condone the insufficient 1C bid and continue the auction as > if > no irregularity has occurred, but what if he decides not to condone and > West > then replaces his insufficient bid with a pass? We now have 3 passes, one of which is OOT. West's status is in limbo however. His substituted pass is cancelled without penalty but does the penalty for the undercall of his own bid still stand. I think not though UI exists. We're in similar territory to 1D 3rd seat, very closely followed by 1C 1st seat, which we've chewed to death a number of times. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 3 13:51:57 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:51:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] L17E2 questions In-Reply-To: <009a01c87d22$ee201860$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <001d01c87d2d$5e2c21d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > From: "Sven Pran" > > > > In this particular situation I believe we should end up in > > L27D1 (and L23), but I believe there can be similar cases not > > so trivial, for example: > > West: 1D, East (out of turn): pass, South: pass, West: 1C > > North may now condone the insufficient 1C bid and continue > > the auction as if no irregularity has occurred, but what if > > he decides not to condone and West then replaces his > > insufficient bid with a pass? > > We now have 3 passes, one of which is OOT. West's status is in > limbo however. His substituted pass is cancelled without > penalty but does the penalty for the undercall of his own bid > still stand. I think not though UI exists. We're in similar > territory to 1D 3rd seat, very closely followed by > 1C 1st seat, which we've chewed to death a number of times. Not so fast! I don't know if it was just a typo, but West's substituting (!) pass can not be cancelled except under L17E2 if we decide that this law applies here. The important question is whether his substituting pass becomes the third pass in a row for the purpose of applying L17E2 or if this law was already suspended for the case once North declined to condone the insufficient bid. L17E protects a player from being deprived of his call because of three passes in a row by the other three players, one of which is out of turn. Literally it does not seem to apply when a player loses his right to call as a consequence of his own selection among available corrections after an irregularity. This will become much clearer with the following scenario: North: 1S, East: pass, South: pass, West: 1H - insufficient bid not condoned by North after which West replaces his IB with pass. If North had wanted the opportunity to make another call he must condone the insufficient bid, now the auction is definitely concluded. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 3 14:38:43 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:38:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) In-Reply-To: <001a01c87d18$2ac74a50$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> References: <001a01c87d18$2ac74a50$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <47CBFF63.90403@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > I believe the difference between "board" and "deal" becomes clearer if you > consider tournaments where at the same time several copies of the same board > are in use. "Deal" then refers to how the 52 cards are split between the > four hands as the result of a dealing process while "board" refers to each > individual physical implementation of this deal. > AG : Quite so. And this means cancelling a board (because it's fouled) isn't the same thing as cancelling a deal. There is indeed a good reason for this distinction, especially for Platonician TDs ;-) Best regards Alain From geller at nifty.com Mon Mar 3 15:31:54 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:31:54 +0900 Subject: [blml] Use of "contestant" in 2007 laws In-Reply-To: <47CBFF63.90403@ulb.ac.be> References: <47CBFF63.90403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200803031431.AA12691@geller204.nifty.com> Dear BLMLers, The 207 Laws define "contestant" as follows: "Contestant - in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates." But it appears to me that in several places in the Laws the word "contestant" is used in a way inconsistent with the definition, and should be crossed out and replaced by the word in green in the attached file. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks, Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: contestant vs player v2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 42447 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080303/30b02e71/attachment-0001.pdf From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Mar 3 17:23:34 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:23:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) In-Reply-To: <003601c87d21$cf7938c0$efce403e@Mildred> References: <000101c87d08$a85c22c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><200803030901.AA12682@geller204.nifty.com> <47CBD006.6000307@skynet.be> <003601c87d21$cf7938c0$efce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47CC2606.7060106@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Changes are totally unauthorized. The Laws are a subject of copyright - see the WBF notice upon the matter. (They may be printed subject to the conditions on which the WBF assigns copyright to NBOs.) This does not prevent adoption of the appropriate words in languages other than English. [Nigel] IMO that is unfair discrimination. :( Why can't we have a translation into English? :) From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 3 21:20:55 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 20:20:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) References: <000101c87d08$a85c22c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><200803030901.AA12682@geller204.nifty.com> <47CBD006.6000307@skynet.be><003601c87d21$cf7938c0$efce403e@Mildred> <47CC2606.7060106@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <002901c87d6d$3babef10$fbd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ Changes are totally unauthorized. The Laws are a subject of > copyright - see the WBF notice upon the matter. (They may be printed > subject to the conditions on which the WBF assigns copyright to NBOs.) > This does not prevent adoption of the appropriate words in languages > other than English. > > [Nigel] > IMO that is unfair discrimination. :( > > Why can't we have a translation into English? :) > +=+ He... Hee...! It would infringe the rights of the Society for the Promotion of Occult Kids Stuff (Spooks). +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 4 01:10:36 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:10:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] Use of "contestant" in 2007 laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200803031431.AA12691@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Bob Geller: >The 2007 Laws define "contestant" as follows: >"Contestant - in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two players >playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more >players playing as team-mates." > >But it appears to me that in several places in the Laws the word "contestant" >is used in a way inconsistent with the definition, and should be crossed out >and replaced by the word in green in the attached file. Please take a look >and let me know what you think. Richard Hills: In Law 7D, "contestant" is obviously correct for an individual or a pairs event. As for Bob's quibble about teams events, he is assuming that 100% of a "contestant" must be at the table. Compare the Definition of "side", which does require 100% of a "side" to be at the table. In Law 8A, Bob hermanically invents a criterion that "progression" ipso facto means "moving as a unit". Plus Bob's quote of the Law 8A heading is not relevant, since: "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law" (2007 Introduction) In Law 15C, I agree with Bob that "as above" applies, but of course we have differing "as aboves". However... Bob seems to have a point that "contestant" may have been partially misused in the claim laws, in that individual events (with two "contestants" in each partnership) were ignored. In the 2018 Lawbook I suggest that "contestant" be replaced with "side", where appropriate, in the claim laws. I also like Bob's proposed substantive change to Law 74B5, since that would give the rude player's partner the right to request corrective action from the Director. For example, "Director! My idiot partner has revoked," is not an infraction of Law 74B5 now - because it refers to "other contestants" - but would be an infraction in 2018 if the criterion was changed to "other players". Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 john at asimere.com Mon Mar 3 16:00:45 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:00:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] L17E2 questions References: <001d01c87d2d$5e2c21d0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Message-ID: <000501c87d8c$c8d62530$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L17E2 questions >> On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst >> From: "Sven Pran" >> > >> > In this particular situation I believe we should end up in >> > L27D1 (and L23), but I believe there can be similar cases not >> > so trivial, for example: >> > West: 1D, East (out of turn): pass, South: pass, West: 1C >> > North may now condone the insufficient 1C bid and continue >> > the auction as if no irregularity has occurred, but what if >> > he decides not to condone and West then replaces his >> > insufficient bid with a pass? >> >> We now have 3 passes, one of which is OOT. West's status is in >> limbo however. His substituted pass is cancelled without >> penalty but does the penalty for the undercall of his own bid >> still stand. I think not though UI exists. We're in similar >> territory to 1D 3rd seat, very closely followed by >> 1C 1st seat, which we've chewed to death a number of times. > > Not so fast! > > I don't know if it was just a typo, but West's substituting (!) pass can > not > be cancelled except under L17E2 if we decide that this law applies here. > > The important question is whether his substituting pass becomes the third > pass in a row for the purpose of applying L17E2 or if this law was already > suspended for the case once North declined to condone the insufficient > bid. > > L17E protects a player from being deprived of his call because of three > passes in a row by the other three players, one of which is out of turn. > Literally it does not seem to apply when a player loses his right to call > as > a consequence of his own selection among available corrections after an > irregularity. Nope! L17 is an absolute. I'm clear on this point. The player in the next seat can use this fact to control the auction. I had one in Brighton last year where a player, after we'd discussed the Law for three or four minutes finally elected a pass in order to get a 2nd shot. > > This will become much clearer with the following scenario: > > North: 1S, East: pass, South: pass, West: 1H - insufficient bid not > condoned > by North after which West replaces his IB with pass. > > If North had wanted the opportunity to make another call he must condone > the > insufficient bid, now the auction is definitely concluded. Not the same scenario Sven. 17 is there to protect someone from being deprived of an opportunity to call. If he's got an opportunity then we never get to 17. It's an "exception" Law to coin a phrase. We, (the lawmakers) recognise that we must allow everyone an opportunity to call on this round of the auction. That we can extend an auction by condoning an infraction is extra to this and not to do with 17. John > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 3 16:07:02 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:07:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) References: <001a01c87d18$2ac74a50$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> <47CBFF63.90403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601c87d8c$caf115f0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 1:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) Sven Pran a ?crit : >> I believe the difference between "board" and "deal" becomes clearer if >> you > >consider tournaments where at the same time several copies of the same > >board > >are in use. "Deal" then refers to how the 52 cards are split between the > >four hands as the result of a dealing process while "board" refers to > >each > >individual physical implementation of this deal. > >AG : Quite so. And this means cancelling a board (because it's fouled) >isn't the same thing as cancelling a deal. >There is indeed a good reason for this distinction, especially for >Platonician TDs ;-) who believe that a board is an instance of a deal., ok. Do we foul a board, or foul the deal? There's no question the deal is fouled, is there? As I said earlier, if the Japanese for "deal" is stretched in the Japanese mind, then a better translation would be "board". Nigel endlessly goes on about clarity, with good reason, and that must take over-riding precedence. John >Best regards > Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Tue Mar 4 01:29:40 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 00:29:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Use of "contestant" in 2007 laws References: <47CBFF63.90403@ulb.ac.be> <200803031431.AA12691@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <008001c87d8f$5e5d5770$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 2:31 PM Subject: [blml] Use of "contestant" in 2007 laws > Dear BLMLers, > > The 207 Laws define "contestant" as follows: > "Contestant - in an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two > players > playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more > players > playing as team-mates." The change in law 7D is certainly ok, all the others are ok as they are IMO. I think Grattan has made it clear that you have a degree of flexibility in your translation. John > > But it appears to me that in several places in the Laws the word > "contestant" > is used in a way inconsistent with the definition, and should be crossed > out > and replaced by the word in green in the attached file. Please take a > look and > let me know what you think. > > Thanks, > Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john at asimere.com Tue Mar 4 01:31:39 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 00:31:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) References: <000101c87d08$a85c22c0$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J><200803030901.AA12682@geller204.nifty.com> <47CBD006.6000307@skynet.be><003601c87d21$cf7938c0$efce403e@Mildred> <47CC2606.7060106@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <008101c87d8f$5ee52510$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ Changes are totally unauthorized. The Laws are a subject of > copyright - see the WBF notice upon the matter. (They may be printed > subject to the conditions on which the WBF assigns copyright to NBOs.) > This does not prevent adoption of the appropriate words in languages > other than English. > > [Nigel] > IMO that is unfair discrimination. :( > > Why can't we have a translation into English? :) ROFL, it's truer than you think. When i was at the European TD course all the other TDs had their local translation bound face to face with the English - what a good idea!. I suggested I needed one too, and those with good English found this pretty funny. John > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 4 06:48:58 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:48:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c87c64$78f783c0$40d5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I am reading this topic but I am not altogether sure where >it is leading. Law 16 has attempted to make as clear as possible >the treatment of UI. Richard Hills: The 2007 Law 16 is a huge improvement on the 1997 Law 16. Much more detail and clarified processes. But to discover that the _creation_ of UI is not necessarily an infraction one still has to turn to the (un-cross-referenced) Law 73D1 and/or the WBF Code of Practice. Grattan Endicott: >Presumably magazines and pundits, appeals committees, tournament >directors quietly, will devote attention to the 'education' of >players who have difficulty with the subject. Richard Hills: But often it has been the directors and appeals committees who have had difficulty with the subject. See, for example, the ACBL Appeals Casebook for the Spring 2000 NABC in Cincinnati (in which Grattan and David Stevenson were transatlantic guest stars). Grattan Endicott: >It is unlikely that an esoteric message board will have the >breadth of readership to get the message across where it is >needed. Richard Hills: Esoteric? I beg to differ. The principle of Six Degrees of Separation means that significant messages can be leveraged onto much more popular fora. For example, my Unofficial executive summary of Law changes is being serialised in the Melbourne bridge newsletter and is also being used as a resource in South Africa. And now for some esoteric unconjugated Latin: "Romanes eunt domus". :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Mar 4 08:59:53 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:59:53 +0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47CD0179.3080202@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ I am reading this topic but I am not altogether sure where it is leading. Law 16 has attempted to make as clear as possible the treatment of UI. [Richard Hills] The 2007 Law 16 is a huge improvement on the 1997 Law 16. Much more detail and clarified processes. But to discover that the _creation_ of UI is not necessarily an infraction one still has to turn to the (un-cross-referenced) Law 73D1 and/or the WBF Code of Practice. [Grattan] Presumably magazines and pundits, appeals committees, tournament directors quietly, will devote attention to the 'education' of players who have difficulty with the subject. [Richard] But often it has been the directors and appeals committees who have had difficulty with the subject. See, for example, the ACBL Appeals Casebook for the Spring 2000 NABC in Cincinnati (in which Grattan and David Stevenson were transatlantic guest stars). [Grattan] It is unlikely that an esoteric message board will have the breadth of readership to get the message across where it is needed. [Richard] Esoteric? I beg to differ. The principle of Six Degrees of Separation means that significant messages can be leveraged onto much more popular fora. For example, my Unofficial executive summary of Law changes is being serialised in the Melbourne bridge newsletter and is also being used as a resource in South Africa. And now for some esoteric unconjugated Latin: "Romanes eunt domus". [Nige1] [1] I agree with Grattan and Richard if they imply that promulgating corrections and clarifications through magazines, WBF codes of practice, director seminars, newsletters, conferences, appeals committee reports, unofficial summaries, minutes and the like is a poor substitute for completing and disambiguating the law-book itself. Certainly, players rely on the law-book for guidance. [2] Do you break the law when you deliberately or carelessly give unnecessary unauthorised information? Until I read recent posts by Maddog and Grattan, I had been under the impression that to do so is an infraction. Like Stefanie, I feel that it should be discouraged because it tempts players to rationalize its use. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 4 09:34:35 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:34:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47CD0179.3080202@NTLworld.com> References: <47CD0179.3080202@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47CD099B.1030608@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > > [2] Do you break the law when you deliberately or carelessly give > unnecessary unauthorised information? Until I read recent posts by > Maddog and Grattan, I had been under the impression that to do so is an > infraction. Like Stefanie, I feel that it should be discouraged because > it tempts players to rationalize its use. > > For the "deliberately" part, L73B1 clearly says it is disallowed. Posts from the Pope wouldn't change the text of the laws. Anyway, it is a good idea to maintain the act of creating UI in a status of "semi-infraction", that is, something which you should strive to avoid. A second reason for insisting on its avoidance is that it will create doubt about whether it was used, whence many TD calls and much resentment, which is bad for the game. Contrast with improper calling of cards, like "small one". This is said to be incorrect practice, yet its impact on playability and atmosphere, if any, is positive. Best regards alain From geller at nifty.com Tue Mar 4 10:12:56 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:12:56 +0900 Subject: [blml] he, he/she, or they for whom the bell tolls In-Reply-To: <47CD099B.1030608@ulb.ac.be> References: <47CD099B.1030608@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200803040912.AA12708@geller204.nifty.com> Dear BLMLers, The Introduction to the 2007 Laws contains the following sentence. ************************************************** Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural and the masculine includes the feminine, and vice versa. **************************************************** This sentence makes perfect sense as applied to the English language version of the laws. On the other hand, in the Japanese language there are no "masculine" or "feminine" forms used in the 2007 Laws (basically the "...if he has...," and so on, which are so common in English, are not used at all in ordinary Japanese). Similarly, the Japanese language doesn't have "singular" or "plural" forms either. That being the case, this sentence makes no sense whatsoever as applied to the Japanese edition of the 2007 Laws. How then should we treat this sentence? (A) Omit it from the Japanese laws altogether as it is irrelevant to the Japanese language? (B) Include a literal translation in the Japanese edition even though it makes no sense, because the RA in each NBO should translate everything exactly as it stands in the English edition? (C) Other (please specify) Any opinions? Also, any reports on how this sentence was handled in other countries? -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Mar 4 10:20:10 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:20:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47CD099B.1030608@ulb.ac.be> References: <47CD0179.3080202@NTLworld.com> <47CD099B.1030608@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47CD144A.3050706@NTLworld.com> [Nige1] [2] Do you break the law when you deliberately or carelessly give unnecessary unauthorised information? Until I read recent posts by Maddog and Grattan, I had been under the impression that to do so is an infraction. Like Stefanie, I feel that it should be discouraged because it tempts players to rationalize its use. [Alain Gottcheiner] For the "deliberately" part, L73B1 clearly says it is disallowed. Posts from the Pope wouldn't change the text of the laws. Anyway, it is a good idea to maintain the act of creating UI in a status of "semi-infraction", that is, something which you should strive to avoid. A second reason for insisting on its avoidance is that it will create doubt about whether it was used, whence many TD calls and much resentment, which is bad for the game. {Nige2] In the past, esoteric minutes have altered the official interpretation of the laws for an inner circle of top officials (although most ordinary directors and all players seem to have been deliberately kept in the dark). Do Grattan and Maddog have access to such minutes that explain how the intention of the law-makers again conflicts with the law-book's English meaning? Below is what John wrote (to put me right) and what Grattan seems to endorse. [John Probst] We are NOT required to police the "giving" of UI, just the use of it. Players don't seem to know the difference. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Mar 4 12:18:08 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 12:18:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?he=2C_he/she=2C_or_they_for_whom_the_bell_?= =?iso-8859-15?q?tolls?= In-Reply-To: <200803040912.AA12708@geller204.nifty.com> References: <47CD099B.1030608@ulb.ac.be> <200803040912.AA12708@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <1JWV9s-1QikLI0@fwd24.aul.t-online.de> (A) - what else ? (???) As we have singular/plural/masculine and feminine in German as well, I translated this sentence. From: Robert Geller > The Introduction to the 2007 Laws contains the following sentence. > ************************************************** > Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular > includes the plural and the masculine includes the feminine, and vice > versa. > **************************************************** > This sentence makes perfect sense as applied to the English > language version of the laws. > > On the other hand, in the Japanese language there are no "masculine" > or "feminine" forms used in the 2007 Laws (basically the "...if he > has...," and so on, which are so common in English, are not used at > all in ordinary Japanese). ?Similarly, the Japanese language doesn't > have "singular" or "plural" forms either. ? That being the case, this > sentence makes no sense whatsoever as applied to the Japanese edition > of the 2007 Laws. > > How then should we treat this sentence? > (A) Omit it from the Japanese laws altogether as it is irrelevant to > the Japanese language? > (B) Include a literal translation in the Japanese edition even though > it makes no sense, because the RA in each NBO should translate > everything exactly as it stands in the English edition? > (C) Other (please specify) > > Any opinions? ? Also, any reports on how this sentence was handled in > other countries? From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 4 12:45:31 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 12:45:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] he, he/she, or they for whom the bell tolls In-Reply-To: <1JWV9s-1QikLI0@fwd24.aul.t-online.de> References: <47CD099B.1030608@ulb.ac.be> <200803040912.AA12708@geller204.nifty.com> <1JWV9s-1QikLI0@fwd24.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <47CD365B.4000308@ulb.ac.be> Peter Eidt a ?crit : > (A) - what else ? (???) > > As we have singular/plural/masculine and feminine in > German as well, I translated this sentence. > > I think Robert's intention is to explain that those of us who insisted that the text not be altered in any way through translation, most notably for copyright reasons, are wrong, and that facts are more stubborn than principles. FWIW, I agree with him. For those who know some Russian : just try translating the following sentence : "the clear midday sky and the unspoilt sea made up a delightful camaieu" BTW, languages without any masculine / feminine distinction are common. What do our Indonesian, Hungarian, Finnish, Armenian ... friends think of this problem ? Best regards Alain From geller at nifty.com Tue Mar 4 14:36:21 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:36:21 +0900 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47CD144A.3050706@NTLworld.com> References: <47CD144A.3050706@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <200803041336.AA12713@geller204.nifty.com> Guthrie writes: >{Nige2] >In the past, esoteric minutes have altered the official interpretation >of the laws for an inner circle of top officials (although most ordinary >directors and all players seem to have been deliberately kept in the >dark). Do Grattan and Maddog have access to such minutes that explain >how the intention of the law-makers again conflicts with the law-book's >English meaning? The minutes of the WBFLC are available on the WBF home page at the following link: http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/cmte_minutes.asp There was one meeting every year from 1998-2003 (except that there were 2 meetings in 2000 and none in 1999 due to the fact that the Bermuda Bowl in Bermuda was held in Jan 2000 rather than fall 1999). For some reason there are no minutes for 2004, 2005, and 2006). Does this reflect the fact that the WBFLC didn't have any meetings in these years, or were there in fact meetings for which the minutes have not been published? Can anyone here explain this? -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 4 15:40:37 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:40:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Something understood. Message-ID: <004d01c87e06$54613760$32ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott Hola blmlers! Anyone other than me notice a marked improvement (subjective opinion) of tone in the blml discussion of the last week or so? No one getting violently excited, no one telling others that they are misguided, no one doubting the intelligence or perspicacity of others, no one accusing others of not understanding any point of law. Everyone polite and friendly. Quite enjoyable. Ahoy, JE From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 4 16:17:21 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 15:17:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47CD144A.3050706@NTLworld.com> <200803041336.AA12713@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <001201c87e0a$e021e6b0$4cd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Guthrie writes: >>{Nige2] >>In the past, esoteric minutes have altered the official interpretation >>of the laws for an inner circle of top officials (although most ordinary >>directors and all players seem to have been deliberately kept in the >>dark). Do Grattan and Maddog have access to such minutes that explain >>how the intention of the law-makers again conflicts with the law-book's >>English meaning? > > The minutes of the WBFLC are available on the WBF home page at the > following link: > http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/cmte_minutes.asp > > There was one meeting every year from 1998-2003 (except that there > were 2 meetings in 2000 and none in 1999 due to the fact that the Bermuda > Bowl in Bermuda was held in Jan 2000 rather than fall 1999). > > For some reason there are no minutes for 2004, 2005, and 2006). Does this > reflect the fact that the WBFLC didn't have any meetings in these years, > or were there in fact meetings for which the minutes have not been > published? > Can anyone here explain this? > +=+ The Laws Committee makes its minutes available for publication on the web site but has no control over the timing of their appearance there. There was no meeting in 2005 or 2006. There were meetings on 31 October 2004 and 7th October 2007. You could try Anna Gudge's website at www.ecatsbridge.com looking under 'documents'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Tue Mar 4 16:22:55 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:22:55 +0900 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001201c87e0a$e021e6b0$4cd5403e@Mildred> References: <001201c87e0a$e021e6b0$4cd5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <200803041522.AA12716@geller204.nifty.com> The Oct. 2007 minutes are available at the WBF web site. I'll try to find out why the 2004 minutes are missing. Just an oversight, presumably. -Bob gesta at tiscali.co.uk ????????: > >Grattan Endicott[following address discontinued: >grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >***************************** >"Between these shoes soles an' this hat, >Stonds a very respectable mon >An' nob'dy'll contradict that >An' why? Becose nobody con." > [Samuel Laycock 1692-1763]. >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robert Geller" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 1:36 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Guthrie writes: >>>{Nige2] >>>In the past, esoteric minutes have altered the official interpretation >>>of the laws for an inner circle of top officials (although most ordinary >>>directors and all players seem to have been deliberately kept in the >>>dark). Do Grattan and Maddog have access to such minutes that explain >>>how the intention of the law-makers again conflicts with the law-book's >>>English meaning? >> >> The minutes of the WBFLC are available on the WBF home page at the >> following link: >> http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/cmte_minutes.asp >> >> There was one meeting every year from 1998-2003 (except that there >> were 2 meetings in 2000 and none in 1999 due to the fact that the Bermuda >> Bowl in Bermuda was held in Jan 2000 rather than fall 1999). >> >> For some reason there are no minutes for 2004, 2005, and 2006). Does this >> reflect the fact that the WBFLC didn't have any meetings in these years, >> or were there in fact meetings for which the minutes have not been >> published? >> Can anyone here explain this? >> >+=+ The Laws Committee makes its minutes available >for publication on the web site but has no control over >the timing of their appearance there. There was no >meeting in 2005 or 2006. There were meetings on >31 October 2004 and 7th October 2007. You could >try Anna Gudge's website at www.ecatsbridge.com >looking under 'documents'. > ~ 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 john at asimere.com Tue Mar 4 18:01:59 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:01:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] he, he/she, or they for whom the bell tolls References: <47CD099B.1030608@ulb.ac.be> <200803040912.AA12708@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <003f01c87e19$75ff0ab0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 9:12 AM Subject: [blml] he, he/she, or they for whom the bell tolls > Dear BLMLers, > > The Introduction to the 2007 Laws contains the following sentence. > ************************************************** > Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular > includes the plural and the masculine includes the feminine, and vice > versa. > **************************************************** > This sentence makes perfect sense as applied to the English > language version of the laws. > > On the other hand, in the Japanese language there are no "masculine" > or "feminine" forms used in the 2007 Laws (basically the "...if he > has...," > and so on, which are so common in English, are not used at all in ordinary > Japanese). Similarly, the Japanese language doesn't have "singular" > or "plural" forms either. That being the case, this sentence makes no > sense whatsoever as applied to the Japanese edition of the 2007 Laws. > > How then should we treat this sentence? > (A) Omit it from the Japanese laws altogether as it is irrelevant to the > Japanese language? > (B) Include a literal translation in the Japanese edition even though it > makes no sense, because the RA in each NBO should translate everything > exactly as it stands in the English edition? > (C) Other (please specify) Add a note "omitted: English grammatcal explanation not relevant to the Japanese language" > > Any opinions? Also, any reports on how this sentence was handled in > other countries? in my local East london argot "imzer'nallnus'zimmerertu" I use the appostrophe to indicate the glottal stop which can be pronounced as a very short neutral 'e' rough de-elision "him means her and all and us means him or her too" it is of course completely unambiguous, though translating the other laws to east London is going to be hard work. I should be able to get the whole oeuvre onto two sides of a sheet of A4 in 10 point. It'll keep Nigel happy anyway :) > > -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 t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Mar 4 18:03:33 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:03:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Something understood. In-Reply-To: <004d01c87e06$54613760$32ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: < +=+ What must be recognized is that before God we are all equal. It is true that in my initial approach to the 2007 Laws I made a determined effort to persuade colleagues that we should dig up the tree root and branch and devise a wholly new Code of Laws. This could not be achieved because God and my friends decreed that all progress must be incremental rather than revolutionary. I am not sure that Grattan's description above is an adequate one. Indeed we did not support his effort to produce a 'wholly mew code of laws', but the reason? I estimate to have more revolution in my left pink than Grattan in whatever collection he may compose (indeed: not including my left pink) ton From john at asimere.com Tue Mar 4 18:26:56 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:26:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Something understood. References: Message-ID: <000f01c87e1c$f1cb3670$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Something understood. > > < > +=+ What must be recognized is that before God we > are all equal. It is true that in my initial approach to > the 2007 Laws I made a determined effort to persuade > colleagues that we should dig up the tree root and branch > and devise a wholly new Code of Laws. This could not be > achieved because God and my friends decreed that all > progress must be incremental rather than revolutionary. > > > > I am not sure that Grattan's description above is an adequate one. > > Indeed we did not support his effort to produce a 'wholly mew code of > laws', > but the reason? > I estimate to have more revolution in my left pink than Grattan in > whatever > collection he may compose (indeed: not including my left pink) > too much data here ton :) > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schoderb at msn.com Tue Mar 4 19:04:22 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 13:04:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Something understood. References: Message-ID: Seems to me that we Americans have had revolutionary success -- in fact I believe it was against the English unless my history books are wrong. Maybe if we had taken an incremental approach in Boston the harbor would not have become a giant tea cup. I'm not surprised that Grattan feels the need to explain how he would have done things better. But, I got to read and study what he produced, and believe me, it would have taken a lot longer and been harder to translate into English than the present product. There is also the highly valid point in producing laws which grates on all those who see themselves more qualified to write laws than those who wrote the ones under Review. "If it isn't broken, don't fix it!" The WBF ByLaws mandated "REVIEW of the Laws" accurately fits an incremental approach to progress to assure that some revolutionary doesn't screw things up. The game will survive however, as long as we keep common sense on our plate. ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Something understood. > > > < > +=+ What must be recognized is that before God we > are all equal. It is true that in my initial approach to > the 2007 Laws I made a determined effort to persuade > colleagues that we should dig up the tree root and branch > and devise a wholly new Code of Laws. This could not be > achieved because God and my friends decreed that all > progress must be incremental rather than revolutionary. > > > > I am not sure that Grattan's description above is an adequate one. > > Indeed we did not support his effort to produce a 'wholly mew code of > laws', > but the reason? > I estimate to have more revolution in my left pink than Grattan in > whatever > collection he may compose (indeed: not including my left pink) > > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 4 19:27:12 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:27:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Something understood. References: <000f01c87e1c$f1cb3670$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <00c801c87e25$602a6520$bfce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 5:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Something understood. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ton" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 5:03 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Something understood. > > >> >> < >> +=+ What must be recognized is that before God we >> are all equal. It is true that in my initial approach to >> the 2007 Laws I made a determined effort to persuade >> colleagues that we should dig up the tree root and branch >> and devise a wholly new Code of Laws. This could not be >> achieved because God and my friends decreed that all >> progress must be incremental rather than revolutionary. >> >> >> >> I am not sure that Grattan's description above is an >> adequate one. >> >> Indeed we did not support his effort to produce a >> 'wholly mew code of laws', >> but the reason? >> I estimate to have more revolution in my left pink >> than Grattan in whatever collection he may compose >> (indeed: not including my left pink) >> > too much data here ton :) > >> >> ton >> +=+ Now what emotions, I wonder, prompt this conversazione? Do I detect... oh, surely not. Whatever witness the hard copies in existence bear to the question may always be judged. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 5 00:54:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:54:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47CD099B.1030608@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >Anyway, it is a good idea to maintain the act of creating UI >in a status of "semi-infraction", Richard Hills: "Semi-infraction"? Any relation to Bobby Wolff's "Hesitation Disruption", an unLawful idea that a hesitator involved in a TD ruling should receive an automatic procedural penalty? Alain Gottcheiner: >that is, something which you should strive to avoid. Richard Hills: My style is to bid with celerity and panache. But that is a matter of strategy (not wishing to restrict pard's logical alternatives) and ability (being quick thinking). However, a slower thinker need not "strive to avoid" a careful assessment of a key decision if that slower thinker is willing to accept the consequent restriction of partner's logical alternatives Alain Gottcheiner: >A second reason for insisting on its avoidance is that it will >create doubt about whether it was used, whence many TD calls >and much resentment, which is bad for the game. Richard Hills: "Use" or motive for a call is not a Law 16 criterion. Rather the question is restriction of logical alternatives. The basis for "much resentment" is players incorrectly believing their ethics are questioned, when in actuality they have merely made a technical error in assessing allowable logical alternatives. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 5 01:42:50 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 00:42:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Improvement of tone? References: <47CD653F.5060405@aol.com> Message-ID: <000f01c87e6b$9928d690$26cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 3:05 PM Subject: [blml] Improvement of tone? > Hola blmlers! Anyone other than me notice a marked improvement > (subjective opinion) of tone in the blml discussion of the last week or > so? No one getting violently excited, no one telling others that they > are misguided, no one doubting the intelligence or perspicacity of > others, no one accusing others of not understanding any point of law. > Everyone polite and friendly. Quite enjoyable. Ahoy, JE > "What never? Well, hardly ever!" From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Mar 5 04:19:23 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:19:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) In-Reply-To: <200803042137.m24LbvcP008145@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200803042137.m24LbvcP008145@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47CE113B.6090006@nhcc.net> > From: "John \(MadDog\) Probst" > [Platonists] who believe that a board is an instance of a deal. OK. > Do we foul a board, > or foul the deal? There's no question the deal is fouled, is there? Seems backwards to me. If there are multiple boards in play, all copies of a single deal, wouldn't it be normal for only one of the _boards_ to be fouled? I don't see how you could foul a deal. On the other hand, you would have to cancel the _deal_ (not a board) if you discover it was played in a previous session. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Mar 5 04:25:11 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:25:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] he, he/she, or they for whom the bell tolls In-Reply-To: <200803042023.m24KNPCN015624@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200803042023.m24KNPCN015624@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47CE1297.5020103@nhcc.net> > From: Robert Geller > (C) Other (please specify) I'm with John: add a note that a grammatical instruction not relevant to Japanese was omitted. You could use a footnote if the Japanese language has those. But how in the world does the language work without singular and plural?! Are there other languages like that? (I admit I'm showing my lack of education here!) You may have to use a lot of "one or more" in the translation unless not specifying a number implies that. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Mar 5 04:30:13 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:30:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] L17E2 questions In-Reply-To: <200803032036.m23KanDk016408@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200803032036.m23KanDk016408@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47CE13C5.3000102@nhcc.net> > From: "David Burn" > West opens 1C; North did not act because East, South and West all passed. > What information if any is authorised to the > players at the table? What methods are North-South permitted to play? I'd expect everything is authorized to NS (the NOS), and unless the RA says otherwise, they can play any methods they want. It's not so clear for EW, but I'm guessing all the cancelled calls are UI to them. That will be a bit problematic, though, if NS have special agreements for this situation. I suppose EW must be authorized to know the NS agreements for the situation but not inferences arising from the withdrawn passes. That is likely to be hard to enforce, though. (Personally, I'd rather have the withdrawn passes AI to everyone.) From t-nakatani at kxb.biglobe.ne.jp Wed Mar 5 04:51:09 2008 From: t-nakatani at kxb.biglobe.ne.jp (Nakatani Tadayoshi) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:51:09 +0900 Subject: [blml] he, he/she, or they for whom the bell tolls In-Reply-To: <47CE1297.5020103@nhcc.net> References: <200803042023.m24KNPCN015624@cfa.harvard.edu> <47CE1297.5020103@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <47CE18AD.8080003@kxb.biglobe.ne.jp> Hi, Steve Willner wrote: > But how in the world does the language work without singular and > plural?! Are there other languages like that? (I admit I'm showing my > lack of education here!) You may have to use a lot of "one or more" in > the translation unless not specifying a number implies that. In Japanese (in principle), you put one, two, or three etc. (we have extensive different expressions depending on the subject, that is, whether a word shows person, animal, plant, desk, notebook and so on) just in front of a word, but each word has only one form, it dose not change whether it is singular or plural. I hope you get some idea about singular and plural in Japanese. Bob Geller could explain this in more clear English, I am sure. Nakatani Tadayoshi From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 5 05:56:06 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:56:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] he, he/she, or they for whom the bell tolls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47CE1297.5020103@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >But how in the world does the language work without singular >and plural?! Are there other languages like that? Richard Hills: Yes, English. The second person pronoun "you" is both singular and plural. (Except in the Deep South dialect which uses "you'all" for the second person plural.) Other singular plural words: Sheep Deer Swine Pop quiz. Which of the three words above is also the name of a bridge convention? Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 Wed Mar 5 06:12:37 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:12:37 +0900 Subject: [blml] he, he/she, or they for whom the bell tolls In-Reply-To: <47CE18AD.8080003@kxb.biglobe.ne.jp> References: <47CE18AD.8080003@kxb.biglobe.ne.jp> Message-ID: <200803050512.AA12727@geller204.nifty.com> Actually it works fine. In English we say one player, two players, etc., but if you think about it the "s" at the end of "two players" is superfluous. Japanese just leaves out the redundant "s." Once in a while Japanese speakers have to explicitly specify "one or more suits" or "two or more suits" when discussing bridge but this isn't any big deal. -Bob Nakatani Tadayoshi writes: >Hi, > >Steve Willner wrote: >> But how in the world does the language work without singular and >> plural?! Are there other languages like that? (I admit I'm showing my >> lack of education here!) You may have to use a lot of "one or more" in >> the translation unless not specifying a number implies that. > >In Japanese (in principle), you put one, two, or three etc. (we have >extensive different expressions depending on the subject, that is, >whether a word shows person, animal, plant, desk, notebook and so on) >just in front of a word, but each word has only one form, it dose not >change whether it is singular or plural. >I hope you get some idea about singular and plural in Japanese. Bob >Geller could explain this in more clear English, I am sure. > >Nakatani Tadayoshi > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Mar 6 02:03:46 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:03:46 -0800 Subject: [blml] he, he/she, or they for whom the bell tolls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <47CE1297.5020103@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080305170248.03c248b8@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 08:56 PM 4/03/2008, you wrote: >Steve Willner: > > >But how in the world does the language work without singular > >and plural?! Are there other languages like that? > >Richard Hills: > >Yes, English. The second person pronoun "you" is both >singular and plural. (Except in the Deep South dialect which >uses "you'all" for the second person plural.) > >Other singular plural words: > >Sheep >Deer >Swine > >Pop quiz. Which of the three words above is also the name of >a bridge convention? > At last a bridge question I can answer Swine = Sebesfi Woods 1NT escape, last time I played it Cheers Tony (Sydney) >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills >Graduates and Developmental Training 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 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 5 07:45:23 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:45:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47CE4183.40704@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > "Semi-infraction"? Any relation to Bobby Wolff's "Hesitation > Disruption", an unLawful idea that a hesitator involved in a TD > ruling should receive an automatic procedural penalty? > > > > However, a slower thinker need not "strive to avoid" a careful > assessment of a key decision if that slower thinker is willing > to accept the consequent restriction of partner's logical > alternatives > > I wans't much concerned about hesitations, but about actions that create UI the way they are done, and could easily have been avoided. For example, oriented questions. Or explanations given that weren't asked. I strongly feel such infractions to L73B1 (old) should indeed generate an automatic procedural penalty even when it's judged that the UI wasn't at all used by partner. IOW, I don't speak about UI that's a consequence of the game's difficulty, but about unnecessary UI. One interesting case : my partner once realized that when he hesitated before making a 2-way bid (of which there are many in our system), it was more probable that he held the strong variant, because he would seldom hesitate before preempting ;-) while evaluating a strong hand takes a few seconds. This hasn't anything to do with him being a slow thinker ; he isn't. Which means he should "strive" to avoid this by taking a little time before ussing a weak variant too. > Richard Hills: > > "Use" or motive for a call is not a Law 16 criterion. Rather > the question is restriction of logical alternatives. The basis > for "much resentment" is players incorrectly believing their > ethics are questioned, when in actuality they have merely made > a technical error in assessing allowable logical alternatives. > > > Once agin, I've another target, namely the resentment of players that think UI was transmitted AND benefitted the opponents, even if the TD judged otherwise. What someone called here the 'wiz robbed effect". Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 5 07:46:44 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:46:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) In-Reply-To: <47CE113B.6090006@nhcc.net> References: <200803042137.m24LbvcP008145@cfa.harvard.edu> <47CE113B.6090006@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <47CE41D4.1090309@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : > Seems backwards to me. If there are multiple boards in play, all copies > of a single deal, wouldn't it be normal for only one of the _boards_ to > be fouled? I don't see how you could foul a deal. Perhaps if there was a typo in the distribution slip ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 5 07:46:44 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:46:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) In-Reply-To: <47CE113B.6090006@nhcc.net> References: <200803042137.m24LbvcP008145@cfa.harvard.edu> <47CE113B.6090006@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <47CE41D4.1090309@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : > Seems backwards to me. If there are multiple boards in play, all copies > of a single deal, wouldn't it be normal for only one of the _boards_ to > be fouled? I don't see how you could foul a deal. Perhaps if there was a typo in the distribution slip ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 5 07:48:38 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:48:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] he, he/she, or they for whom the bell tolls In-Reply-To: <47CE1297.5020103@nhcc.net> References: <200803042023.m24KNPCN015624@cfa.harvard.edu> <47CE1297.5020103@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <47CE4246.8090908@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : >> From: Robert Geller >> (C) Other (please specify) >> > > I'm with John: add a note that a grammatical instruction not relevant to > Japanese was omitted. You could use a footnote if the Japanese language > has those. > > But how in the world does the language work without singular and > plural?! Are there other languages like that? Yep. Bahasa Indonesia and other Malayan languages. If it's absolutely needed, you may duplicate a word to insist on plural, but it's seldom used. > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 5 07:48:38 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:48:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] he, he/she, or they for whom the bell tolls In-Reply-To: <47CE1297.5020103@nhcc.net> References: <200803042023.m24KNPCN015624@cfa.harvard.edu> <47CE1297.5020103@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <47CE4246.8090908@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : >> From: Robert Geller >> (C) Other (please specify) >> > > I'm with John: add a note that a grammatical instruction not relevant to > Japanese was omitted. You could use a footnote if the Japanese language > has those. > > But how in the world does the language work without singular and > plural?! Are there other languages like that? Yep. Bahasa Indonesia and other Malayan languages. If it's absolutely needed, you may duplicate a word to insist on plural, but it's seldom used. > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 5 07:49:44 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:49:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] he, he/she, or they for whom the bell tolls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47CE4288.1040008@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Other singular plural words: > > Sheep > Deer > Swine > > Aircraft. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 5 08:00:30 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:00:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] he, he/she, or they for whom the bell tolls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47CE450E.4000003@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Yes, English. The second person pronoun "you" is both > singular and plural. (Except in the Deep South dialect which > uses "you'all" for the second person plural.) > > Other singular plural words: > > Sheep > Deer > Swine > > It's a fact that, of all occidental languages, English is the one nearer to Chinese and Japanese as far as morphology (or its absence) and syntax are concerned. No declension ; nearly no conjugation but added words ; words that can be either nouns or verbs ; no grammatical gender ; loose use of articles, relative pronouns, feminine and plural forms ; compound words hat don't need hyphens or epentheses ; and many others. We French-speaking persons know that well : when we have to decode the translation of originally Japanese directions for use, we prefer reading the English translation than the French one ; there is at least some hope that it will be understandable, as language structure will cause less distortions. Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 5 08:58:35 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 07:58:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 Message-ID: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott <47CBFF63.90403@ulb.ac.be> <000601c87d8c$caf115f0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: so, Bob Geller, I think you should continue to translate into Japanese the "intent" of the laws, and not try to make a word-for-word mess of things. There are those who say that the laws are promulgated into English, and that's their opinion, but there are also those of us who think that English needs to be translated into the "English" more common throughout the world. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 1:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) Sven Pran a ?crit : >> I believe the difference between "board" and "deal" becomes clearer if >> you > >consider tournaments where at the same time several copies of the same > >board > >are in use. "Deal" then refers to how the 52 cards are split between the > >four hands as the result of a dealing process while "board" refers to > >each > >individual physical implementation of this deal. > >AG : Quite so. And this means cancelling a board (because it's fouled) >isn't the same thing as cancelling a deal. >There is indeed a good reason for this distinction, especially for >Platonician TDs ;-) who believe that a board is an instance of a deal., ok. Do we foul a board, or foul the deal? There's no question the deal is fouled, is there? As I said earlier, if the Japanese for "deal" is stretched in the Japanese mind, then a better translation would be "board". Nigel endlessly goes on about clarity, with good reason, and that must take over-riding precedence. John >Best regards > Alain _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080303/0f0fd7d5/attachment.htm From hermy at hdw.be Wed Mar 5 10:02:25 2008 From: hermy at hdw.be (HermY De Wael) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:02:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Improvement of tone? In-Reply-To: <47CD653F.5060405@aol.com> References: <47CD653F.5060405@aol.com> Message-ID: <47CE61A1.5040700@hdw.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hola blmlers! Anyone other than me notice a marked improvement > (subjective opinion) of tone in the blml discussion of the last week or > so? No one getting violently excited, no one telling others that they > are misguided, no one doubting the intelligence or perspicacity of > others, no one accusing others of not understanding any point of law. > Everyone polite and friendly. Quite enjoyable. Ahoy, JE > Probably because the subjects that were discussed did not generate enough division to encourage high sentiment! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Mar 5 10:04:45 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:04:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Law_27?= In-Reply-To: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> > Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************** > " It never or rarely happens that a republic > or monarchy is well constituted, or its old > institutions entirely reformed, unless it is > done by only one individual." > ? ? ? ? ? [Macchiavelli Niccolo' ?1469-1527] ? > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > +=+ A revision of Law 27 will be released to > NBOs and Zones later today. I am unable to > attach it here (it would be blocked) but perhaps > some recipient has the facilities to copy it as text > for the enjoyment of blml-ers. +=+ ... and here it comes ... ta-taaaaa 5th March 2008 Agreed version Law 27 ? INSUFFICIENT BID A. Acceptance of Insufficient Bid. 1. Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender?s LHO. It is accepted if that player calls. 2. If a player makes an insufficient bid out of rotation Law 31 applies. B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted. If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call (but see 3 following). Then 1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director?s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply but see D following. (b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director?s opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D following. 2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender?s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23. 3. except as provided in B1(b) above, if the offender attempts to substitute a double or a redouble for his insufficient bid the attempted call is cancelled. The offender must replace it as the foregoing allows and his partner must then pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23. 4. if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does not accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows. C. Premature Replacement If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A allows the substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant foregoing section to the substitution. D.Non-offending Side Damaged. If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred. [footnote: * the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ] From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 5 10:44:32 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:44:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <47CE6B80.1090007@ulb.ac.be> Peter Eidt a ?crit : >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ***************************** >> " It never or rarely happens that a republic >> or monarchy is well constituted, or its old >> institutions entirely reformed, unless it is >> done by only one individual." >> [Macchiavelli Niccolo' 1469-1527] >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> +=+ A revision of Law 27 will be released to >> NBOs and Zones later today. I am unable to >> attach it here (it would be blocked) but perhaps >> some recipient has the facilities to copy it as text >> for the enjoyment of blml-ers. +=+ >> > > > ... and here it comes ... ta-taaaaa > > > 5th March 2008 > Agreed version > > Law 27 ? INSUFFICIENT BID > > A. Acceptance of Insufficient Bid. > > 1. Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) > at the option of offender?s LHO. It is accepted if that player calls. > > 2. If a player makes an insufficient bid out of rotation Law 31 applies. > > B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted. > > If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) > it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call > (but see 3 following). Then > > 1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid > > in the same denomination and in the Director?s opinion both > the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly > not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. > > Law 16D does not apply but see D following. > (b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a > legal > call that in the Director?s opinion has the same meaning* as, > or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such > meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings > of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further > rectification, but see D following. > > 2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected > by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender?s partner must pass > whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may > apply, and see Law 23. > > 3. except as provided in B1(b) above, if the offender attempts to > substitute a double or a redouble for his insufficient bid the > attempted > call is cancelled. The offender must replace it as the foregoing > allows and his partner must then pass whenever it is his turn to > call. > The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23. > > 4. if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with > another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does > > not accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows. > > C. Premature Replacement > > If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director > has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted > as A allows the substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant > foregoing section to the substitution. > > D.Non-offending Side Damaged. > > If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the > > play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome > of the board could well have been different and in consequence the > non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an > adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly > as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid > not occurred. > > > [footnote: * the meaning of (information available from) a call is the > knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ] > > > So it's indeed "either the lowest bid in the same denomination, if natural" as before, or the new provision for bids that tell all that was told ? Some esteemed contributors said the former didn't hold anymore. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Mar 5 10:56:46 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:56:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com> [Peter Eidt] Law 27 ? INSUFFICIENT BID A. Acceptance of Insufficient Bid. 1. Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender?s LHO. It is accepted if that player calls. 2. If a player makes an insufficient bid out of rotation Law 31 applies. B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted. If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call (but see 3 following). Then 1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director?s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply but see D following. (b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director?s opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D following. 2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender?s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23. 3. except as provided in B1(b) above, if the offender attempts to substitute a double or a redouble for his insufficient bid the attempted call is cancelled. The offender must replace it as the foregoing allows and his partner must then pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23. 4. if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does not accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows. C. Premature Replacement If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A allows the substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant foregoing section to the substitution. D.Non-offending Side Damaged. If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred. [footnote: * the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ] [Nigel] Thank you Peter. I suppose that is an improvement in that... [A] It is clearer that the replacement call must be a refinement of the insufficient bid. [B] You can replace the insufficient bid with any such call, including a redouble or a jump bid. IMO the modified version is still ... [1] *Woolly* The meaning of an insufficient bid is at best nebulous, depending on what the insufficient bidder imagines the auction to have been. IMO it can have no meaning, as far as the law is concerned. [2] Open to cunning *exploits* by secretary birds (unless local regulations thwart them, they can agree different sets of complex conventions that depend on whether they condone the insufficient bid. [3] Fraught with *copyright* problems. According to Grattan, the WBFLC may not make even minor corrigenda to the law-book without flouting draconian copyright agreements. (Although, I confess that we non-lawyers find this hard to believe). Anyway this radical change must drive a coach and horses though any such protocol. [4] *Complex* and unnecessary. I would prefer: you must substitute a pass for an insufficient bid and any inference emanating from the insufficient bid is unauthorised information to the offending side. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Mar 6 06:43:16 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:43:16 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080305214117.01d4d6b0@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 01:04 AM 5/03/2008, you wrote: > > Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: > > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > > ***************************** > > " It never or rarely happens that a republic > > or monarchy is well constituted, or its old > > institutions entirely reformed, unless it is > > done by only one individual." > > [Macchiavelli Niccolo' 1469-1527] > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A post partem correction of the sacred texts?? What next? Please don't let HermY know, or at least a small addition to L20F perhaps? Tony (Sydney) From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Mar 5 11:57:02 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:57:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> Guthrie schrieb: > > [1] *Woolly* The meaning of an insufficient bid is at best nebulous, > depending on what the insufficient bidder imagines the auction to have > been. IMO it can have no meaning, as far as the law is concerned. > I am at a loss to understand that last sentence. Of course it has a meaning, the bidder intended it to have a meaning. Partner may not be able to read that intention in rare cases, but it is there. OTOH, sometimes the meaning will be absolutely unmistakeable. 1C - p - 1C. This can only be a L25 case or a 1C opener. > [2] Open to cunning *exploits* by secretary birds (unless local > regulations thwart them, they can agree different sets of complex > conventions that depend on whether they condone the insufficient bid. > Leaving aside that IMO agreements based on opps's irregularities have been illegal for a long time, anyone squandering his mental capacity on devising ( and remembering) methods that only come up once in a blue moon could do so if I had a say in that. This practically guarantees mishaps. If hope those folks play against me a lot. > [3] Fraught with *copyright* problems. According to Grattan, the WBFLC > may not make even minor corrigenda to the law-book without flouting > draconian copyright agreements. (Although, I confess that we non-lawyers > find this hard to believe). Anyway this radical change must drive a > coach and horses though any such protocol. > One would imagine that the WBF as copyright holder has authorized this change.... > [4] *Complex* and unnecessary. I would prefer: you must substitute a > pass for an insufficient bid and any inference emanating from the > insufficient bid is unauthorised information to the offending side. > Brilliant scheme. Randomising results from those deals by enforcing a pass must enhance the enjoyment of the game at least by the factor 100. What fun. Everyone else gets a score related to Bridge, while this table throws the dice. Why not hold Bridge congresses at the local casino? > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From geller at nifty.com Wed Mar 5 14:06:50 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:06:50 +0900 Subject: [blml] new L27 In-Reply-To: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> References: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <200803051306.AA12739@geller204.nifty.com> Could've been better, could've been worse. The good news (IMO). 1. Most of the time we'll be dealing with an IB replaced by the lowest sufficient RB in the same denomination, and this will pose no problem for directors. as it's what they're useful. 2. A replacement call of RDBL is now also included in 27B1b The bad news (IMO) 1. The pernicious concept of "meaning of the IB" has been retained, although in a somewhat less toxic form than the original L27C of the 2007 Laws. 2. The mechanics of 27B1b will probably cause trouble for directors and players, not to mention RA's. 27B1a is clear to all. But after the director explains 27B1b to an IBer at the table, the player will want to know ("can I call X without penalty"?). How does the player actually do this? Does he ask the director in front of his pard? Or is his pard sent away from the table with the oppts allowed to listen in? And how (except in the most frequent cases, like a negative dbl of 1S after an IB of 1H) will the director answer? This will be fraught..... Oh well, it could've been much worse. -Bob Peter Eidt さんは書きました: >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ***************************** >> " It never or rarely happens that a republic >> or monarchy is well constituted, or its old >> institutions entirely reformed, unless it is >> done by only one individual." >> ? ? ? ? ? [Macchiavelli Niccolo' ?1469-1527] ? >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> +=+ A revision of Law 27 will be released to >> NBOs and Zones later today. I am unable to >> attach it here (it would be blocked) but perhaps >> some recipient has the facilities to copy it as text >> for the enjoyment of blml-ers. +=+ > > >... and here it comes ... ta-taaaaa > > > 5th March 2008 >Agreed version > >Law 27 ・INSUFFICIENT BID > >A. Acceptance of Insufficient Bid. > >1. Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) > at the option of offender痴 LHO. It is accepted if that player calls. > >2. If a player makes an insufficient bid out of rotation Law 31 applies. > >B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted. > >If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) >it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call >(but see 3 following). Then > >1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid > > in the same denomination and in the Director痴 opinion both > the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly > not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. > > Law 16D does not apply but see D following. > (b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a >legal > call that in the Director痴 opinion has the same meaning* as, > or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such > meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings > of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further > rectification, but see D following. > >2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected > by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender痴 partner must pass > whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may > apply, and see Law 23. > >3. except as provided in B1(b) above, if the offender attempts to > substitute a double or a redouble for his insufficient bid the >attempted > call is cancelled. The offender must replace it as the foregoing > allows and his partner must then pass whenever it is his turn to >call. > The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23. > >4. if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with > another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does > > not accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows. > >C. Premature Replacement > >If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director >has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted >as A allows the substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant >foregoing section to the substitution. > >D.Non-offending Side Damaged. > >If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the > >play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome >of the board could well have been different and in consequence the >non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an >adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly >as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid >not occurred. > > >[footnote: * the meaning of (information available from) a call is the >knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ] > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Mar 5 15:06:40 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:06:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] new L27 In-Reply-To: <200803051306.AA12739@geller204.nifty.com> References: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <200803051306.AA12739@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0803050606j2fb8f77erd16b619e36fe0698@mail.gmail.com> Even with the rework, the new Law still has me very confused. I think that the footnote is asking for trouble? (b ) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director's opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D following. [footnote: * the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ] Consider the following John Doe has just made an insufficient 1H bid. At this point in the auction, there is some set of hands that John Doe could conceivably hold. Let's call this set A John Doe has just made a 1H bid. The 1H bid defines a set of possible hands. Let's call this set B. Furthermore, 1H denies some other set of hands. (A 1H overcall is inconsistent with 13 Spades). Let' call this set C. A = The Union of B and C Here's the catch: The definition of the 1H bid simultaneously provides information about both B and C. Suppose that I wanted to substitute a 2D call for the insufficient 1H call. 2D shows a subset of set B. Lets call this set D. By my understanding, this wouldn't be legal because the set A ? D is not a subset of C. (I have access to additional information about the set of hands excluded by the 2D call) The way that I read things, the only way that I can substitute some new call is if this new call draws precisely the same boundary as the original 1H call. Each and every hand included in set B must be in set D. Each and every hand in set C must be in (A ? D). In all honesty, I'd be shocked if anyone can find and example that would meet this stringent a test. I suspect that either 1. My reading of the Law is incorrect, in which case I'd appreciate it if someone picked apart my logic 2. The new Law 27 is drafted poorly On 3/5/08, Robert Geller wrote: > Could've been better, could've been worse. > > The good news (IMO). > 1. Most of the time we'll be dealing with an IB replaced by the lowest > sufficient RB in the same denomination, and this will pose no problem for > directors. as it's what they're useful. > 2. A replacement call of RDBL is now also included in 27B1b > > The bad news (IMO) > 1. The pernicious concept of "meaning of the IB" has been retained, > although in a somewhat less toxic form than the original L27C of the > 2007 Laws. > 2. The mechanics of 27B1b will probably cause trouble for directors and > players, not to mention RA's. 27B1a is clear to all. But after the director > explains 27B1b to an IBer at the table, the player will want to know > ("can I call X without penalty"?). How does the player actually do this? > Does he ask the director in front of his pard? Or is his pard sent away > from the table with the oppts allowed to listen in? And how (except in the > most frequent cases, like a negative dbl of 1S after an IB of 1H) will the > director answer? This will be fraught..... > > Oh well, it could've been much worse. > > -Bob > > > Peter Eidt ????????: > >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: > >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > >> ***************************** > >> " It never or rarely happens that a republic > >> or monarchy is well constituted, or its old > >> institutions entirely reformed, unless it is > >> done by only one individual." > >> ? ? ? ? ? [Macchiavelli Niccolo' ?1469-1527] ? > >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > >> +=+ A revision of Law 27 will be released to > >> NBOs and Zones later today. I am unable to > >> attach it here (it would be blocked) but perhaps > >> some recipient has the facilities to copy it as text > >> for the enjoyment of blml-ers. +=+ > > > > > >... and here it comes ... ta-taaaaa > > > > > > 5th > March 2008 > >Agreed version > > > >Law 27 ?INSUFFICIENT BID > > > >A. Acceptance of Insufficient Bid. > > > >1. Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) > > at the option of offender? LHO. It is accepted if that player calls. > > > >2. If a player makes an insufficient bid out of rotation Law 31 applies. > > > >B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted. > > > >If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) > >it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call > >(but see 3 following). Then > > > >1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid > > > > in the same denomination and in the Director? opinion both > > the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly > > not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. > > > > Law 16D does not apply but see D following. > > (b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a > >legal > > call that in the Director? opinion has the same meaning* as, > > or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such > > meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings > > of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further > > rectification, but see D following. > > > >2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected > > by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender? partner must pass > > whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may > > apply, and see Law 23. > > > >3. except as provided in B1(b) above, if the offender attempts to > > substitute a double or a redouble for his insufficient bid the > >attempted > > call is cancelled. The offender must replace it as the foregoing > > allows and his partner must then pass whenever it is his turn to > >call. > > The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23. > > > >4. if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with > > another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does > > > > not accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows. > > > >C. Premature Replacement > > > >If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director > >has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted > >as A allows the substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant > >foregoing section to the substitution. > > > >D.Non-offending Side Damaged. > > > >If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the > > > >play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome > >of the board could well have been different and in consequence the > >non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an > >adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly > >as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid > >not occurred. > > > > > >[footnote: * the meaning of (information available from) a call is the > >knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > > -- 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 5 16:18:00 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:18:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com> <47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000001c87ed4$1a9f4070$4fddc150$@com> [NG] The meaning of an insufficient bid is at best nebulous, depending on what the insufficient bidder imagines the auction to have been. IMO it can have no meaning, as far as the law is concerned. [DALB] I am not sure I understand this. An insufficient bid of (say) 1S means "there are some auctions in which I would have bid 1S with my hand". Whether or not the partner of the bidder knows what those auctions are, the fact that they exist at all ensures that the 1S bid is not devoid of meaning - it conveys at least some information. The new new Law 27 can be interpreted on this basis. If, say, South opens 1NT and North bids 1H, then he is allowed to bid 2D as a transfer in response to 1NT (because 2D has the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than, "I have a hand in which I would have bid 1H in some auctions"). It would be better, it seems to me, not to ask him why he bid 1H (that is, not to have him volunteer the information that he was responding to 1C, or opening the bidding, because that will constrain his partner in terms of UI). David Burn London, England From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Mar 5 16:23:51 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:23:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] new L27 In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0803050606j2fb8f77erd16b619e36fe0698@mail.gmail.com> References: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de><200803051306.AA12739@gell er204.nifty.com> <2da24b8e0803050606j2fb8f77erd16b619e36fe0698@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47CEBB07.3060704@meteo.fr> richard willey a ?crit : > Even with the rework, the new Law still has me very confused. I think > that the footnote is asking for trouble? > > (b ) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a > legal call that in the Director's opinion has the same meaning* as, or > a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being > fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) > the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D > following. > > [footnote: * the meaning of (information available from) a call is the > knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ] > > Consider the following > > John Doe has just made an insufficient 1H bid. > > At this point in the auction, there is some set of hands that John Doe > could conceivably hold. Let's call this set A > > John Doe has just made a 1H bid. The 1H bid defines a set of possible > hands. Let's call this set B. Furthermore, 1H denies some other set > of hands. (A 1H overcall is inconsistent with 13 Spades). Let' call > this set C. > > A = The Union of B and C could you try again to make your point? i didn't understand anything: john doe made an insufficient 1H bid, then a 1H bid? in the same auction? as a correction? in a different situation? how can the union of B and C be anything other than the set of all bridge hands? what sort of hand could be neither compatible with 1H nor denied by 1H? jpr > > Here's the catch: The definition of the 1H bid simultaneously > provides information about both B and C. Suppose that I wanted to > substitute a 2D call for the insufficient 1H call. 2D shows a subset > of set B. Lets call this set D. > > By my understanding, this wouldn't be legal because the set A ? D is > not a subset of C. (I have access to additional information about the > set of hands excluded by the 2D call) > > The way that I read things, the only way that I can substitute some > new call is if this new call draws precisely the same boundary as the > original 1H call. Each and every hand included in set B must be in > set D. Each and every hand in set C must be in (A ? D). > > In all honesty, I'd be shocked if anyone can find and example that > would meet this stringent a test. > > I suspect that either > > 1. My reading of the Law is incorrect, in which case I'd appreciate it > if someone picked apart my logic > > 2. The new Law 27 is drafted poorly > > > On 3/5/08, Robert Geller wrote: >> Could've been better, could've been worse. >> >> The good news (IMO). >> 1. Most of the time we'll be dealing with an IB replaced by the lowest >> sufficient RB in the same denomination, and this will pose no problem for >> directors. as it's what they're useful. >> 2. A replacement call of RDBL is now also included in 27B1b >> >> The bad news (IMO) >> 1. The pernicious concept of "meaning of the IB" has been retained, >> although in a somewhat less toxic form than the original L27C of the >> 2007 Laws. >> 2. The mechanics of 27B1b will probably cause trouble for directors and >> players, not to mention RA's. 27B1a is clear to all. But after the director >> explains 27B1b to an IBer at the table, the player will want to know >> ("can I call X without penalty"?). How does the player actually do this? >> Does he ask the director in front of his pard? Or is his pard sent away >> from the table with the oppts allowed to listen in? And how (except in the >> most frequent cases, like a negative dbl of 1S after an IB of 1H) will the >> director answer? This will be fraught..... >> >> Oh well, it could've been much worse. >> >> -Bob >> >> >> Peter Eidt ????????: >>>> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >>>> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >>>> ***************************** >>>> " It never or rarely happens that a republic >>>> or monarchy is well constituted, or its old >>>> institutions entirely reformed, unless it is >>>> done by only one individual." >>>> ? ? ? ? ? [Macchiavelli Niccolo' ?1469-1527] ? >>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> >>>> +=+ A revision of Law 27 will be released to >>>> NBOs and Zones later today. I am unable to >>>> attach it here (it would be blocked) but perhaps >>>> some recipient has the facilities to copy it as text >>>> for the enjoyment of blml-ers. +=+ >>> >>> ... and here it comes ... ta-taaaaa >>> >>> >>> 5th >> March 2008 >>> Agreed version >>> >>> Law 27 ?INSUFFICIENT BID >>> >>> A. Acceptance of Insufficient Bid. >>> >>> 1. Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) >>> at the option of offender? LHO. It is accepted if that player calls. >>> >>> 2. If a player makes an insufficient bid out of rotation Law 31 applies. >>> >>> B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted. >>> >>> If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) >>> it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call >>> (but see 3 following). Then >>> >>> 1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid >>> >>> in the same denomination and in the Director? opinion both >>> the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly >>> not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. >>> >>> Law 16D does not apply but see D following. >>> (b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a >>> legal >>> call that in the Director? opinion has the same meaning* as, >>> or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such >>> meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings >>> of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further >>> rectification, but see D following. >>> >>> 2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected >>> by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender? partner must pass >>> whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may >>> apply, and see Law 23. >>> >>> 3. except as provided in B1(b) above, if the offender attempts to >>> substitute a double or a redouble for his insufficient bid the >>> attempted >>> call is cancelled. The offender must replace it as the foregoing >>> allows and his partner must then pass whenever it is his turn to >>> call. >>> The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23. >>> >>> 4. if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with >>> another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does >>> >>> not accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows. >>> >>> C. Premature Replacement >>> >>> If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director >>> has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted >>> as A allows the substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant >>> foregoing section to the substitution. >>> >>> D.Non-offending Side Damaged. >>> >>> If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the >>> >>> play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome >>> of the board could well have been different and in consequence the >>> non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an >>> adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly >>> as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid >>> not occurred. >>> >>> >>> [footnote: * the meaning of (information available from) a call is the >>> knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 5 16:33:25 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 15:33:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com><47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> <000001c87ed4$1a9f4070$4fddc150$@com> Message-ID: <01be01c87ed6$40ca25b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > [DALB] > > I am not sure I understand this. An insufficient bid of (say) 1S means > "there are some auctions in which I would have bid 1S with my hand". > Whether > or not the partner of the bidder knows what those auctions are, the fact > that they exist at all ensures that the 1S bid is not devoid of meaning - > it > conveys at least some information. > > The new new Law 27 can be interpreted on this basis. If, say, South opens > 1NT and North bids 1H, then he is allowed to bid 2D as a transfer in > response to 1NT (because 2D has the same meaning as, or a more precise > meaning than, "I have a hand in which I would have bid 1H in some > auctions"). It would be better, it seems to me, not to ask him why he bid > 1H > (that is, not to have him volunteer the information that he was responding > to 1C, or opening the bidding, because that will constrain his partner in > terms of UI). But doesn't a 1H bid indicate, at the very least, a hand with the values to respond 1H at the one level? It may also exclude hands that would have opened some larger number of hearts. So I think that this example is one that would not be allowed. Stefanie Rohan London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 5 16:56:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:56:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47CEC2C0.9090004@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > > IMO the modified version is still ... > > [1] *Woolly* The meaning of an insufficient bid is at best nebulous, > depending on what the insufficient bidder imagines the auction to have > been. IMO it can have no meaning, as far as the law is concerned. > > [2] Open to cunning *exploits* by secretary birds (unless local > regulations thwart them, they can agree different sets of complex > conventions that depend on whether they condone the insufficient bid. > > Indeed. But why should this be wrong ? It seems in line with L72A4. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 5 17:03:43 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:03:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] new L27 In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0803050606j2fb8f77erd16b619e36fe0698@mail.gmail.com> References: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <200803051306.AA12739@geller204.nifty.com> <2da24b8e0803050606j2fb8f77erd16b619e36fe0698@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47CEC45F.1030302@ulb.ac.be> richard willey a ?crit : > At this point in the auction, there is some set of hands that John Doe > could conceivably hold. Let's call this set A > > John Doe has just made a 1H bid. The 1H bid defines a set of possible > hands. Let's call this set B. Furthermore, 1H denies some other set > of hands. (A 1H overcall is inconsistent with 13 Spades). Let' call > this set C. > > A = The Union of B and C > > Here's the catch: The definition of the 1H bid simultaneously > provides information about both B and C. Suppose that I wanted to > substitute a 2D call for the insufficient 1H call. 2D shows a subset > of set B. Lets call this set D. > > By my understanding, this wouldn't be legal because the set A ? D is > not a subset of C. (I have access to additional information about the > set of hands excluded by the 2D call) > > The way that I read things, the only way that I can substitute some > new call is if this new call draws precisely the same boundary as the > original 1H call. Each and every hand included in set B must be in > set D. Each and every hand in set C must be in (A ? D). > > In all honesty, I'd be shocked if anyone can find and example that > would meet this stringent a test. > > I suspect that either > > 1. My reading of the Law is incorrect, in which case I'd appreciate it > if someone picked apart my logic > > 2. The new Law 27 is drafted poorly > > AG : not necessarily. Whenever D in a subset of B, non-B (that is, C) is a subset of non-D, whence no supplementary information from the 1H bid, whence no damage from the infraction. That's the acid test for letting it go unpenalized. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 5 17:39:44 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:39:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <000001c87ed4$1a9f4070$4fddc150$@com> Message-ID: <000c01c87edf$852c7830$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> Do all of you completely overlook the words "in the Director's opinion"? My experience is that Directors generally develop a fair ability to judge for instance the meaning of insufficient bids. Sven > On Behalf Of David Burn > [NG] > The meaning of an insufficient bid is at best nebulous, depending on what > the insufficient bidder imagines the auction to have been. IMO it can have > no meaning, as far as the law is concerned. > > [DALB] > > I am not sure I understand this. An insufficient bid of (say) 1S means > "there are some auctions in which I would have bid 1S with my hand". > Whether > or not the partner of the bidder knows what those auctions are, the fact > that they exist at all ensures that the 1S bid is not devoid of meaning - > it > conveys at least some information. > > The new new Law 27 can be interpreted on this basis. If, say, South opens > 1NT and North bids 1H, then he is allowed to bid 2D as a transfer in > response to 1NT (because 2D has the same meaning as, or a more precise > meaning than, "I have a hand in which I would have bid 1H in some > auctions"). It would be better, it seems to me, not to ask him why he bid > 1H > (that is, not to have him volunteer the information that he was responding > to 1C, or opening the bidding, because that will constrain his partner in > terms of UI). > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 5 17:44:16 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:44:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de><47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com> <47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> Message-ID: <028601c87ee0$26d5a990$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Guthrie schrieb: >> >> [1] *Woolly* The meaning of an insufficient bid is at best nebulous, >> depending on what the insufficient bidder imagines the auction to have >> been. IMO it can have no meaning, as far as the law is concerned. >> Matthias Berghaus > I am at a loss to understand that last sentence. Of course it has a > meaning, the bidder intended it to have a meaning. Partner may not be > able to read that intention in rare cases, but it is there. OTOH, > sometimes the meaning will be absolutely unmistakeable. 1C - p - 1C. > This can only be a L25 case or a 1C opener. What is known to the table is what the IBer has bid, not what he intended. I agree that this issue is problematic. Guthrie schrieb: >> [2] Open to cunning *exploits* by secretary birds (unless local >> regulations thwart them, they can agree different sets of complex >> conventions that depend on whether they condone the insufficient bid. >> Matthias Berghaus > Leaving aside that IMO agreements based on opps's irregularities have > been illegal for a long time, I think that this is untrue. I think that such agreements have always been legal. And making them illegal would be silly; regular partnerships will have de facto agreements after it has happened once or twice. I don't see any problem with this. > anyone squandering his mental capacity on > devising ( and remembering) methods that only come up once in a blue > moon could do so if I had a say in that. This practically guarantees > mishaps. If hope those folks play against me a lot. Well, they will only have a mishap once in a blue moon, so it should not matter. Anyway, agreements might be very general, like what it means if, after an IB you repeat the bid you have already made, or support partner's suit at the 1-level. Guthrie schrieb: >> [3] Fraught with *copyright* problems. According to Grattan, the WBFLC >> may not make even minor corrigenda to the law-book without flouting >> draconian copyright agreements. (Although, I confess that we non-lawyers >> find this hard to believe). Anyway this radical change must drive a >> coach and horses though any such protocol. >> Matthias Berghaus >> One would imagine that the WBF as copyright holder has authorized this > change.... I believe that it is the Portland Club who hold the copyright. Guthrie schrieb: >> [4] *Complex* and unnecessary. I would prefer: you must substitute a >> pass for an insufficient bid and any inference emanating from the >> insufficient bid is unauthorised information to the offending side. >> Matthias Berghaus > Brilliant scheme. Randomising results from those deals by enforcing a > pass must enhance the enjoyment of the game at least by the factor 100. > What fun. Everyone else gets a score related to Bridge, while this table > throws the dice. Why not hold Bridge congresses at the local casino? Again, it doesn't happen very often. I do not agree with Nigel's suggestion, but I do not think that the rewritten Law is a solution either. I certainly think that it is too complex. In any case, if a simpler Law (for example, the previous version or NG's suggestion) results in a poor score for the offending side, perhaps they will make sufficient bids next time. Stefanie Rohan London, England From john at asimere.com Wed Mar 5 18:03:31 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:03:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] new L27 References: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <200803051306.AA12739@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <006501c87ee2$d6edda80$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 1:06 PM Subject: [blml] new L27 Could've been better, could've been worse. The good news (IMO). 1. Most of the time we'll be dealing with an IB replaced by the lowest sufficient RB in the same denomination, and this will pose no problem for directors. as it's what they're useful. 2. A replacement call of RDBL is now also included in 27B1b The bad news (IMO) 1. The pernicious concept of "meaning of the IB" has been retained, although in a somewhat less toxic form than the original L27C of the 2007 Laws. 2. The mechanics of 27B1b will probably cause trouble for directors and players, not to mention RA's. 27B1a is clear to all. But after the director explains 27B1b to an IBer at the table, the player will want to know ("can I call X without penalty"?). How does the player actually do this? Does he ask the director in front of his pard? The TDs will explain what's allowed. It's part of the job. I'd not worry too much about that. John Or is his pard sent away from the table with the oppts allowed to listen in? And how (except in the most frequent cases, like a negative dbl of 1S after an IB of 1H) will the director answer? This will be fraught..... Oh well, it could've been much worse. -Bob From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 5 18:47:26 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:47:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <01be01c87ed6$40ca25b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com><47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> <000001c87ed4$1a9f4070$4fddc150$@com> <01be01c87ed6$40ca25b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000401c87ee8$f9bb8e30$ed32aa90$@com> > [DALB] > I am not sure I understand this. An insufficient bid of (say) 1S means > "there are some auctions in which I would have bid 1S with my hand". > Whether or not the partner of the bidder knows what those auctions are, the fact > that they exist at all ensures that the 1S bid is not devoid of meaning - > it conveys at least some information. > The new new Law 27 can be interpreted on this basis. If, say, South opens > 1NT and North bids 1H, then he is allowed to bid 2D as a transfer in > response to 1NT (because 2D has the same meaning as, or a more precise > meaning than, "I have a hand in which I would have bid 1H in some > auctions"). It would be better, it seems to me, not to ask him why he bid > 1H (that is, not to have him volunteer the information that he was responding > to 1C, or opening the bidding, because that will constrain his partner in > terms of UI). [SR] But doesn't a 1H bid indicate, at the very least, a hand with the values to respond 1H at the one level? It may also exclude hands that would have opened some larger number of hearts. So I think that this example is one that would not be allowed. [DALB] New Law 27: "if... the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director's opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification". North bids 1H, which means "I would have bid 1H on this hand in some auctions, if 1H were a sufficient bid." Now, does 2D have the same meaning as this? Does it have a more precise meaning than this? The answer to both questions in my opinion is "yes", and the meaning of 2D is "contained within the possible meanings of 1H", so in my opinion 2D should be permitted as the proposed Law is currently worded. If North says "I thought it was my deal", or "I thought South opened 1C", then this gives UI (Unincorporated Information) to South, who must not act on it. This is why I think it may be better not to ask North why he made the IB; just ask him what the RC means, and whether it is consistent with some hand that would have made the IB if sufficient in some auctions. David Burn London, England From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Mar 5 18:55:09 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 06:55:09 +1300 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com> <47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560803050955q1fb24bd8md2b67d03f6089e42@mail.gmail.com> On 05/03/2008, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Guthrie schrieb: > > > [4] *Complex* and unnecessary. I would prefer: you must substitute a > > pass for an insufficient bid and any inference emanating from the > > insufficient bid is unauthorised information to the offending side. > > > > Brilliant scheme. Randomising results from those deals by enforcing a > pass must enhance the enjoyment of the game at least by the factor 100. > What fun. Everyone else gets a score related to Bridge, while this table > throws the dice. Why not hold Bridge congresses at the local casino? > We already have dice throwing when someone makes and stupid error. While I am not sure I agree with Nigel's suggestion here I understand the benefit of having some mechanical rule. Wayne From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 5 19:08:32 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:08:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560803050955q1fb24bd8md2b67d03f6089e42@mail.gmail.com> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com> <47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> <2a1c3a560803050955q1fb24bd8md2b67d03f6089e42@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47CEE1A0.4080106@ulb.ac.be> Wayne Burrows a ?crit : > On 05/03/2008, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > >> Guthrie schrieb: >> >> >>> [4] *Complex* and unnecessary. I would prefer: you must substitute a >>> pass for an insufficient bid and any inference emanating from the >>> insufficient bid is unauthorised information to the offending side. >>> >>> AG : illogical. When the IB is in passout seat, you'll have the random effect you abhor. Now, if the laws said : "you must substitute a sufficient bid and any inference etc.", the law would surely be less complex, but you have understood, I shun laws that replace decisions with UI creation. The new L27 is IMOBO a good effort in the right direction. Best regards Alain From mustikka at charter.net Wed Mar 5 19:38:39 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:38:39 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law 27 References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com><47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> <000001c87ed4$1a9f4070$4fddc150$@com><01be01c87ed6$40ca25b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000401c87ee8$f9bb8e30$ed32aa90$@com> Message-ID: <009701c87ef0$2189f800$29125e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 >> [DALB] > >> I am not sure I understand this. An insufficient bid of (say) 1S means >> "there are some auctions in which I would have bid 1S with my hand". >> Whether or not the partner of the bidder knows what those auctions are, > the fact >> that they exist at all ensures that the 1S bid is not devoid of meaning - >> it conveys at least some information. > >> The new new Law 27 can be interpreted on this basis. If, say, South opens >> 1NT and North bids 1H, then he is allowed to bid 2D as a transfer in >> response to 1NT (because 2D has the same meaning as, or a more precise >> meaning than, "I have a hand in which I would have bid 1H in some >> auctions"). It would be better, it seems to me, not to ask him why he bid >> 1H (that is, not to have him volunteer the information that he was > responding >> to 1C, or opening the bidding, because that will constrain his partner in >> terms of UI). > > [SR] > > But doesn't a 1H bid indicate, at the very least, a hand with the values > to > respond 1H at the one level? It may also exclude hands that would have > opened some larger number of hearts. So I think that this example is one > that would not be allowed. > > [DALB] > > New Law 27: "if... the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call > that > in the Director's opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise > meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained > within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds > without further rectification". > > North bids 1H, which means "I would have bid 1H on this hand in some > auctions, if 1H were a sufficient bid." > > Now, does 2D have the same meaning as this? Does it have a more precise > meaning than this? The answer to both questions in my opinion is "yes", > and > the meaning of 2D is "contained within the possible meanings of 1H", so in > my opinion 2D should be permitted as the proposed Law is currently worded. > > If North says "I thought it was my deal", or "I thought South opened 1C", > then this gives UI (Unincorporated Information) to South, who must not act > on it. This is why I think it may be better not to ask North why he made > the > IB; just ask him what the RC means, and whether it is consistent with some > hand that would have made the IB if sufficient in some auctions. > > David Burn > London, England I agree it would be better for TD not to ask why the IB was made. However, the reason is typically volunteered by the IB'er before the TD comes, *Oh, I didn't see he opened* or something in those lines, right after the bid was pointed out as insufficient; followed by a well-intentioned immediate other bid whether same denomination or not, or Pass, or Dbl. As an opponent or the IBer's partner, it is difficult to stop this "train"... I don't envy the job of a club or low level tournament director :) Raija From jrhind at therock.bm Wed Mar 5 20:14:50 2008 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:14:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <009701c87ef0$2189f800$29125e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: On 3/5/08 2:38 PM, "raija" wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:47 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 > > >>> [DALB] >> >>> I am not sure I understand this. An insufficient bid of (say) 1S means >>> "there are some auctions in which I would have bid 1S with my hand". >>> Whether or not the partner of the bidder knows what those auctions are, >> the fact >>> that they exist at all ensures that the 1S bid is not devoid of meaning - >>> it conveys at least some information. >> >>> The new new Law 27 can be interpreted on this basis. If, say, South opens >>> 1NT and North bids 1H, then he is allowed to bid 2D as a transfer in >>> response to 1NT (because 2D has the same meaning as, or a more precise >>> meaning than, "I have a hand in which I would have bid 1H in some >>> auctions"). It would be better, it seems to me, not to ask him why he bid >>> 1H (that is, not to have him volunteer the information that he was >> responding >>> to 1C, or opening the bidding, because that will constrain his partner in >>> terms of UI). >> >> [SR] >> >> But doesn't a 1H bid indicate, at the very least, a hand with the values >> to >> respond 1H at the one level? It may also exclude hands that would have >> opened some larger number of hearts. So I think that this example is one >> that would not be allowed. >> >> [DALB] >> >> New Law 27: "if... the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call >> that >> in the Director's opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise >> meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained >> within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds >> without further rectification". >> >> North bids 1H, which means "I would have bid 1H on this hand in some >> auctions, if 1H were a sufficient bid." >> >> Now, does 2D have the same meaning as this? Does it have a more precise >> meaning than this? The answer to both questions in my opinion is "yes", >> and >> the meaning of 2D is "contained within the possible meanings of 1H", so in >> my opinion 2D should be permitted as the proposed Law is currently worded. >> >> If North says "I thought it was my deal", or "I thought South opened 1C", >> then this gives UI (Unincorporated Information) to South, who must not act >> on it. This is why I think it may be better not to ask North why he made >> the >> IB; just ask him what the RC means, and whether it is consistent with some >> hand that would have made the IB if sufficient in some auctions. >> >> David Burn >> London, England > > I agree it would be better for TD not to ask why the IB was made. However, > the reason is typically volunteered by the IB'er before the TD comes, *Oh, > I didn't see he opened* or something in those lines, right after the bid was > pointed out as insufficient; followed by a well-intentioned immediate other > bid whether same denomination or not, or Pass, or Dbl. As an opponent or > the IBer's partner, it is difficult to stop this "train"... I don't envy > the job of a club or low level tournament director :) > > Raija > I think it would be best for the TD to take the player who made the IB away from the table to determine why the bid was made and what subsequent bids will mean. That way you avoid UI. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 5 21:58:15 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:58:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47CF0967.4030107@skynet.be> Jack Rhind wrote: > > > On 3/5/08 2:38 PM, "raija" wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "David Burn" >> To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" >> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:47 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 >> >> >>>> [DALB] >>>> I am not sure I understand this. An insufficient bid of (say) 1S means >>>> "there are some auctions in which I would have bid 1S with my hand". >>>> Whether or not the partner of the bidder knows what those auctions are, >>> the fact >>>> that they exist at all ensures that the 1S bid is not devoid of meaning - >>>> it conveys at least some information. >>>> The new new Law 27 can be interpreted on this basis. If, say, South opens >>>> 1NT and North bids 1H, then he is allowed to bid 2D as a transfer in >>>> response to 1NT (because 2D has the same meaning as, or a more precise >>>> meaning than, "I have a hand in which I would have bid 1H in some >>>> auctions"). It would be better, it seems to me, not to ask him why he bid >>>> 1H (that is, not to have him volunteer the information that he was >>> responding >>>> to 1C, or opening the bidding, because that will constrain his partner in >>>> terms of UI). >>> [SR] >>> >>> But doesn't a 1H bid indicate, at the very least, a hand with the values >>> to >>> respond 1H at the one level? It may also exclude hands that would have >>> opened some larger number of hearts. So I think that this example is one >>> that would not be allowed. >>> >>> [DALB] >>> >>> New Law 27: "if... the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call >>> that >>> in the Director's opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise >>> meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained >>> within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds >>> without further rectification". >>> >>> North bids 1H, which means "I would have bid 1H on this hand in some >>> auctions, if 1H were a sufficient bid." >>> >>> Now, does 2D have the same meaning as this? Does it have a more precise >>> meaning than this? The answer to both questions in my opinion is "yes", >>> and >>> the meaning of 2D is "contained within the possible meanings of 1H", so in >>> my opinion 2D should be permitted as the proposed Law is currently worded. >>> >>> If North says "I thought it was my deal", or "I thought South opened 1C", >>> then this gives UI (Unincorporated Information) to South, who must not act >>> on it. This is why I think it may be better not to ask North why he made >>> the >>> IB; just ask him what the RC means, and whether it is consistent with some >>> hand that would have made the IB if sufficient in some auctions. >>> >>> David Burn >>> London, England >> I agree it would be better for TD not to ask why the IB was made. However, >> the reason is typically volunteered by the IB'er before the TD comes, *Oh, >> I didn't see he opened* or something in those lines, right after the bid was >> pointed out as insufficient; followed by a well-intentioned immediate other >> bid whether same denomination or not, or Pass, or Dbl. As an opponent or >> the IBer's partner, it is difficult to stop this "train"... I don't envy >> the job of a club or low level tournament director :) >> >> Raija >> > > I think it would be best for the TD to take the player who made the IB away > from the table to determine why the bid was made and what subsequent bids > will mean. That way you avoid UI. > No you don't. Not completely. If you allow a particular correction, this means that the insufficient bid had the same meaning. If you don't allow the correction (unpunished), then the new bid will be natural and also indicate what the first bid meant. Either way, after the ruling the table will know what the original bid was meant to be. So I don't particularly see any advantage in doing too much to withhold the original intent from the table. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 5 22:42:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:42:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <5E9809CF-1295-46A3-B01C-9893C72D5962@starpower.net> On Mar 5, 2008, at 4:04 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > Law 27 ? INSUFFICIENT BID > > A. Acceptance of Insufficient Bid. > > 1. Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) > at the option of offender?s LHO. It is accepted if that player > calls. > > 2. If a player makes an insufficient bid out of rotation Law 31 > applies. > > B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted. > > If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) > it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call > (but see 3 following). Then > > 1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest > sufficient bid > > in the same denomination and in the Director?s opinion both > the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are > incontrovertibly > not artificial the auction proceeds without further > rectification. > > Law 16D does not apply but see D following. > (b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a > legal > call that in the Director?s opinion has the same meaning* as, > or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such > meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings > of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further > rectification, but see D following. > > 2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is > corrected > by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender?s partner must pass > whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 > may > apply, and see Law 23. > > 3. except as provided in B1(b) above, if the offender attempts to > substitute a double or a redouble for his insufficient bid the > attempted > call is cancelled. The offender must replace it as the foregoing > allows and his partner must then pass whenever it is his turn to > call. > The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23. > > 4. if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with > another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO > does > > not accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows. > > C. Premature Replacement > > If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director > has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted > as A allows the substitution stands. The Director applies the > relevant > foregoing section to the substitution. > > D.Non-offending Side Damaged. > > If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end > of the > > play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome > of the board could well have been different and in consequence the > non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an > adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly > as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid > not occurred. > > [footnote: * the meaning of (information available from) a call is > the > knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ] What have we here? Two substantive changes: First, the readdition of the 1997 criterion for correction without penalty, which will now apply independently of the new criterion. While this may not be a theoretical improvement, it is surely a practical one -- none of us were looking forward to educating our punters as to why the previously "automatic" correction (which, half the time or more, they "choose" before the TD even reaches them to rule on the IB) would have unexpectedly left their partner barred from the auction. The other is the elimination, from the new criterion, of the exclusion of jumps and redoubles, which had no apparent nor stated rationale. Overall, well done by the lawmakers. On substance. But we also have a change in the language of the new criterion. "Incorporates the information" admittedly caused considerable confusion. Many, even on BLML, where parsing bridge law is what we do, mistook the incorporation of the information from a call for the the incorporation of the definition of a call, which works oppositely, and so attempted to apply the criterion backwards; we've seen several posters getting this wrong, and several others offering gentle corrections. But confusing as it may have been, that confusion could be put to rest with a dictionary and a grammar. Now we have "has a more precise meaning than". But the "meaning" of something can refer to *either* its information content *or* its definition -- and "more precise", like "incorporates", works in opposite directions depending on whether it refers to information or definition. We have replaced confusing language, which meant one thing but could too easily be read to mean the opposite with genuinely ambiguous language, which could mean either. Not well done, not at all. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Mar 5 23:00:26 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 11:00:26 +1300 Subject: [blml] new L27 In-Reply-To: <006501c87ee2$d6edda80$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <200803051306.AA12739@geller204.nifty.com> <006501c87ee2$d6edda80$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560803051400y1aeda3cbke4f1b8231ce562ca@mail.gmail.com> On 06/03/2008, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Geller" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 1:06 PM > Subject: [blml] new L27 > > > Could've been better, could've been worse. > > The good news (IMO). > 1. Most of the time we'll be dealing with an IB replaced by the lowest > sufficient RB in the same denomination, and this will pose no problem for > directors. as it's what they're useful. > 2. A replacement call of RDBL is now also included in 27B1b > > The bad news (IMO) > 1. The pernicious concept of "meaning of the IB" has been retained, > although in a somewhat less toxic form than the original L27C of the > 2007 Laws. > 2. The mechanics of 27B1b will probably cause trouble for directors and > players, not to mention RA's. 27B1a is clear to all. But after the > director > explains 27B1b to an IBer at the table, the player will want to know > ("can I call X without penalty"?). How does the player actually do this? > Does he ask the director in front of his pard? > > The TDs will explain what's allowed. It's part of the job. I'd not worry too > much about that. John > And these TDs they know everyone's system to make this determination? Wayne From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 5 23:10:22 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:10:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <47CF0967.4030107@skynet.be> References: <47CF0967.4030107@skynet.be> Message-ID: <7D0C19F9-55B4-4E6A-AA6D-B55ECCE742DD@starpower.net> On Mar 5, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Jack Rhind wrote: > >> I think it would be best for the TD to take the player who made >> the IB away >> from the table to determine why the bid was made and what >> subsequent bids >> will mean. That way you avoid UI. > > No you don't. Not completely. > > If you allow a particular correction, this means that the insufficient > bid had the same meaning. > If you don't allow the correction (unpunished), then the new bid will > be natural and also indicate what the first bid meant. > > Either way, after the ruling the table will know what the original bid > was meant to be. True. But if the replacement call (RC) meets the (presumed interpretation of) the "more precise meaning" test in the new-new L27B1(b), knowing what the original bid was intended to mean will not provide any information about the bidder's hand not available from the RC (hence no UI). If we are allowing the call under L27B1(a), OTOH, we must have ascertained that the intended meaning was not artificial, so that information will be perforce imparted to the table -- but that's the same as under the 1997 laws. > So I don't particularly see any advantage in doing too much to > withhold the original intent from the table. There's no reason at all not to expose the intended meaning of the IB to the table, provided the TD only does so when he needs the information in order to rule (i.e. "goes through" L27B1(a) before "getting to" L27B1(b)), as the information can only be of any potential use to the NOS (and then only if the IBer's partner winds up being barred from the auction and not the dummy). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 5 23:49:17 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 22:49:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <5E9809CF-1295-46A3-B01C-9893C72D5962@starpower.net> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <5E9809CF-1295-46A3-B01C-9893C72D5962@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c87f13$24f79290$6ee6b7b0$@com> [EL] "Incorporates the information" admittedly caused considerable confusion. Many, even on BLML, where parsing bridge law is what we do, mistook the incorporation of the information from a call for the incorporation of the definition of a call, which works oppositely, and so attempted to apply the criterion backwards; we've seen several posters getting this wrong [DALB] I seem to recall some post in which Eric said that I had got Xs and Ys the wrong way round and then applied a criterion backwards. If I had in fact done that, my conclusion at least would have been correct. An old joke may have some topicality where Eric lives; rising to her feet to make her opening speech in a political debate, a candidate says: "My opponent's reasoning has been impeccable, but his premises are wrong, so his conclusions are bound to be wrong. Now, my premises are just as likely to be wrong as his. But I intend to make some mistakes in my reasoning, so my conclusions have some chance of being correct, whereas his have none. Therefore, you should vote for me." What Eric and I said then is bridge under the water. Now we have a new Law, and I have sent a few example scenarios to some members of the DSC. I post them here in order to help our understanding. Answer on one side of the monitor only. [1] South opens 1NT; North bids 1H. Is he allowed to bid 2D to show 5+ hearts (and nothing else about his hand)? Does it matter why he bid 1H? [2] South opens 1NT; North bids 1S. He did this because he thought South opened 1C, and his 1S response to that showed diamonds. Is he allowed to bid 2NT to show diamonds? [3] As [2]; but 1S showed either a balanced hand with no major, or long diamonds. Is North now allowed to bid 2NT to show diamonds? [4] West opens 2S; North bids 1NT. He did this because he did not see the opening bid. Luckily for him, he plays a strong no trump and 2NT over 2S also shows a strong no trump, so this seems to be a 271(a) case. But is North allowed to bid 2NT without a spade guard? If so, is South allowed to know that North might have done this, and to act accordingly? Are North-South permitted to have methods in this position whereby South can ask North for a spade guard? David Burn London, England From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Mar 5 23:51:45 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:51:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Law_27?= In-Reply-To: <5E9809CF-1295-46A3-B01C-9893C72D5962@starpower.net> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <5E9809CF-1295-46A3-B01C-9893C72D5962@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1JX2Sf-1e7T5k0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> From: Eric Landau > > Law 27 ? INSUFFICIENT BID [snip] > > 1. (b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a > > legal call that in the Director?s opinion has the same meaning* > > as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such > > meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings > > of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further > > rectification, but see D following. [snip] > > > > [footnote: ?* the meaning of (information available from) a call is > > the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ] > > > > What have we here? > > Two substantive changes: ?First, [...] > > But we also have a change in the language of the new criterion. > "Incorporates the information" admittedly caused considerable > confusion. ?Many, even on BLML, where parsing bridge law is what we > do, mistook the incorporation of the information from a call for the > the incorporation of the definition of a call, which works > oppositely, and so attempted to apply the criterion backwards; we've > seen several posters getting this wrong, and several others offering > gentle corrections. ?But confusing as it may have been, that > confusion could be put to rest with a dictionary and a grammar. ?Now > we have "has a more precise meaning than". ?But the "meaning" of > something can refer to *either* its information content *or* its > definition -- and "more precise", like "incorporates", works in > opposite directions depending on whether it refers to information or > definition. eh (?), did you realize and read the footnote ? > We have replaced confusing language, which meant one thing but could > too easily be read to mean the opposite with genuinely ambiguous > language, which could mean either. ?Not well done, not at all. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 5 23:56:29 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:56:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>[4] *Complex* and unnecessary. I would prefer: you must substitute >>a pass for an insufficient bid and any inference emanating from the >>insufficient bid is unauthorised information to the offending side. Matthias Berghaus: >Brilliant scheme. Randomising results from those deals by enforcing >a pass must enhance the enjoyment of the game at least by the factor >100. What fun. Everyone else gets a score related to Bridge, while >this table throws the dice. Why not hold Bridge congresses at the >local casino? Richard Hills: A simple but less randomising solution is to require the _partner_ of the insufficient bidder to perpetually pass. No UI exists, and the insufficient bidder can sometimes deduce their par bridge spot. By gum, that simple but less randomising solution already exists in the new new Law 27 clauses B2, B3 and B4. An identical simple but less randomising solution applies under the 2007 Laws 31A2(b), 31B, 32A and 32B2 for the partner of an offender who has called out of rotation. Nigel, what's the problem? Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 6 00:51:38 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:51:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bill Schoder: >so, Bob Geller, I think you should continue to >translate into Japanese the "intent" of the laws, and >not try to make a word-for-word mess of things. > >There are those who say that the laws are promulgated >into English, and that's their opinion, but there are >also those of us who think that English needs to be >translated into the "English" more common throughout >the world. > >Bill Richard Hills: I think it is dangerous to translate the Laws in accordance with the translator's assumption about the "intent" of the Laws. Suppose the translator of Law 77 was the idiosyncratic German player Scorer #1? Rather, I think translators should follow the "intent" of the _law-makers_ (which Bob has done, by posting questions to this forum which "incorporates" three of the law-makers). Will Herman De Wael be translating the Laws into Flemish? If so, how does Herman intend to translate Law 20F5(a)? :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Mar 6 01:19:18 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:19:18 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47CF3886.7060004@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills A simple but less randomising solution is to require the _partner_ of the insufficient bidder to perpetually pass. No UI exists, and the insufficient bidder can sometimes deduce their par bridge spot. By gum, that simple but less randomising solution already exists in the new new Law 27 clauses B2, B3 and B4. An identical simple but less randomising solution applies under the 2007 Laws 31A2(b), 31B, 32A and 32B2 for the partner of an offender who has called out of rotation. Nigel, what's the problem? [Nigel] No problem Richard :) Your suggestion is excellent :) The fewer options and variants the better :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 6 02:39:04 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 12:39:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c87f13$24f79290$6ee6b7b0$@com> Message-ID: David Burn: >Answer on one side of the monitor only. 1066 and All That: Do not attempt to answer more than one question at a time. David Burn: >[4] West opens 2S; North bids 1NT. He did this because he >did not see the opening bid. Luckily for him, he plays a >strong no trump and 2NT over 2S also shows a strong no >trump, so this seems to be a 271(a) case. But is North >allowed to bid 2NT without a spade guard? Richard Hills: Yes, since 1NT and 2NT are both incontrovertibly not artificial. David Burn: >If so, is South allowed to know that North might have >done this, and to act accordingly? Richard Hills: Yes, since Law 16D does not apply. But if the non- offending side is thereby damaged, the Director applies Law 27D. David Burn: >Are North-South permitted to have methods in this position >whereby South can ask North for a spade guard? Richard Hills: Not in Australia. The ABF has exercised its 2007 Law 40B3 option to prohibit prior conditional partnership agreements if your _own side_ perpetrates an irregularity. (But if an _opponent_ perpetrates an insufficient bid in my side's game force relay auction, the ABF permits us to use the extra bidding space conventionally.) Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 6 06:19:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 16:19:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c87ed4$1a9f4070$4fddc150$@com> Message-ID: David Burn: >The new new Law 27 can be interpreted on this basis. If, say, South >opens 1NT and North bids 1H, then he is allowed to bid 2D as a >transfer in response to 1NT (because 2D has the same meaning as, or >a more precise meaning than, "I have a hand in which I would have >bid 1H in some auctions"). Richard Hills: True, more precise in terms of distribution, 5+ hearts instead of 4+ hearts. But..... Possibly less precise in values. Many Aussie Acol bidders require a minimum of 5 or 6 hcp for a 1H response to a 1C or 1D opening bid, but those same Aussie Acolytes freely transfer on yarboroughs. Of course, my technical quibble could be over-ruled by the escape clause in the new new Law 27B1(b) "in the Director's opinion". This great escape grants the heart's desire of Jesper Dybdal and the Danish NBO, a TD's temporary ruling to permit a near-as-dammit replacement bid, with a final ruling backstop clause in the new new Law 27D "the Director judges at the end". Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Mar 6 09:11:25 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:11:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <000001c87f13$24f79290$6ee6b7b0$@com> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.a ul.t-online.de><5E9809CF-1295-46A3-B01C-9893C72D5962@starpower.net> <000001c87f13$24f79290$6ee6b7b0$@com> Message-ID: <47CFA72D.2070601@meteo.fr> David Burn a ?crit : > [EL] > > "Incorporates the information" admittedly caused considerable confusion. > Many, even on BLML, where parsing bridge law is what we do, mistook the > incorporation of the information from a call for the incorporation of the > definition of a call, which works oppositely, and so attempted to apply the > criterion backwards; we've seen several posters getting this wrong > > [DALB] > > I seem to recall some post in which Eric said that I had got Xs and Ys the > wrong way round and then applied a criterion backwards. If I had in fact > done that, my conclusion at least would have been correct. An old joke may > have some topicality where Eric lives; rising to her feet to make her > opening speech in a political debate, a candidate says: > > "My opponent's reasoning has been impeccable, but his premises are wrong, so > his conclusions are bound to be wrong. Now, my premises are just as likely > to be wrong as his. But I intend to make some mistakes in my reasoning, so > my conclusions have some chance of being correct, whereas his have none. > Therefore, you should vote for me." > > What Eric and I said then is bridge under the water. Now we have a new Law, > and I have sent a few example scenarios to some members of the DSC. I post > them here in order to help our understanding. Answer on one side of the > monitor only. > > [1] South opens 1NT; North bids 1H. Is he allowed to bid 2D to show 5+ > hearts (and nothing else about his hand)? no, 2D is less precise, it could be bid with a hand too weak for a 1H response to an opening, unless 1C or 1D openings are forcing in this player's system. > Does it matter why he bid 1H? i agree with you not to investigate too much in this direction. it would be enough for me if the insufficient bidder was able to find an explanation of his IB which would make his replacement bid compatible with the "more precise" clause, even if it was not the actual reason, so long as his partner could not know it was not. > > [2] South opens 1NT; North bids 1S. He did this because he thought South > opened 1C, and his 1S response to that showed diamonds. Is he allowed to bid > 2NT to show diamonds? no, idem > > [3] As [2]; but 1S showed either a balanced hand with no major, or long > diamonds. Is North now allowed to bid 2NT to show diamonds? no, idem. if 2NT showed some values it would be ok. > > [4] West opens 2S; North bids 1NT. He did this because he did not see the > opening bid. Luckily for him, he plays a strong no trump and 2NT over 2S > also shows a strong no trump, so this seems to be a 271(a) case. But is > North allowed to bid 2NT without a spade guard? yes but i am not sure. i asked some days ago if the IBer was allowed to deviate from his system in order to prevent his partner to be shut out. we open a can of worms. > If so, is South allowed to > know that North might have done this, and to act accordingly? i wonder > Are North-South permitted to have methods in this position whereby South can > ask North for a spade guard? i wonder jpr > > David Burn > London, England > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 6 01:01:40 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 00:01:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com><47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> <000001c87ed4$1a9f4070$4fddc150$@com><01be01c87ed6$40ca25b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000401c87ee8$f9bb8e30$ed32aa90$@com> Message-ID: <000a01c87f62$e870ac80$84d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 > > If North says "I thought it was my deal", or "I thought > South opened 1C", then this gives UI (Unincorporated > Information) to South, who must not act on it. This is why > I think it may be better not to ask North why he made the > IB; just ask him what the RC means, and whether it is > consistent with some hand that would have made the IB > if sufficient in some auctions. > +=+ Under the 1997 Law 27B2 it was always a question whether the IB was conventional. TDs must have developed a practice as to the way in which they determined that. What do we know of the way they approached the question? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 6 01:17:20 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 00:17:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] new L27 References: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de><200803051306.AA12739@geller204.nifty.com> <006501c87ee2$d6edda80$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <000b01c87f62$ecd84c60$84d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] new L27 > Could've been better, could've been worse. > > 2. The mechanics of 27B1b will probably cause trouble > for directors and players, not to mention RA's. 27B1a is > clear to all. But after the director explains 27B1b to an > IBer at the table, the player will want to know ("can I call > X without penalty"?). How does the player actually do > this? Does he ask the director in front of his pard? > > The TDs will explain what's allowed. It's part of the job. > I'd not worry too much about that. John > +=+ 27B1(b) represents what remains of the attempt to allow the auction to go forward in more circumstances than was the case under 1997 laws. It is also the place where a lot of thought was given to the conditions. Yes, there will be difficulties, but maybe the requirement that the Director considers the meaning of the substituted call is wholly contained within the possible meanings of the IB will circumscribe the problems. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 6 01:19:30 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 00:19:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] new L27 References: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de><200803051306.AA12739@geller204.nifty.com> <006501c87ee2$d6edda80$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <000c01c87f62$ede353c0$84d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] new L27 > > The TDs will explain what's allowed. It's part of the > job. I'd not worry too much about that. John > +=+ Law 10C1.+=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 6 09:55:41 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:55:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <000a01c87f62$e870ac80$84d2403e@Mildred> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com><47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> <000001c87ed4$1a9f4070$4fddc150$@com><01be01c87ed6$40ca25b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000401c87ee8$f9bb8e30$ed32aa90$@com> <000a01c87f62$e870ac80$84d2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47CFB18D.9030804@skynet.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************** > " It never or rarely happens that a republic > or monarchy is well constituted, or its old > institutions entirely reformed, unless it is > done by only one individual." > [Macchiavelli Niccolo' 1469-1527] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:47 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 > > >> If North says "I thought it was my deal", or "I thought >> South opened 1C", then this gives UI (Unincorporated >> Information) to South, who must not act on it. This is why >> I think it may be better not to ask North why he made the >> IB; just ask him what the RC means, and whether it is >> consistent with some hand that would have made the IB >> if sufficient in some auctions. >> > +=+ Under the 1997 Law 27B2 it was always a question > whether the IB was conventional. TDs must have developed > a practice as to the way in which they determined that. What > do we know of the way they approached the question? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > The 1997 had one great advantage over the 1987 and 2007 ones. In order for the correction to be "unpunished", the least sufficient bid in the same denomination needed to be natural. That meant that the TD could ask one question only, and if the answer were "that would be artificial", then the original intent did not matter any more. That advantage has gone in the 2007 laws. Now, the original intent becomes important every time, and the TD needs to know it before he can rule which, if any, calls will be allowed "unpunished". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Mar 6 10:50:50 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:50:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <47CFB18D.9030804@skynet.be> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com> <47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> <000001c87ed4$1a9f4070$4fddc150$@com> <01be01c87ed6$40ca25b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000401c87ee8$f9bb8e30$ed32aa90$@com> <000a01c87f62$e870ac80$84d2403e@Mildred> <47CFB18D.9030804@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 06/03/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: > > The 1997 had one great advantage over the 1987 and 2007 ones. > > In order for the correction to be "unpunished", the least sufficient > bid in the same denomination needed to be natural. That meant that the > TD could ask one question only, and if the answer were "that would be > artificial", then the original intent did not matter any more. In my 1997 TFLB both the IB and the RB needed to be non-conventional... And the RB needed to be the lowes sufficient bid in the same denomination. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > That advantage has gone in the 2007 laws. Now, the original intent > becomes important every time, and the TD needs to know it before he > can rule which, if any, calls will be allowed "unpunished". > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 6 10:51:47 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:51:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <7D0C19F9-55B4-4E6A-AA6D-B55ECCE742DD@starpower.net> References: <47CF0967.4030107@skynet.be> <7D0C19F9-55B4-4E6A-AA6D-B55ECCE742DD@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47CFBEB3.5000503@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > if the replacement call (RC) meets the (presumed > interpretation of) the "more precise meaning" test in the new-new > L27B1(b), knowing what the original bid was intended to mean will not > provide any information about the bidder's hand not available from > the RC (hence no UI). If we are allowing the call under L27B1(a), > OTOH, we must have ascertained that the intended meaning was not > artificial, so that information will be perforce imparted to the > table -- but that's the same as under the 1997 laws. > > Notice that such ascertaining includes the consideration of the bidder's hand. In fact, it will very often be the strongest argument. South opens 2S. North, according to the regulations in use in that part of the World, annonces "standard weak". Now West, for some reason, thinks it is a weak NT and bids 2D. If he tells you he intended his 2D as a (transfer) overcall of 1NT, his /bona fide/ will be obvious from his holding. Now you won't allow a 3D overcall (old L27) but you could, subject to some checks but quite probably, allow a 3H or 4H bid (or even a 2-suited 4C/D) according to the new part. Of course, this will often means you'll need to check EW's convention card or system notes. That's what they're for. And if it takes too much time, you may always accept their version, investigate later, and penalize them heavily if they took you in. All in all, I see few problems with this law, except that the player-in-the-street will find it difficult to understand. But then he does any other law. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 6 11:03:20 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:03:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <000001c87f13$24f79290$6ee6b7b0$@com> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <5E9809CF-1295-46A3-B01C-9893C72D5962@starpower.net> <000001c87f13$24f79290$6ee6b7b0$@com> Message-ID: <47CFC168.7010104@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > > [1] South opens 1NT; North bids 1H. Is he allowed to bid 2D to show 5+ > hearts (and nothing else about his hand)? Does it matter why he bid 1H? > Most probably he is, if the 1H bid was natural. The 2D bid is probably more restrictive than the 1H bid, whether an opening or a response. Now if 2D could be weak, and 1H was intended as an opening, 2D may not be a subset of 1H and therefore might be disallowed. So you need to know about the reason for the 1H bid, and the range for 2D. > > [2] South opens 1NT; North bids 1S. He did this because he thought South > opened 1C, and his 1S response to that showed diamonds. Is he allowed to bid > 2NT to show diamonds? > > Most probably not. Because 2NT may be a yargorough, while 1S over 1C would not. But if they play 3D weak, and 2NT invitational+ (as I do), 2NT is fine. > [3] As [2]; but 1S showed either a balanced hand with no major, or long > diamonds. Is North now allowed to bid 2NT to show diamonds? > > Same answer. If 2NT is at least as precise as the 1S bid (the usual criterion), that isn't altered by adding meanings to 1S. > [4] West opens 2S; North bids 1NT. He did this because he did not see the > opening bid. Luckily for him, he plays a strong no trump and 2NT over 2S > also shows a strong no trump, so this seems to be a 271(a) case. But is > North allowed to bid 2NT without a spade guard? Yes, L40A. > If so, is South allowed to > know that North might have done this, and to act accordingly? No. If the bid shows a stopper, it still does after the infraction. The fact that it might be otherwise is UI in the same way as it would be if North had said openly "well, I doubt I have enough in spades, but I'll bid 2NT nevertheless". > Are > North-South permitted to have methods in this position whereby South can ask > North for a spade guard? > No, but if they have methods to ask for a strong stopper (which some pairs have) without the intervention, they may of course still apply them. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 6 11:28:12 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:28:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <47CFC168.7010104@ulb.ac.be> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <5E9809CF-1295-46A3-B01C-9893C72D5962@starpower.net> <000001c87f13$24f79290$6ee6b7b0$@com> <47CFC168.7010104@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47CFC73C.7010401@ulb.ac.be> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > David Burn a ?crit : > >> [1] South opens 1NT; North bids 1H. Is he allowed to bid 2D to show 5+ >> hearts (and nothing else about his hand)? Does it matter why he bid 1H? >> >> > Most probably he is, if the 1H bid was natural. The 2D bid is probably > more restrictive than the 1H bid, whether an opening or a response. Now > if 2D could be weak, and 1H was intended as an opening, 2D may not be a > subset of 1H and therefore might be disallowed. So you need to know > about the reason for the 1H bid, and the range for 2D. > Sorry, I misread the conditions, I thought 2D would be an intervention. Official response : no, he isn't, because the 1H bid, even if a response, has specified a non-yarborough. But this is one of those marginal cases where the TD could allow the bid, and apply the "if the NOS were damaged" provision thereafter. The decision might depend on how much one would need to answer 1H to 1C. Also, if East had passed 1st seat and 1NT was weak, the "non-yarborough" part would be known already. Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 6 11:43:03 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:43:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <200803050807.AA12734@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <009201c87f76$f5a83850$84d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 8:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 > Actually they changed the BLML system so if you attach > a pdf file up to 100kb it goes thru pretty fast. > -Bob > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Law 27 - letter to Zones and NBOs..rtf Type: application/msword Size: 5418 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080306/d78738f1/attachment-0001.wiz From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 6 11:43:03 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:43:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <200803050807.AA12734@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <009201c87f76$f5a83850$84d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 8:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 > Actually they changed the BLML system so if you attach > a pdf file up to 100kb it goes thru pretty fast. > -Bob > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Law 27 - letter to Zones and NBOs..rtf Type: application/msword Size: 5418 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080306/d78738f1/attachment-0002.wiz From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 6 12:04:18 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:04:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com> <47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> <000001c87ed4$1a9f4070$4fddc150$@com> <01be01c87ed6$40ca25b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000401c87ee8$f9bb8e30$ed32aa90$@com> <000a01c87f62$e870ac80$84d2403e@Mildred> <47CFB18D.9030804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47CFCFB2.7070701@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > On 06/03/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: >> The 1997 had one great advantage over the 1987 and 2007 ones. >> >> In order for the correction to be "unpunished", the least sufficient >> bid in the same denomination needed to be natural. That meant that the >> TD could ask one question only, and if the answer were "that would be >> artificial", then the original intent did not matter any more. > > In my 1997 TFLB both the IB and the RB needed to be > non-conventional... And the RB needed to be the lowes sufficient bid > in the same denomination. > exactly: BOTH needed to be. So if one were not, that was that. If the RB was conventional, no need to find out what the IB was. In the 2007 Laws (and the 1987 ones), we can still find a non-punished RB, even if the normal RB is artificial (either because the artificiality points to the same suit as the IB, or because there is some other artificial bid which does the same). Under the 1997 laws, 1NT (pass) 1H was an easy one. Since 2H was artificial, there are no possible unpunished RB. Under the 2007 laws, we can have that 2D is unpunished, but only if 1H pointed to hearts - so we need to investigate more. Which is why I say that the question "why did you bid 1H?", which was the second one in 1997, now becomes the first question we should be asking. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 6 12:55:02 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 11:55:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 pdf version Message-ID: <000401c87f82$ad68ed30$5ecf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <5E9809CF-1295-46A3-B01C-9893C72D5962@starpower.net> <000001c87f13$24f79290$6ee6b7b0$@com> Message-ID: <6A989413-383F-49EB-AC54-D75C77FDDE42@starpower.net> On Mar 5, 2008, at 5:49 PM, David Burn wrote: > [1] South opens 1NT; North bids 1H. Is he allowed to bid 2D to show 5+ > hearts (and nothing else about his hand)? Does it matter why he bid > 1H? Probably not, and yes. It is almost certain that his "intended" (i.e. on what he thought was the auction) 1H bid showed some minimum in high-card strength. But presumably 1NT-P-2D can be bid with a zero-count, so is less precise than the 1H IB. > [2] South opens 1NT; North bids 1S. He did this because he thought > South > opened 1C, and his 1S response to that showed diamonds. Is he > allowed to bid > 2NT to show diamonds? As above, it depends on whether 1NT-2NT has "the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than" 1C-1S, which depends on the partnership's agreement as to the HCP or other "strength" requirements of the respective bids. > [3] As [2]; but 1S showed either a balanced hand with no major, or > long > diamonds. Is North now allowed to bid 2NT to show diamonds? "Diamonds" is more precise than "either a balanced hand with no major or... diamonds", so that's OK. But, again, we need to know about strength requirements. > [4] West opens 2S; North bids 1NT. He did this because he did not > see the > opening bid. Luckily for him, he plays a strong no trump and 2NT > over 2S > also shows a strong no trump, so this seems to be a 271(a) case. > But is > North allowed to bid 2NT without a spade guard? Yes. L27B is dependent solely on the "meanings" of the calls; there is no requirement that the replacement call be systemically correct for his actual hand. > If so, is South allowed to > know that North might have done this, and to act accordingly? He can't "not know" that his partner may have faced a choice between misdesribing his hand and barring him, and may have chosen the former. So he must be "allowed" to act with this knowledge, in the sense that doing so would not violate L72B1. But his actions will be subject to L27D, and may well be "adjusted away". Even so, it may work to his advantage, as "the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred" is likely to be a better score than what he'd have gotten had his partner guessed a final contract and barred him from the auction. This feels right: the OS has a reasonable chance to recover a "normal" result while the NOS is protected from any advantage the OS might otherwise gain. > Are > North-South permitted to have methods in this position whereby > South can ask > North for a spade guard? Theoretically yes, unless the RA decides otherwise [L40B3]. But using it would de facto constitute "assistance gained through the infraction" subject to adjustment per L27D. If allowed by the RA, it is simply one form of "acting accordingly", and should be treated as such. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 6 15:55:13 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:55:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <1JX2Sf-1e7T5k0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <5E9809CF-1295-46A3-B01C-9893C72D5962@starpower.net> <1JX2Sf-1e7T5k0@fwd27.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <5A0E38C2-CF01-45C9-8CD2-C3C8A4125B1D@starpower.net> On Mar 5, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Eric Landau >> >>> [footnote: * the meaning of (information available from) a call is >>> the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ] >> >> But we also have a change in the language of the new criterion. >> "Incorporates the information" admittedly caused considerable >> confusion. Many, even on BLML, where parsing bridge law is what we >> do, mistook the incorporation of the information from a call for the >> the incorporation of the definition of a call, which works >> oppositely, and so attempted to apply the criterion backwards; we've >> seen several posters getting this wrong, and several others offering >> gentle corrections. But confusing as it may have been, that >> confusion could be put to rest with a dictionary and a grammar. Now >> we have "has a more precise meaning than". But the "meaning" of >> something can refer to *either* its information content *or* its >> definition -- and "more precise", like "incorporates", works in >> opposite directions depending on whether it refers to information or >> definition. > > eh (?), did you realize and read the footnote ? Oops, um, duh... my bad. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 6 17:19:26 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 11:19:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Burns investigates. In-Reply-To: <000201c87f92$cef7fad0$78d4403e@Mildred> References: <000201c87f92$cef7fad0$78d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <2D42E374-98C4-4C07-8309-A1FDDCD858BD@starpower.net> On Mar 6, 2008, at 8:59 AM, wrote: > Consideration: Under 27B1(b) the Director is concerned there shall > be no UI, that the meaning (the information from) the replacement > call is wholly contained within the meaning of the IB. The footnote > draws attention to the interpretation of 'meaning' which covers both > what is shown and what is excluded. I would wish to explore the > possibility of standing partnership agreements, subject to regulation, > that following the IB the normal values attributable to a substituted > action are changed to match the values of the IB where these are > apparent. (I am not sure about 'apparent'; the word I want is not > in my mind for the moment - any ideas?). Could the principle apply > to suit length also? 27D if this enabled the offending side to reach > a contract not normally to be reached. The problem arises because those same UI considerations do not apply under L27B1(a), and there is no immediate constraint on the IBer's right to make the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination if the conditions of L27B1(a) are satisfied. In the simplest case, replacement call (RC) A may "ha[ve] the same meaning as... the IB" (which meets the conditions of L27B1(b)), while RC B, which has a meaning that is systemically disjoint from the IB's, may meet the conditions of L27B1(a). The law clearly permits the IBer to select B, and "allows" his partner to "know" ("Law 16 does not apply") that he cannot hold an appropriate hand for that call. So his partner must be allowed to use common sense and bridge judgment, along with his knowledge of the meanings of the IB, A and B, to attempt to figure out what message the IBer was attempting to get across by choosing B instead of A. (If, for example, A systemically shows a stronger hand than B, it would make apparent sense to interpret A as a "good A" and B as a "bad A".) This is one of those cases, however, where L40A1(a) makes "subject to regulation" unfortunately problematic. You can forbid a partnership from making such agreements explicitly, but the first time the situation arises at the table, they will unavoidably create an "implicit understanding", even if that "understanding" is nothing more than the confirmed assumption that their respective common sense and bridge logic lead to the same conclusion. So the only ways to enforce a regulation prohibiting them from forming any such partnership understanding would be either to break up the partnership or to automatically penalize them any time their opponents made an IB against them! (The ACBL actually has such an unenforceable regulation. I once violated it, and got hauled before an AC. The outcome was that the AC "let me get away with it just this once" but warned me "never to do it again". When I asked them what, exactly, "it" was that I was never to do again, they were unable to come up with an answer.) Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 6 17:24:37 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 16:24:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 Message-ID: <008e01c87fa8$79736ca0$78d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Clarification. If the 1NT shows a Spade guard then it excludes the possibilities of hands that do not have a Spade guard. So the 2NT cannot then be made on hands that do not have a Spade guard - it is a case of the 2NT failing to exclude hands that the 1NT does exclude. ~ Grattan ~ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 6 20:20:19 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:20:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <008e01c87fa8$79736ca0$78d4403e@Mildred> References: <008e01c87fa8$79736ca0$78d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Mar 6, 2008, at 11:24 AM, wrote: > Grattan Endicott > < because he did not see the opening bid. Luckily > for him, he plays a strong no trump and 2NT > over 2S also shows a strong no trump, so this > seems to be a 271(a) case. But is North allowed > to bid 2NT without a spade guard? If so, is South > allowed to know that North might have done this, > and to act accordingly? Are North-South permitted > to have methods in this position whereby South can > ask North for a spade guard? > +=+ He may bid 2NT if it means exactly the > same as the 1NT. South is allowed to know what > the bid means (shows and excludes). >> > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > Clarification. > If the 1NT shows a Spade guard then it excludes > the possibilities of hands that do not have a Spade guard. > So the 2NT cannot then be made on hands that do not > have a Spade guard - it is a case of the 2NT failing to > exclude hands that the 1NT does exclude. Regardless of whether or not either (or both) shows a spade stopper, both 1NT and 2S-2NT are (presumably, in Grattan's example) "incontrovertibly not artificial", so the IBer may bid 2NT (without barring his partner) per L27B1(a). Grattan would be correct (about this patently perverse case -- surely no partnership in the history of bridge has ever actually agreed that a 1NT opening promises a spade stopper but 2S-2NT doesn't!) had the "old new" L27 not been replaced by the "new new" L27. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Thu Mar 6 21:08:17 2008 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 20:08:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] new L27 In-Reply-To: <200803051306.AA12739@geller204.nifty.com> References: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <200803051306.AA12739@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: In message <200803051306.AA12739 at geller204.nifty.com>, Robert Geller writes >Could've been better, could've been worse. > >The good news (IMO). > 1. Most of the time we'll be dealing with an IB replaced by the lowest >sufficient RB in the same denomination, and this will pose no problem for >directors. as it's what they're useful. > 2. A replacement call of RDBL is now also included in 27B1b > >The bad news (IMO) > 1. The pernicious concept of "meaning of the IB" has been retained, >although in a somewhat less toxic form than the original L27C of the >2007 Laws. > 2. The mechanics of 27B1b will probably cause trouble for directors and >players, not to mention RA's. 27B1a is clear to all. But after the director >explains 27B1b to an IBer at the table, the player will want to know >("can I call X without penalty"?). How does the player actually do this? >Does he ask the director in front of his pard? Or is his pard sent away >from the table with the oppts allowed to listen in? And how (except in the >most frequent cases, like a negative dbl of 1S after an IB of 1H) will the >director answer? This will be fraught..... > >Oh well, it could've been much worse. > >-Bob > > > My gut feeling for how this would work is to do the following: Taking the example 1H (P) 1H 1] Take the player away from the table and determine the intent. The player tells me that "I though partner had passed". So I now know that was intended to be a 1H opening bid. 2] Ask the player if they have any bids that show a 4-card heart suit and an opening bid when partner opens 1H. They reply that a 2NT response and a splinter bid. (I could have asked what would you have bid had you seen your partner's 1H bid). 3] Determine that, in my opinion, both 2NT and a splinter are a more precise meaning and thus acceptable. 4] Tell the player that when we return to the table, I will give you the option of bidding 2H or the alternative of either a 2NT or a splinter, but I won't tell the players what those alternatives are. 5] Return to the table as say to the other players, "I know what the insufficient bid meant - you don't". To the offender I would say, "On the assumption that LHO does not accept your bid, you have the following options: You may bid 2H or one of the alternative bids that we discussed. If you do, then the action will continue without any further penalty. Or, you may pass or bid something else, in which case partner will be forced to pass throughout." 6] "LHO, do you wish to accept or have it corrected to something legal?" - "Correct it please" 7] "Your 1H is now cancelled". I pick the 1H and return it to the bidding box. "Please bid, however I should warn you that if you don't bid hearts and become a defender then there will be lead penalties." In some circumstances I would mention at point [5] that they can't double for penalties. Not in this example as we would be doubling partner's bid. I would in those circumstances remove the double cards from the bidding box and the return them after the bid has been corrected. This emphasises that they can't double on this round, but can double later. In the past I've had players hear "you can't double on this round" and being overwhelmed with the whole situation have assumed that it meant "you can't double for the rest of the auction" :-) If I thought there was a possibility of adjustment under "New New L27D", then I would say at point [7], "If you reach a contract that is impossible if you had bid properly, and gain from it, then I will adjust the score" -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 6 22:13:50 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 22:13:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] new L27 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002101c87fce$fa082f10$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> > On Behalf Of Steve Wright .................. > Taking the example 1H (P) 1H > > 1] Take the player away from the table and determine the intent. The > player tells me that "I though partner had passed". So I now know that > was intended to be a 1H opening bid. > > 2] Ask the player if they have any bids that show a 4-card heart suit > and an opening bid when partner opens 1H. They reply that a 2NT response > and a splinter bid. (I could have asked what would you have bid had you > seen your partner's 1H bid). > > 3] Determine that, in my opinion, both 2NT and a splinter are a more > precise meaning and thus acceptable. > > 4] Tell the player that when we return to the table, I will give you the > option of bidding 2H or the alternative of either a 2NT or a splinter, > but I won't tell the players what those alternatives are. > > 5] Return to the table as say to the other players, "I know what the > insufficient bid meant - you don't". To the offender I would say, "On > the assumption that LHO does not accept your bid, you have the following > options: You may bid 2H or one of the alternative bids that we > discussed. If you do, then the action will continue without any further > penalty. Or, you may pass or bid something else, in which case partner > will be forced to pass throughout." > > 6] "LHO, do you wish to accept or have it corrected to something legal?" > - "Correct it please" > > 7] "Your 1H is now cancelled". I pick the 1H and return it to the > bidding box. "Please bid, however I should warn you that if you don't > bid hearts and become a defender then there will be lead penalties." This must be an incorrect statement by the Director? As both 2NT and Splinter bids promise solid support in hearts they clearly meet the requirement in Law 26A1 as "referring" to hearts, so these alternatives should not result in any lead restrictions. Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 6 22:55:28 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:55:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> Message-ID: Matthias Berghaus: >sometimes the meaning will be absolutely unmistakable. 1C - p - 1C. >This can only be a L25 case or a 1C opener. Richard Hills: Not so fast. West is the dealer. WEST NORTH EAST 1C Pass 1C East-West are playing a half-and-half system. Precision in first or second seat, Standard American in third or fourth seat. What is the meaning of East's insufficient bid? (a) Objectively East is in third seat, so should the Director rule that the meaning of East's insufficient bid is a Standard 1C opening? (b) Subjectively East is in second seat (East did not notice West's bid and thought North was the dealer), so should the Director rule that the meaning of East's insufficient bid is a Precision 1C opening? Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 7 00:14:28 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:14:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: (Newbie, sorry if this is inappropriate or already well-known). This law seems to go out of its way to be friendly to the offending side (while still trying to maintain equity for the nonoffending side). I think it is going to be great for the game of bridge and I wish there could be more laws like it. The harsh laws make bridge less attractive to players. As a club director, I am looking forward to using it. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 7 01:43:38 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:43:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 + Law 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bob Frick: >(Newbie, sorry if this is inappropriate or already well-known). Richard Hills: Welcome, Bob. It is never inappropriate for a newbie to post to blml; it increases diversity of views instead of same-old same-old postings from pompous pontificators such as myself. Bob Frick: >This law seems to go out of its way to be friendly to the >offending side (while still trying to maintain equity for the >nonoffending side). I think it is going to be great for the game >of bridge and I wish there could be more laws like it. The harsh >laws make bridge less attractive to players. Richard Hills: Yes, the 2007 Introduction notes that "There are fewer automatic penalties". It seems a guiding principle has been to strive to obtain a bridge result at the table. Another example of this guiding principle is a change to Law 13. 1997 Law 13B1: "that such information will not interfere with normal bidding or play, the Director, with the **concurrence of all four players**, may allow the board to be played and scored normally." 2007 Law 13D2(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." Richard Hills: This change to Law 13 means that trivial UI no longer permits a greedy non-offender to bypass a bridge result at the table in order to gain an automatic artificial score of Ave+. Bob Frick: >As a club director, I am looking forward to using it. > >Bob Richard Hills As a blmler, I am looking forward to more postings from Bob. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Mar 7 02:24:44 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:24:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Burns investigates. In-Reply-To: <000201c87f92$cef7fad0$78d4403e@Mildred> References: <000201c87f92$cef7fad0$78d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47D0995C.5000502@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott] I say again this is all personal opinion; I shall expect dissent. No doubt case law will develop. I am mildly interested that there has been no reaction to the objective expressed as a matter of law in the final sentence of 27D. I personally consider Law 10C1 important in relation to this law and to 27B3 in particular. It may be difficult, nay - it will be difficult, to achieve consistency and to teach TDs the application of this law. But who would not wish everyone the joys of fresh pastures green. I mean, why would you play bridge if there were no such conceits to explore? {nigel] Green pastures for secretary birds and directors :) The slough of despond for players :( From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Mar 7 02:29:22 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:29:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47D09A72.9010509@NTLworld.com> [Robert Frick] This law seems to go out of its way to be friendly to the offending side (while still trying to maintain equity for the nonoffending side). I think it is going to be great for the game of bridge and I wish there could be more laws like it. The harsh laws make bridge less attractive to players. As a club director, I am looking forward to using it. [Nigel] Welcome Bob :) Those who like laws that are friendly to offending side will love the new law-book :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 7 03:33:48 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 13:33:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47BF33D9.9040909@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: 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 Guthrie: >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. Richard Hills: As a defender I recently asked just such an unscrupulous question of partner. But this careless question conveyed count information to declarer, who was thereby able to correct her unestablished revoke. I agree that the director should have severely penalised me, since a real disadvantage accrued to my Centre Hand Opponent. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Mar 7 03:54:31 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 02:54:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Can't find the message I wanted to reply to Message-ID: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> But it was one in which Grattan said something like: If the player thought he was responding 1H over partner's 1C bid (partner actually opened 1NT) then he can bid 2D as a transfer (dubious, in my opinion, since the 1H response promises some values, but the transfer does not. But anyway...) but if he thought he opened 1H then the transfer is not allowed. Surely this cannot be right. If the player does not inappropriately reveal his intentions to the table, then it does not matter what they were. The player bid 1H, and that is all that the table knows. If he would transfer to hearts with opening values, then it is perfectly OK to let him transfer, whatever he was thinking (still subject, of course, to the dubiety expressed above). There is no reason to have to read a player's mind. Or to encourage him to say that he thought the auction was other than he thought it was. Why should that matter? The auction he imagined, whatever it was, did not exist. This is another illustration, of course, of the problem of the "meaning of" or "information contained in" the IB. It all depends on what the player thought, and no one else at the table knows what that is. But the bid should be allowed or disallowed under several, perhaps misguided, criteria. What auction the IBer imagined should not, and cannot, be one of them. Stefanie Rohan London, England From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Mar 7 04:26:24 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:26:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] L27 Message-ID: <47D0B5E0.5020600@nhcc.net> Sorry, I'm about to be away for a few days and in a bit of a rush, but I'm astounded by comments about the new new L27. I think one of the great advantages of the revision is that there is no need whatsoever for the TD to find out what the IBer had in mind. The TD only needs to consider the union of all reasonable possibilities. The new text is, in part: > ... the same meaning* as, or a more > precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully > contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) Note "possible meanings," plural, and not "intended meaning" or anything similar. I don't see anything that allows the TD to limit his ruling to only one possible meaning if multiple ones exist. No need for mind reading at all. Terrific! The interesting question to me is what happens if the IBer reveals his intention. One possibility, by far the simplest, is to say that the extra information limits "possible meanings" and rule L27B1 only according to the ones that remain. Another is to rule L27B1 without the "extra" information but say the information is UI. That seems to be what the Laws say, but I fear it would be far too complex in practice, so I hope the first way will be considered acceptable. Again, sorry I won't be around for the next few days to see the discussion, but I'll catch up when I get back. P.S. Thanks to all who provided information on singular and plural in Japanese and other languages! And Richard's knowledge of "deep South dialect" -- actually not really confined to "deep" -- is quite correct. I guess Australia is pretty far south, so I shouldn't be surprised. :-) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 7 05:57:12 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:57:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <06FC0A3A-E6C3-4908-AAE3-91F7EABB0DE1@starpower.net> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan: >The EBU's solution of asking only when it may >affect your action is absurd. Richard Hills: Absurd? No, very logical, as it eliminates any 2007 Law 73F rulings for deceptive questions when holding balanced yarboroughs. In my opinion it is rather the EBU's failure to have a pre-Alert policy which is absurd. If one knew in advance the unusual gadgets the opponents frequently used, the need to ask any questions in the auction would be much reduced. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 7 06:54:51 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:54:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Burn, Bavin and Belgium [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: EBU L & EC minutes, February 11 2008: >Mr Burn agreed to find out from countries that had >no alerting of doubles at all how it had been >received. Mr Bavin noted that in Belgium (who had >no alerts of doubles at all), some people had been >inventing unusual doubles. Richard Hills: A decade and a half ago, Australia introduced the concept of self-alerting calls into its Alert regulation. The initial self-alerting calls were: (a) all doubles (b) all redoubles (c) all cuebids (d) all calls above 3NT (e) all pre-empts (both openings and overcalls) This self-alert system was mostly well received, but (e) had a flaw when an apparently natural 3D pre-empt happened to be a transfer pre-empt in hearts, causing a debacle for the opponents. So (e) was quickly dropped from the self-alerting category. Then, like Belgium, problems developed with unusual doubles and redoubles. A later revision to the regulation was to require pre-alerts of unusual calls. So the pre-alert section of my system card mentions that just one of our redoubles is weak (in the SW1NE convention), and that unusually we play penalty doubles when most would play negative doubles. Since the addition of a pre-alert superstructure to the self-alert infrastructure, the ABF Alert regulation has been hugely popular (perhaps partly because it is simple, thus easy to memorise). And, of course, (a), (b), (c) and (d) are situations where ill-prepared partnerships are most likely to have a wheel coming off. Thus the UI from an alert could cause the wheel to be screwed back on again, but the silent self-alert screws the misbidders instead. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 eitan.bridge at gmail.com Thu Mar 6 21:40:23 2008 From: eitan.bridge at gmail.com (Eitan Levy) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 22:40:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] new L27 In-Reply-To: References: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <200803051306.AA12739@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: On 06/03/2008, Steve Wright wrote: > > > My gut feeling for how this would work is to do the following: > > Taking the example 1H (P) 1H > > 1] Take the player away from the table and determine the intent. The > player tells me that "I though partner had passed". So I now know that > was intended to be a 1H opening bid. > > 2] Ask the player if they have any bids that show a 4-card heart suit > and an opening bid when partner opens 1H. They reply that a 2NT response > and a splinter bid. (I could have asked what would you have bid had you > seen your partner's 1H bid). > > 3] Determine that, in my opinion, both 2NT and a splinter are a more > precise meaning and thus acceptable. > > 4] Tell the player that when we return to the table, I will give you the > option of bidding 2H or the alternative of either a 2NT or a splinter, > but I won't tell the players what those alternatives are. > > 5] Return to the table as say to the other players, "I know what the > insufficient bid meant - you don't". To the offender I would say, "On > the assumption that LHO does not accept your bid, you have the following > options: You may bid 2H or one of the alternative bids that we > discussed. If you do, then the action will continue without any further > penalty. Or, you may pass or bid something else, in which case partner > will be forced to pass throughout." > > 6] "LHO, do you wish to accept or have it corrected to something legal?" > - "Correct it please" > > 7] "Your 1H is now cancelled". I pick the 1H and return it to the > bidding box. "Please bid, however I should warn you that if you don't > bid hearts and become a defender then there will be lead penalties." > > In some circumstances I would mention at point [5] that they can't > double for penalties. Not in this example as we would be doubling > partner's bid. I would in those circumstances remove the double cards > from the bidding box and the return them after the bid has been > corrected. This emphasises that they can't double on this round, but can > double later. In the past I've had players hear "you can't double on > this round" and being overwhelmed with the whole situation have assumed > that it meant "you can't double for the rest of the auction" :-) > > If I thought there was a possibility of adjustment under "New New L27D", > then I would say at point [7], "If you reach a contract that is > impossible if you had bid properly, and gain from it, then I will adjust > the score" > > -- > Steve Wright > Leicester, England Ok, so now we need to know how to score the boards that weren't played in the two rounds during the time we were investigating/explaining/clarifying all the above. Eitan Levy _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080306/56a12b6b/attachment.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 7 10:03:57 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:03:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] new L27 In-Reply-To: References: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <200803051306.AA12739@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47D104FD.2000101@ulb.ac.be> Steve Wright a ?crit : > In message <200803051306.AA12739 at geller204.nifty.com>, Robert Geller > writes > >> Could've been better, could've been worse. >> >> The good news (IMO). >> 1. Most of the time we'll be dealing with an IB replaced by the lowest >> sufficient RB in the same denomination, and this will pose no problem for >> directors. as it's what they're useful. >> 2. A replacement call of RDBL is now also included in 27B1b >> >> The bad news (IMO) >> 1. The pernicious concept of "meaning of the IB" has been retained, >> although in a somewhat less toxic form than the original L27C of the >> 2007 Laws. >> 2. The mechanics of 27B1b will probably cause trouble for directors and >> players, not to mention RA's. 27B1a is clear to all. But after the director >> explains 27B1b to an IBer at the table, the player will want to know >> ("can I call X without penalty"?). How does the player actually do this? >> Does he ask the director in front of his pard? Or is his pard sent away >> > >from the table with the oppts allowed to listen in? And how (except in the > >> most frequent cases, like a negative dbl of 1S after an IB of 1H) will the >> director answer? This will be fraught..... >> >> Oh well, it could've been much worse. >> >> -Bob >> >> >> >> > > My gut feeling for how this would work is to do the following: > > Taking the example 1H (P) 1H > > 1] Take the player away from the table and determine the intent. The > player tells me that "I though partner had passed". So I now know that > was intended to be a 1H opening bid. > > 2] Ask the player if they have any bids that show a 4-card heart suit > and an opening bid when partner opens 1H. They reply that a 2NT response > and a splinter bid. (I could have asked what would you have bid had you > seen your partner's 1H bid). > > 3] Determine that, in my opinion, both 2NT and a splinter are a more > precise meaning and thus acceptable. > AG : ISTM this test will fail : there are hands that would raise to 2NT, but not open 1H. Most notably hands with 4 cards in Hearts, but within the range for their 1NT opening. > > 7] "Your 1H is now cancelled". I pick the 1H and return it to the > bidding box. "Please bid, however I should warn you that if you don't > bid hearts and become a defender then there will be lead penalties." > > AG : please replace "bid" by "show". Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 7 10:06:42 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:06:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47D105A2.4080201@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > WEST NORTH EAST > 1C Pass 1C > > East-West are playing a half-and-half system. Precision in first or > second seat, Standard American in third or fourth seat. What is the > meaning of East's insufficient bid? > > (a) Objectively East is in third seat, so should the Director rule > that the meaning of East's insufficient bid is a Standard 1C opening? > > (b) Subjectively East is in second seat (East did not notice West's > bid and thought North was the dealer), so should the Director rule > that the meaning of East's insufficient bid is a Precision 1C opening? > > AG : he should rule that the meaning agrees with the actual East hand. If he cant ascertain which one, he could always ask. BTW, is such a system allowed in most countries ? From david.j.barton at sky.com Fri Mar 7 10:17:57 2008 From: david.j.barton at sky.com (David Barton) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 09:17:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another L27 Message-ID: <001d01c88034$21f7c5c0$0300a8c0@david> I would welcome any comments on the following scenario. As TD you arrive at the table to see the following auction W N E S 1N P 2D 2C 1N is 12-14 2D is to play 2C would have been both majors if E had passed 1) Do you determine that 2C may have been artificial irrespective of South's hand or intention? 2) West wishes to know what penalty will be imposed on South (ie which call(s) would not result in North being silenced) before deciding whether to accept the 2C. Is he so entitled? 3) Do you allow a L27B1(b) RC of 3C? 4) Do you allow a L27B1(b) RC of 3D? In this case what standard of "proof" do you require that (1N) P (2D) 3D would indeed have been both majors rather than say any strong 2 suiter? Thanks for any comments. ***************************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ***************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080307/56ba8412/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.81 / Virus Database: 269.21.6/1316 - Release Date: 3/6/2008 6:58 PM From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 7 10:41:23 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:41:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47D10DC3.8040209@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Stefanie Rohan: > > > Richard Hills: > > Absurd? No, very logical, as it eliminates > any 2007 Law 73F rulings for deceptive > questions when holding balanced yarboroughs. > > AG : And so it automatically creates the UI of "I don't hold a balanced yarborough" when you ask. Not good. Actually, I fail to see how, if I decided always to ask, how they could be decieved by the fact that I ask ? I'd prefer "random asking", like there is "random timing", and of course tell the opponents you practice it, so they aren't fooled. If you wonder whether there is such a thing as random asking, try this : when they first make an alerted call in the suit of the first card you picked on the previous deal, you ask. (on the previous deal, to avoid UI that you aren't void in a suit when you later appear to have randomly asked) Change this to the first alerted call in NT when this card was a five (for example). > In my opinion it is rather the EBU's failure to > have a pre-Alert policy which is absurd. > > If one knew in advance the unusual gadgets the > opponents frequently used, the need to ask any > questions in the auction would be much reduced. > > AG : not against "scientific" opponents. A bunch of unfrequent gadgets total more uses than two or three frequent ones. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 7 10:27:53 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:27:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 + Law 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47D10A99.9090509@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Bob Frick: > > >> (Newbie, sorry if this is inappropriate or already well-known). >> > > Richard Hills: > > Welcome, Bob. It is never inappropriate for a newbie to post to > blml; it increases diversity of views instead of same-old same-old > postings from pompous pontificators such as myself. > > AG : Welcome ! You can quote me one that one too, most notably the way most blmlers, including YT, see themselves ;-) > Another example of this guiding principle is a change to Law 13. > > 1997 Law 13B1: > > "that such information will not interfere with normal bidding or > play, the Director, with the **concurrence of all four players**, > may allow the board to be played and scored normally." > > 2007 Law 13D2(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." > > Richard Hills: > > This change to Law 13 means that trivial UI no longer permits a > greedy non-offender to bypass a bridge result at the table in > order to gain an automatic artificial score of Ave+. > > AG : notice that, from some strange reason, L16B didn't demand unanimous agreement. >> As a club director, I am looking forward to using it. >> >> AG : if you're looking forward to wrestling with propositional logic, your hopes will be fulfilled, especially if you remain tuned on blml :-P Apart from that, I do agree that laws that minimize the feeling of arbitrariness are good for bridge. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080307/90bf9aa5/attachment.htm From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Mar 7 11:00:47 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:00:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Another_L27?= Message-ID: <1JXZNf-0xSxkW0@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> From: David Barton > I would welcome any comments on the following ?scenario. > As TD you arrive at the table to see the following ?auction > W ? ? ? N ? ? E ? ? ? ?S > 1N ? ? ?P ? ? ?2D ? ? 2C ? > > 1N is 12-14 > 2D is to play > 2C would have been both majors if E had ?passed ? > > 1) Do you determine that 2C may have been artificial irrespective ? ? > of South's hand or intention? ? (Most probably) yes, the IB is artificial - as long as NS don't play a system like precision (where a 2C opening shows long clubs) and South persuades the TD not having seen all 3 previous calls ... > 2) West wishes to know what penalty will be imposed ?on > South (ie which call(s) would not result in North being silenced) > before deciding whether to accept the 2C. > Is he so entitled? ? No, I don't think so. Of course, if the TD believes that L27B(a) may be applicable, you should say so, but the details of the bid(s) that fulfill the requirements of L27B1(b) do not have to be exposed before made by the offender. > 3) Do you allow a L27B1(b) RC of 3C? ? Only, if it shows majors and clubs (the possible meanings of the IB). Remember: meaning (the singular) is "defined" as knowledge (i.e. a set of information). So meanings (plural; as in the law) is (possibly) more than 1 set of information. > 4) Do you allow a L27B1(b) RC of 3D? > In this case ?what standard of "proof" do you require that > (1N) P (2D) 3D would indeed have been both majors rather than say > any ?strong 2 suiter? ? see under 3) Peter From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 7 11:38:21 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:38:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another L27 In-Reply-To: <001d01c88034$21f7c5c0$0300a8c0@david> References: <001d01c88034$21f7c5c0$0300a8c0@david> Message-ID: <47D11B1D.8000402@ulb.ac.be> David Barton a ?crit : > I would welcome any comments on the following scenario. > As TD you arrive at the table to see the following auction > W N E S > 1N P 2D 2C > > 1N is 12-14 > 2D is to play > 2C would have been both majors if E had passed > > 1) Do you determine that 2C may have been artificial irrespective > of South's hand or intention? > AG : nope. If he holds long clubs, the most probable scenario is that he plays natural defenses after signoffs (who wouldn't ? Well, I wouldn't, but that's another story) and that he simply didn't realize 2C was insufficient. So his holding will be the test. You don't need to look at his hand, however. If he tells you he intended to make a natural bid in clubs, let the play continue with him being allowed to correct to 3C, and if it happens that he in fact holds majors, quarter him and nail him on the bar's joist. > 2) West wishes to know what penalty will be imposed on South > (ie which call(s) would not result in North being silenced) before > deciding whether to accept the 2C. Is he so entitled? > AG : sure. To chose the best option for his side (72A4 ?) he must first know the options. Would you refuse to give declarer the list of options after a LOOT ? > 3) Do you allow a L27B1(b) RC of 3C? > AG : yes, if 2C was obviously intended as natural and 3C over 2D is in their system. Also in the rare case where both have the same artificial meaning; I know at least one pair who play both 1NT p p 2C and 1NT p 2D 3C as showing clubs and hearts, 3C over 2D being *more* precise (longer clubs), therefore allowed. You would also have to allow me the 3C bid, because a 2C reopening would mean either 6 hearts, or 4+ hearts and some 5+ suit, while 3C shows specifically 5+ clubs and 4+ hearts (more precise, as above). > 4) Do you allow a L27B1(b) RC of 3D? In this case what standard > of "proof" do you require that (1N) P (2D) 3D would indeed have > been both majors rather than say any strong 2 suiter? > AG : you're assuming that 2C was intended as showing majors. Okay. The standard of proof would be the pair's system notes. Mine say "over 1x-2x, 1NT-2x (S/O) and 1C-2x (weak), play as over a weak two-bid in the same suit" Then you could see that our 3D overcall of a weak 2D shows 5+H and 4+S. Now, the question is : what if they don't have systemic notes that are precise enough to cover that case ? To bad for them, then. If they didn't write it down, this isn't their agreement. Best regards Alain From john at asimere.com Fri Mar 7 11:43:22 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:43:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] new L27 References: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de><200803051306.AA12739@geller204.nifty.com><006501c87ee2$d6edda80$0901a8c0@JOHN> <2a1c3a560803051400y1aeda3cbke4f1b8231ce562ca@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003e01c88040$1098c9d0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] new L27 > On 06/03/2008, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Geller" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 1:06 PM >> Subject: [blml] new L27 >> >> snip >> explains 27B1b to an IBer at the table, the player will want to know >> ("can I call X without penalty"?). How does the player actually do >> this? >> Does he ask the director in front of his pard? >> >> The TDs will explain what's allowed. It's part of the job. I'd not worry >> too >> much about that. John >> > > And these TDs they know everyone's system to make this determination? I don't think you need to know anything about system. If the player asks me whether he can take a particular action, then (probably away from the table) I will discuss it with him. I don't think this is a problem, really don't. John > > Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Fri Mar 7 12:04:46 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:04:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de><5E9809CF-1295-46A3-B01C-9893C72D5962@starpower.net> <000001c87f13$24f79290$6ee6b7b0$@com> Message-ID: <004501c88043$0e0ac490$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 > [EL] > > "Incorporates the information" admittedly caused considerable confusion. > Many, even on BLML, where parsing bridge law is what we do, mistook the > incorporation of the information from a call for the incorporation of the > definition of a call, which works oppositely, and so attempted to apply > the > criterion backwards; we've seen several posters getting this wrong > > [DALB] > snip > > [1] South opens 1NT; North bids 1H. Is he allowed to bid 2D to show 5+ > hearts (and nothing else about his hand)? Does it matter why he bid 1H? Yes, probably not (unless it shows a 2 suiter with H, for example, we need to know if he thought he was opening, i guess) even playing Acol with a 4 card H opener, the transfer is more tightly specified. I think we have to do some discovery work here, like what is 3H over 1NT? > > [2] South opens 1NT; North bids 1S. He did this because he thought South > opened 1C, and his 1S response to that showed diamonds. Is he allowed to > bid > 2NT to show diamonds? > Yes, the 2NT level reponse will (we assume but could check) be more tightly specified (higher minimum, and/or more diamonds) - interesting thought, suppose they play old fashioned JS, would we be concerned about the upper limits here? > [3] As [2]; but 1S showed either a balanced hand with no major, or long > diamonds. Is North now allowed to bid 2NT to show diamonds? > Yes, we have tightened the specification from an either/or bid to a specific bid > [4] West opens 2S; North bids 1NT. He did this because he did not see the > opening bid. Luckily for him, he plays a strong no trump and 2NT over 2S > also shows a strong no trump, so this seems to be a 271(a) case. But is > North allowed to bid 2NT without a spade guard? If so, is South allowed to > know that North might have done this, and to act accordingly? Are > North-South permitted to have methods in this position whereby South can > ask > North for a spade guard? No, if he ain't got a guard he has a take out double. This is less tightly specified than the NT call so we don't permit that. However we do allow 2NT (and currently do) and I have argued previously that I believe the Law tells his partner to treat this call as a 2NT overcall, and is not permitted to know he bid 1NT first. (Withdrawn calls are UI to the offending side) Under these circumstances we would disallow methods to establish whether there is a spade guard, and I'd feel free to adjust if his partner then took a devious route that, even in their present SC methods, established a particular spade holding > > David Burn > London, England > very good examples. in 1-3. I am happy about tightening the minimum, but we also need to check whether the original bid is unlimited, don't we? Now tell me I've got them all wrong :) cheers John > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Fri Mar 7 12:08:07 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:08:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004e01c88043$8654d5d0$0901a8c0@JOHN> > the law-makers). > > Will Herman De Wael be translating the Laws into > Flemish? If so, how does Herman intend to translate > Law 20F5(a)? > > :-) > Richard, that's sneaky. Herman's onside at the moment, don't rock the boat :) John > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills From john at asimere.com Fri Mar 7 12:15:35 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:15:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com><47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> <000001c87ed4$1a9f4070$4fddc150$@com><01be01c87ed6$40ca25b0$0100a8c0@stefanie><000401c87ee8$f9bb8e30$ed32aa90$@com> <000a01c87f62$e870ac80$84d2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <005b01c88044$90cf8630$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************** > " It never or rarely happens that a republic > or monarchy is well constituted, or its old > institutions entirely reformed, unless it is > done by only one individual." > [Macchiavelli Niccolo' 1469-1527] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:47 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 > > >> >> If North says "I thought it was my deal", or "I thought >> South opened 1C", then this gives UI (Unincorporated >> Information) to South, who must not act on it. This is why >> I think it may be better not to ask North why he made the >> IB; just ask him what the RC means, and whether it is >> consistent with some hand that would have made the IB >> if sufficient in some auctions. >> > +=+ Under the 1997 Law 27B2 it was always a question > whether the IB was conventional. TDs must have developed > a practice as to the way in which they determined that. What > do we know of the way they approached the question? In a serious event away from the table. In a club event I occasionally take a player away, but the body language usually tells me whether it's ok to ask at the table. If I get this wrong I may use "TD error", but "smooth progress" is also binding. There's no doubt it's tough on a club TD, who hasn't had the experience. I guess I learnt most by TDing the YC. DALB would accept my ruling without demur then charge me a beer in the bar afterwards for getting it wrong. Not many TDs have had this level of tutoring. John > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 7 12:20:34 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:20:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004e01c88043$8654d5d0$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <004e01c88043$8654d5d0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <47D12502.7080205@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : >> the law-makers). >> >> Will Herman De Wael be translating the Laws into >> Flemish? If so, how does Herman intend to translate >> Law 20F5(a)? >> >> :-) >> >> Don't laugh. The laws have been translated in Dutch. Translating them into Flemish is still to be done, and needed, as Flemish bridge lingo is different from the Dutch one. For example, "forcing" means "strong relay" in Flemish, and suit names are always given in the plural form, even when calling a card from dummy. Best regards Alain From john at asimere.com Fri Mar 7 12:30:32 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:30:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] new L27 References: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de><200803051306.AA12739@geller204.nifty.com><006501c87ee2$d6edda80$0901a8c0@JOHN> <000b01c87f62$ecd84c60$84d2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <006001c88046$a7c7e2e0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 12:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] new L27 > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************** > " It never or rarely happens that a republic > or monarchy is well constituted, or its old > institutions entirely reformed, unless it is > done by only one individual." > [Macchiavelli Niccolo' 1469-1527] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:03 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] new L27 > > >> Could've been better, could've been worse. >> >> 2. The mechanics of 27B1b will probably cause trouble >> for directors and players, not to mention RA's. 27B1a is >> clear to all. But after the director explains 27B1b to an >> IBer at the table, the player will want to know ("can I call >> X without penalty"?). How does the player actually do >> this? Does he ask the director in front of his pard? >> >> The TDs will explain what's allowed. It's part of the job. >> I'd not worry too much about that. John >> > +=+ 27B1(b) represents what remains of the attempt to > allow the auction to go forward in more circumstances > than was the case under 1997 laws. It is also the place > where a lot of thought was given to the conditions. Yes, > there will be difficulties, but maybe the requirement that > the Director considers the meaning of the substituted call > is wholly contained within the possible meanings of the IB > will circumscribe the problems. Grattan, I believe that Bridge Law both attempts and should attempt to get a "bridge result" if at all possible. I think that this extension of allowing a bid "to be made good" is a step in that direction. If it allows us to get a "bridge result" on another 20 or 30% of hands then it's going to have been worthwhile. Maybe I appear to be cavalier in my approach to Law, but it's a mistaken assumption that I am. I continually ask myself "How do we play bridge?" and in a sense my mother's rubber bridge four and their ready money cucumber sandwiches DID know the answer to this question. "Make it good deary", is how we play bridge. The laws make a spectacular mess (no, I couldn't write them better) of explaining how to play, but they do get there in the end and it's my job to interpret them, perhaps with my late mother watching over my right shoulder. In her world it was "one lump or two?" and in ours we need to know the plantation, the sucrose content and have a calculator and a handy weighing scale but it's still the same game. John > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Fri Mar 7 12:41:45 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:41:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com><47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> <000001c87ed4$1a9f4070$4fddc150$@com><01be01c87ed6$40ca25b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000401c87ee8$f9bb8e30$ed32aa90$@com><000a01c87f62$e870ac80$84d2403e@Mildred> <47CFB18D.9030804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006a01c88048$386d31a0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 > gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote: >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> ***************************** >> " It never or rarely happens that a republic >> or monarchy is well constituted, or its old >> institutions entirely reformed, unless it is >> done by only one individual." >> [Macchiavelli Niccolo' 1469-1527] >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "David Burn" >> To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" >> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:47 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 >> >> >>> If North says "I thought it was my deal", or "I thought >>> South opened 1C", then this gives UI (Unincorporated >>> Information) to South, who must not act on it. This is why >>> I think it may be better not to ask North why he made the >>> IB; just ask him what the RC means, and whether it is >>> consistent with some hand that would have made the IB >>> if sufficient in some auctions. >>> >> +=+ Under the 1997 Law 27B2 it was always a question >> whether the IB was conventional. TDs must have developed >> a practice as to the way in which they determined that. What >> do we know of the way they approached the question? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > The 1997 had one great advantage over the 1987 and 2007 ones. > > In order for the correction to be "unpunished", the least sufficient > bid in the same denomination needed to be natural. That meant that the > TD could ask one question only, and if the answer were "that would be > artificial", then the original intent did not matter any more. > > That advantage has gone in the 2007 laws. Now, the original intent > becomes important every time, and the TD needs to know it before he > can rule which, if any, calls will be allowed "unpunished". > Yeah, maybe, no, yeah. We discuss with the player on what basis we'll "go with it", explain to him that he may not be able to "get away with it" and then tell him to "get on with it". Don't you just love English phrasal verbs :) > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Fri Mar 7 12:45:04 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:45:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred><1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <47CE6E5E.1000903@NTLworld.com><47CE7C7E.2060605@t-online.de> <000001c87ed4$1a9f4070$4fddc150$@com><01be01c87ed6$40ca25b0$0100a8c0@stefanie><000401c87ee8$f9bb8e30$ed32aa90$@com><000a01c87f62$e870ac80$84d2403e@Mildred> <47CFB18D.9030804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006f01c88048$af411da0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harald Skj?ran" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 > On 06/03/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> The 1997 had one great advantage over the 1987 and 2007 ones. >> >> In order for the correction to be "unpunished", the least sufficient >> bid in the same denomination needed to be natural. That meant that the >> TD could ask one question only, and if the answer were "that would be >> artificial", then the original intent did not matter any more. > > In my 1997 TFLB both the IB and the RB needed to be > non-conventional... And the RB needed to be the lowes sufficient bid > in the same denomination. peace Harald. "could ask one question" not "need only ask one question" . If the answer was "natural" then a follow up question _needs_ to be asked :) I think Herman was aware of this. John > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran > >> >> That advantage has gone in the 2007 laws. Now, the original intent >> becomes important every time, and the TD needs to know it before he >> can rule which, if any, calls will be allowed "unpunished". >> >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john at asimere.com Fri Mar 7 12:49:42 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:49:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 References: <47CF0967.4030107@skynet.be><7D0C19F9-55B4-4E6A-AA6D-B55ECCE742DD@starpower.net> <47CFBEB3.5000503@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <007401c88049$551cfc30$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" snip >a 2-suited 4C/D) according to the new part. >Of course, this will often means you'll need to check EW's convention card or system notes. That's what they're for. And if it takes too much time, you may always accept their version, investigate later, and penalize them heavily if they took you in. >All in all, I see few problems with this law, except that the player-in-the-street will find it difficult to understand. But then he does any other law. Alain, beautifully put. You can be an honoray locum for my games. My own prediction is that the player on the Clapham omnibus (a test for the rank and file) will adapt to the new way of doing things quite quickly. John >Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Fri Mar 7 13:09:18 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 12:09:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] new L27 References: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de><200803051306.AA12739@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <00cb01c8804c$11fafb70$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: Eitan Levy Steve said: >If I thought there was a possibility of adjustment under "New New L27D", then I would say at point [7], "If you reach a contract that is impossible if you had bid properly, and gain from it, then I will adjust the score" -- >Steve Wright Leicester, England >Ok, so now we need to know how to score the boards that weren't played in >the two rounds during the time we were investigating/explaining/clarifying >all the above. Eitan, stop being so damned practical! How fast can you give the 5 options speech? john >Eitan Levy _______________________________________________ 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 Mar 7 13:11:32 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 12:11:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47D105A2.4080201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00d201c8804c$61fb0610$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 9:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > WEST NORTH EAST > 1C Pass 1C > > East-West are playing a half-and-half system. Precision in first or > second seat, Standard American in third or fourth seat. What is the > meaning of East's insufficient bid? > > (a) Objectively East is in third seat, so should the Director rule > that the meaning of East's insufficient bid is a Standard 1C opening? > > (b) Subjectively East is in second seat (East did not notice West's > bid and thought North was the dealer), so should the Director rule > that the meaning of East's insufficient bid is a Precision 1C opening? > > AG : he should rule that the meaning agrees with the actual East hand. If he cant ascertain which one, he could always ask. BTW, is such a system allowed in most countries ? not this one, but I play mini and 5 in 1&2; strong and 4 in 3&4 and this is allowed as a treatment. in the UK, so we could have picked one of these options instead. John _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 7 11:18:42 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:18:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] Burn investigates. References: <000201c87f92$cef7fad0$78d4403e@Mildred> <47D0995C.5000502@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <008401c8804f$dc13dc80$ded6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 1:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Burns investigates. > [Grattan Endicott] > I say again this is all personal opinion; I shall expect dissent. > No doubt case law will develop. I am mildly interested that there > has been no reaction to the objective expressed as a matter of law > in the final sentence of 27D. I personally consider Law 10C1 > important in relation to this law and to 27B3 in particular. It may > be difficult, nay - it will be difficult, to achieve consistency and > to teach TDs the application of this law. But who would not wish > everyone the joys of fresh pastures green. I mean, why would you > play bridge if there were no such conceits to explore? > > {nigel] > Green pastures for secretary birds and directors :) > > The slough of despond for players :( > +=+ I estimate there are three to five matters in the new laws that players need to know. The rest is for Tournament Directors. Good training seminars and published advice will help them to refresh their professional skills. The parallel versions of the old and the new laws on the ecatsbridge website, worked by Richard Hills, are useful learning materials for Directors. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 7 11:27:53 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:27:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 References: <009d01c87e96$d00853e0$f0d3403e@Mildred> <47D09A72.9010509@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <008501c8804f$dd80b2f0$ded6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 1:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 > [Robert Frick] > This law seems to go out of its way to be friendly to > the offending side (while still trying to maintain equity > for the nonoffending side). I > think it is going to be > great for the game of bridge and I wish there could be > more laws like it. The harsh laws make bridge less attractive > to players. As a club director, I am looking forward to using it. > > [Nigel] > Welcome Bob :) Those who like laws that are friendly to > offending side will love the new law-book :) > +=+ Nigel Guthrie, the Hammer of the Offender. :-) "We should try to increase the number of fair bridge results" was an early theme, it is true. It does not find favour with flinty, grizzled old warriors - but provides them with great opportunities for epithets and aphorisms. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 7 12:17:15 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:17:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Can't find the message I wanted to reply to References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 2:54 AM Subject: [blml] Can't find the message I wanted to reply to > But it was one in which Grattan said something like: > > If the player thought he was responding 1H over partner's 1C bid (partner > actually opened 1NT) then he can bid 2D as a transfer (dubious, in my > opinion, since the 1H response promises some values, but the transfer does > not. But anyway...) but if he thought he opened 1H then the transfer is > not > allowed. > > Surely this cannot be right. If the player does not inappropriately reveal > his intentions to the table, then it does not matter what they were. The > player bid 1H, and that is all that the table knows. If he would transfer > to > hearts with opening values, then it is perfectly OK to let him transfer, > whatever he was thinking (still subject, of course, to the dubiety > expressed > above). > > There is no reason to have to read a player's mind. Or to encourage him to > say that he thought the auction was other than he thought it was. Why > should > that matter? The auction he imagined, whatever it was, did not exist. > > This is another illustration, of course, of the problem of the "meaning > of" > or "information contained in" the IB. It all depends on what the player > thought, and no one else at the table knows what that is. But the bid > should > be allowed or disallowed under several, perhaps misguided, criteria. What > auction the IBer imagined should not, and cannot, be one of them. > +=+ We need to be accurate about this. The substituted call does need to exclude any values/lack of values that the IB excludes. For the Director it does matter what the player thought he was doing when he made the IB. I feel sure I must have made the point in whatever I wrote previously. It has been uppermost in my mind following a lengthy exchange with Max Bavin. The variety of situations is extensive and the Director has to decide what he needs to (or whether he needs to) find out in each circumstance. Method for the Director is a matter for seminars. If the 1H was made as an opening bid then the 2D must by agreement have opening values. As Stefanie says, this will not be a normal partnership understanding in a normal auction, but of course it cannot be ruled out that such might be the agreement. The philosophical question currently intriguing me is whether, subject to regulation under Law 40B3 and later judgement under Law 27D, a partnership may have a prior agreement that any call* replacing an insufficient bid conveys the same values as the IB, and whether this can be extended to information about suit lengths also. The consequent problem is how the partner will/should interpret the IB in diagnosing its values etc,. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [*or any call other than Pass?] From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 7 15:16:19 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 09:16:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] L27 In-Reply-To: <47D0B5E0.5020600@nhcc.net> References: <47D0B5E0.5020600@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Mar 6, 2008, at 10:26 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > Sorry, I'm about to be away for a few days and in a bit of a rush, but > I'm astounded by comments about the new new L27. I think one of the > great advantages of the revision is that there is no need > whatsoever for > the TD to find out what the IBer had in mind. The TD only needs to > consider the union of all reasonable possibilities. > > The new text is, in part: >> ... the same meaning* as, or a more >> precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully >> contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) > > Note "possible meanings," plural, and not "intended meaning" or > anything > similar. I don't see anything that allows the TD to limit his > ruling to > only one possible meaning if multiple ones exist. No need for mind > reading at all. Terrific! I don't see anything that requires the TD to limit his ruling to only one possibility, but nor do I see anything that says that the TD must determine "the possible meanings of the IB" without any prior investigation either. The law leaves the determination of "the possible meanings" to the TD; presumably that determination is subject to the same investigation of the facts as any other. The bidder's stated intention will presumably be relevant to that determination, and can be weighed like, and along with, any other evidence. Someone else (I forget who) noted that the determinative piece of evidence may be the IBer's actual hand. > The interesting question to me is what happens if the IBer reveals his > intention. One possibility, by far the simplest, is to say that the > extra information limits "possible meanings" and rule L27B1 only > according to the ones that remain. Another is to rule L27B1 > without the > "extra" information but say the information is UI. That seems to be > what the Laws say, but I fear it would be far too complex in practice, > so I hope the first way will be considered acceptable. I would agree. But if you allow the "possible meanings" to be limited (potentially to the IBer's advantage) if and when the IBer prematurely exposes his intentions prior to the director's arrival, you must offer the same opportunity to the IBer who has properly kept quiet until the director arrives, lest he be disadvantaged by having followed correct procedure. Nothing in L27 stops you from asking, and IMO you should. The parenthetical in L27B1(b), however, makes it clear that you are under no obligation to accept the answer at face value. Weighing the evidence and determining the facts are what directors get paid to do. > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Mar 7 15:23:10 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:23:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Can't find the message I wanted to reply to References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Grattan > If the 1H was made as an opening bid then the 2D must by agreement > have opening values. But why should this be? How can it matter what the 1H bid was "made as"? As long as the IBer does not make his intention known to the table, there is no reason it should be taken into consideration. The other players do not know what it was. And there is the fact that mind-reading is not included in the directors' course, at least here in the EBU. > The philosophical question currently intriguing > me is whether, subject to regulation under Law 40B3 and later judgement > under Law 27D, a partnership may have a prior agreement that any call* > replacing an insufficient bid conveys the same values as the IB, and > whether > this can be extended to information about suit lengths also. I was wondering about something like this, but it seems to go much too far in protecting the offenders. Is there to be noreason at all to have to bother to make sufficient bids? I think that the DSC were truly mistaken in writing that, apparently, we are now permitted to have agreements after *our own* irregularities. > The consequent > problem is how the partner will/should interpret the IB in diagnosing its > values etc,. Well, yes. This seems to be the big problem with the whole scheme. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Mar 7 15:25:00 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:25:00 +0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47D1503C.7080100@NTLworld.com> [Stefanie Rohan] The EBU's solution of asking only when it may affect your action is absurd. [Richard Hills] Absurd? No, very logical, as it eliminates any 2007 Law 73F rulings for deceptive questions when holding balanced yarboroughs. In my opinion it is rather the EBU's failure to have a pre-Alert policy which is absurd. If one knew in advance the unusual gadgets the opponents frequently used, the need to ask any questions in the auction would be much reduced. [Nige1] I agree with Stefanie that the EBU policy is absurd and maybe illegal. It makes regular unauthorised information inevitable. Richard knows that if you *always* or *never* ask, then you reduce unauthorised information. Perhaps, he is winding us up again :) The EBU does endorse pre-alerting, however. There is a *pre-alert* section on the front of the EBU system card for "aspects of system which opponents should note". The EBU tells us to draw opponents' attention to such matters before starting play. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 7 15:27:57 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 09:27:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] new L27 In-Reply-To: <47D104FD.2000101@ulb.ac.be> References: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <200803051306.AA12739@geller204.nifty.com> <47D104FD.2000101@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <0F678E4E-C4DC-4D82-AA5B-CDFAA168021E@starpower.net> On Mar 7, 2008, at 4:03 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Steve Wright a ?crit : > >> My gut feeling for how this would work is to do the following: >> >> Taking the example 1H (P) 1H >> >> 1] Take the player away from the table and determine the intent. The >> player tells me that "I though partner had passed". So I now know >> that >> was intended to be a 1H opening bid. >> >> 2] Ask the player if they have any bids that show a 4-card heart suit >> and an opening bid when partner opens 1H. They reply that a 2NT >> response >> and a splinter bid. (I could have asked what would you have bid >> had you >> seen your partner's 1H bid). >> >> 3] Determine that, in my opinion, both 2NT and a splinter are a more >> precise meaning and thus acceptable. > > AG : ISTM this test will fail : there are hands that would raise to > 2NT, > but not open 1H. > Most notably hands with 4 cards in Hearts, but within the range for > their 1NT opening. When we first saw the 2007 version of L27 I raised the question of whether the "information" (now "meaning") which needed to be "incorporated" (now "fully contained") in order to satisfy the criterion in L27C1 (now L27B1(b)) should or should not be interpreted as including any potential negative inferences. This has yet to be addressed, and AFAICT remains an open question. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Mar 7 15:38:46 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:38:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47D10DC3.8040209@ulb.ac.be> References: <47D10DC3.8040209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47D15376.1040902@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] I'd prefer "random asking", like there is "random timing", and of course tell the opponents you practice it, so they aren't fooled. If you wonder whether there is such a thing as random asking, try this : when they first make an alerted call in the suit of the first card you picked on the previous deal, you ask. (on the previous deal, to avoid UI that you aren't void in a suit when you later appear to have randomly asked) Change this to the first alerted call in NT when this card was a five (for example). [Nige1] This suggestion has been debunked recently. In a nutshell -- - You *must* ask when you need to know (unless you are a masochist). - Hence when you don't ask, the UI is that you don't need to know. Alain algorithm needs only a small modification to work well "Ask unless the first card you pick up is a hippogriff" From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 7 15:47:04 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 09:47:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd In-Reply-To: <47D10DC3.8040209@ulb.ac.be> References: <47D10DC3.8040209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6B1AE3E7-FA9C-4D27-B75B-BC603933D8C1@starpower.net> On Mar 7, 2008, at 4:41 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I'd prefer "random asking", like there is "random timing", and of > course > tell the opponents you practice it, so they aren't fooled. > If you wonder whether there is such a thing as random asking, try > this : > when they first make an alerted call in the suit of the first card you > picked on the previous deal, you ask. > (on the previous deal, to avoid UI that you aren't void in a suit when > you later appear to have randomly asked) > Change this to the first alerted call in NT when this card was a five > (for example). Doesn't this (or any such) scheme fall apart the first time your randomizing algorithm tells you not to ask when you genuinely need to know the answer? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Mar 7 15:58:40 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:58:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 + Law 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <027601c88063$bb3b4340$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Bob Frick: > >>This law seems to go out of its way to be friendly to the >>offending side (while still trying to maintain equity for the >>nonoffending side). I think it is going to be great for the game >>of bridge and I wish there could be more laws like it. The harsh >>laws make bridge less attractive to players. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, the 2007 Introduction notes that "There are fewer automatic > penalties". It seems a guiding principle has been to strive to > obtain a bridge result at the table. > I don't know why this should be a good thing. Automatic penalties are easy for directors to distribute and for players to understand. The offending side have no excuses; the game is defined by rules, and it is not asking too much for those who play it to do so according to those rules. Especially when we are talking about things that are completely avoidable -- eg revokes and insufficient bids. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Mar 7 16:17:06 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:17:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] Pastures new In-Reply-To: <026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred> <026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47D15C72.4080903@NTLworld.com> [Stefanie Rowan] I was wondering about something like this, but it seems to go much too far in protecting the offenders. Is there to be no reason at all to have to bother to make sufficient bids? I think that the DSC were truly mistaken in writing that, apparently, we are now permitted to have agreements after *our own* irregularities. [Nige1] Grattan's "green pastures" posting heralds the exciting challenges that the new legal trends open. It will be fascinating for secretary birds to devise optimal conventions to take advantage of infractions by themselves and opponents :) More directors will have to be employed to cater for the increase in "careless" infractions :) As with other important matters, the WBFLC devolve this responsibility to local legislators. The new law-book permits a local regulating authority to restrict or to outlaw such agreements. In practice, unless such exploits are prevented, bidding and play (as we used to know them) will become less important. As a result, Bridge may lose some of its current players :( but it will benefit from an influx of new enthusiasts who currently enjoy "Diplomacy" "Liar dice" and "Cheat" :) From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Mar 7 16:44:11 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:44:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Burns investigates. In-Reply-To: <000201c87f92$cef7fad0$78d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: ton: We probably can go on for years with examples but I agree that we should go on for at least some weeks trying to understand what subtle move has been made to let L27 work. I agree with the answer on the first 3 examples but what with 4) below? Grattan says: 'he is allowed if 2NT means exactly the same as 1NT.' This is only partly true, he is also allowed if 2NT is contained in (is more precise than) 1NT. 2NT 15 -17 with a spade guard in my opinion fulfils this requirement. So yes the auction continues normally. Grattan says: 'South is allowed to use any methods that are available to him if North bids 2NT over 2 [4] West opens 2S; North bids 1NT. He did this because he did not see the opening bid. Luckily for him, he plays a strong no trump and 2NT over 2S also shows a strong no trump, so this seems to be a 271(a) case. But is North allowed to bid 2NT without a spade guard? If so, is South allowed to know that North might have done this, and to act accordingly? Are North-South permitted to have methods in this position whereby South can ask North for a spade guard? +=+ He may bid 2NT if it means exactly the same as the 1NT. South is allowed to know what the bid means (shows and excludes). South is allowed to use any methods that are available to him if North bids 2NT over 2S without the IB. Subject to regulation (see Law 40B3) the partnership can have agreements changing their responses following an irregularity. The Director may have to judge whether they have reached a contract they could not normally have reached. Indeed, in all of these cases the reserve powers in Law 27D are available. +=+ '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' Consideration: Under 27B1(b) the Director is concerned there shall be no UI, that the meaning (the information from) the replacement call is wholly contained within the meaning of the IB. The footnote draws attention to the interpretation of 'meaning' which covers both what is shown and what is excluded. I would wish to explore the possibility of standing partnership agreements, subject to regulation, that following the IB the normal values attributable to a substituted action are changed to match the values of the IB where these are apparent. (I am not sure about 'apparent'; the word I want is not in my mind for the moment - any ideas?). Could the principle apply to suit length also? 27D if this enabled the offending side to reach a contract not normally to be reached. ............................................................................ ........................... I say again this is all personal opinion; I shall expect dissent. No doubt case law will develop. I am mildly interested that there has been no reaction to the objective expressed as a matter of law in the final sentence of 27D. I personally consider Law 10C1 important in relation to this law and to 27B3 in particular. It may be difficult, nay - it will be difficult, to achieve consistency and to teach TDs the application of this law. But who would not wish everyone the joys of fresh pastures green. I mean, why would you play bridge if there were no such conceits to explore? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Mar 7 16:44:11 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:44:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Burns investigates. In-Reply-To: <000201c87f92$cef7fad0$78d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: ton: We probably can go on for years with examples but I agree that we should go on for at least some weeks trying to understand what subtle move has been made to let L27 work. I agree with the answer on the first 3 examples but what with 4) below? Grattan says: 'he is allowed if 2NT means exactly the same as 1NT.' This is only partly true, he is also allowed if 2NT is contained in (is more precise than) 1NT. 2NT 15 -17 with a spade guard in my opinion fulfils this requirement. So yes the auction continues normally. Grattan says: 'South is allowed to use any methods that are available to him if North bids 2NT over 2 [4] West opens 2S; North bids 1NT. He did this because he did not see the opening bid. Luckily for him, he plays a strong no trump and 2NT over 2S also shows a strong no trump, so this seems to be a 271(a) case. But is North allowed to bid 2NT without a spade guard? If so, is South allowed to know that North might have done this, and to act accordingly? Are North-South permitted to have methods in this position whereby South can ask North for a spade guard? +=+ He may bid 2NT if it means exactly the same as the 1NT. South is allowed to know what the bid means (shows and excludes). South is allowed to use any methods that are available to him if North bids 2NT over 2S without the IB. Subject to regulation (see Law 40B3) the partnership can have agreements changing their responses following an irregularity. The Director may have to judge whether they have reached a contract they could not normally have reached. Indeed, in all of these cases the reserve powers in Law 27D are available. +=+ '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' Consideration: Under 27B1(b) the Director is concerned there shall be no UI, that the meaning (the information from) the replacement call is wholly contained within the meaning of the IB. The footnote draws attention to the interpretation of 'meaning' which covers both what is shown and what is excluded. I would wish to explore the possibility of standing partnership agreements, subject to regulation, that following the IB the normal values attributable to a substituted action are changed to match the values of the IB where these are apparent. (I am not sure about 'apparent'; the word I want is not in my mind for the moment - any ideas?). Could the principle apply to suit length also? 27D if this enabled the offending side to reach a contract not normally to be reached. ............................................................................ ........................... I say again this is all personal opinion; I shall expect dissent. No doubt case law will develop. I am mildly interested that there has been no reaction to the objective expressed as a matter of law in the final sentence of 27D. I personally consider Law 10C1 important in relation to this law and to 27B3 in particular. It may be difficult, nay - it will be difficult, to achieve consistency and to teach TDs the application of this law. But who would not wish everyone the joys of fresh pastures green. I mean, why would you play bridge if there were no such conceits to explore? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 7 16:49:37 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:49:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh my Gourd In-Reply-To: <6B1AE3E7-FA9C-4D27-B75B-BC603933D8C1@starpower.net> References: <47D10DC3.8040209@ulb.ac.be> <6B1AE3E7-FA9C-4D27-B75B-BC603933D8C1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47D16411.1070107@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Mar 7, 2008, at 4:41 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> I'd prefer "random asking", like there is "random timing", and of >> course >> tell the opponents you practice it, so they aren't fooled. >> If you wonder whether there is such a thing as random asking, try >> this : >> when they first make an alerted call in the suit of the first card you >> picked on the previous deal, you ask. >> (on the previous deal, to avoid UI that you aren't void in a suit when >> you later appear to have randomly asked) >> Change this to the first alerted call in NT when this card was a five >> (for example). >> > > Doesn't this (or any such) scheme fall apart the first time your > randomizing algorithm tells you not to ask when you genuinely need to > know the answer? > > Not really. In that case you ask, of course. It works like random timing : not by suppressing (the microscopic amount of) UI that you don't want to know, but by overwhelming (the substantial amount of) UI that you want to know with nonsignificant noise. IMNSHO that's about 90% of the job done. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 7 16:56:49 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:56:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 + Law 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <027601c88063$bb3b4340$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <027601c88063$bb3b4340$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47D165C1.8030101@ulb.ac.be> Stefanie Rohan a ?crit : > Automatic penalties are easy for directors to distribute and for players to understand. The offending > side have no excuses; the game is defined by rules, and it is not asking too > much for those who play it to do so according to those rules. Especially > when we are talking about things that are completely avoidable -- eg revokes > and insufficient bids. > AG : I'd say that's a TD's view. The players' view would be more like : "Why do you first tell us you're there to restore equity, not to chastise us, then do the contrary and by the same time unbalance the results ?" Compare with another competitive mind sport : Duplicate Scrabble. Some errors net you a zero score : playing a word that doesn't exist, or writing after the time limit, for example. Siome (completely avoidable) errors net you a very small penalty, usually without consequence : like miscounting your score, or forgetting to mention that you use the blank chip. My first contact with D.S. wath in a club where you got 0 when you miscounted. I nearly quitted the game. Best regards Alain From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Mar 7 17:04:17 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:04:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pastures new In-Reply-To: <47D15C72.4080903@NTLworld.com> References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred> <026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47D15C72.4080903@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0803070804uf4e87few17d169e4ee6cf9d4@mail.gmail.com> > [Nige1] > It will be fascinating for secretary birds to devise optimal conventions > to take advantage of infractions by themselves and opponents :) I know that this is a minor point, but it bugs the shit out of me (particularly since you make the same claim so very very often) Mollo's Secretary Bird was not a system designer. The Secretary Bird knows the laws inside and out. He is able to pounce on players who commit minor infractions at the table. Most of all, the Secretary Bird loves to demonstrate his vast knowledge of proceedure and protocol. However, I can't recall any examples where the Secretary Bird devised a new bidding convention. I know that you are continually victimized by all sorts of evil people. I can't imagine what it must be like going through life in such a constant state of paranoia, so I'm happy to grant you some slack. All that I ask is that you refrain from these types of obvious mistakes in nomenclature. -- 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 Fri Mar 7 17:27:20 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:27:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] Lucky Grand Message-ID: <47D16CE8.3060401@NTLworld.com> S:8642 H:A53 D:A53 C:753 S:AK9753 H:42 D:42 C:8642 Here is the kind of coup that the new laws encourage cunning secretary birds to try, seemingly without any risk whatsoever :) Losing to a team of beginners, a secretary bird bids an optimistic 7S on the second last board. Declarer has "carelessly" arranged his clubs in with his spades, so he ruffs the opening club lead and uses dummy's red aces to ruff 2 more clubs which fortunately break 3-3. When he draws trumps in 2 rounds, he "discovers" his serendipitous sorting error, giving him pause for thought. Eventually, he works out that his clubs are now good so he cashes them, discarding dummy's 4 red losers. Dummy's 2 remaining trumps take care of the last 2 tricks :) Later, after comparing scores with team-mates, the puzzled beginners report their concern to the tournament director :( From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 7 17:52:44 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:52:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Lucky Grand In-Reply-To: <47D16CE8.3060401@NTLworld.com> References: <47D16CE8.3060401@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47D172DC.4090003@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > S:8642 > H:A53 > D:A53 > C:753 > > S:AK9753 > H:42 > D:42 > C:8642 > > Here is the kind of coup that the new laws encourage cunning secretary > birds to try, seemingly without any risk whatsoever :) Losing to a team > of beginners, a secretary bird bids an optimistic 7S on the second last > board. Declarer has "carelessly" arranged his clubs in with his spades, > so he ruffs the opening club lead and uses dummy's red aces to ruff 2 > more clubs which fortunately break 3-3. When he draws trumps in 2 > rounds, he "discovers" his serendipitous sorting error, giving him pause > for thought. Eventually, he works out that his clubs are now good so he > cashes them, discarding dummy's 4 red losers. Dummy's 2 remaining trumps > take care of the last 2 tricks :) > > Later, after comparing scores with team-mates, the puzzled beginners > report their concern to the tournament director :( > > I make the risk of his minor error going unnoticed about 0.1 %, and the risk of the TD penalizing him beyond his adjusted score for violating about half a dozen items of law, and writing to the authorities to ensure there will be no second time, about 94 %, so I wouldn't call this "without risk whatsoever", or do you intend to prove something I didn't understand ? (the first item being, of course, that he should have called the TD upon discovering there were two S8's, two S6's, two S4's and two S2's in the deal) As has been said several umpteennesses of times, laws aren't there for chastising crooks. Expulsion is. Laws are for handling honest errors. Best regards Alain From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Mar 7 18:00:23 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:00:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Pastures new In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0803070804uf4e87few17d169e4ee6cf9d4@mail.gmail.com> References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred> <026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47D15C72.4080903@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0803070804uf4e87few17d169e4ee6cf9d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47D174A7.6080805@NTLworld.com> [Richard Willey] I know that this is a minor point, but it bugs the shit out of me (particularly since you make the same claim so very very often) Mollo's Secretary Bird was not a system designer. The Secretary Bird knows the laws inside and out. He is able to pounce on players who commit minor infractions at the table. Most of all, the Secretary Bird loves to demonstrate his vast knowledge of proceedure and protocol. However, I can't recall any examples where the Secretary Bird devised a new bidding convention. I know that you are continually victimized by all sorts of evil people. I can't imagine what it must be like going through life in such a constant state of paranoia, so I'm happy to grant you some slack. All that I ask is that you refrain from these types of obvious mistakes in nomenclature. [Nige1] Please stop patronising and insulting me Richard. You don't know me. Your slights are mistaken, In particular, you are wrong that I'm victimised. Again I repeat: I criticise legal trends but I don't complain about players or directors. My analogy seems germane. The secretary bird contrives to exploit his intimate knowledge of legal arcana to his advantage, thus annoying the rest of the menagerie. Finally, Richard, I hope that you regain control of your bowels soon, literally/metaphorically. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Mar 7 18:04:00 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:04:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lucky Grand In-Reply-To: <47D16CE8.3060401@NTLworld.com> References: <47D16CE8.3060401@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000c01c88075$3d90fc20$b8b2f460$@com> [NG] S:8642 H:A53 D:A53 C:753 S:AK9753 H:42 D:42 C:8642 Later, after comparing scores with team-mates, the puzzled beginners report their concern to the tournament director [DALB] "And what", the tournament director will ask them, "would South's shape have been had he sorted his hand correctly?" David Burn London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Mar 7 18:16:39 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:16:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Lucky Grand In-Reply-To: <000c01c88075$3d90fc20$b8b2f460$@com> References: <47D16CE8.3060401@NTLworld.com> <000c01c88075$3d90fc20$b8b2f460$@com> Message-ID: <47D17877.8090404@NTLworld.com> David Burn wrote: S:8642 H:A53 D:A53 C:753 S:AK753 H:42 D:42 C:8642 [David Burn] "And what", the tournament director will ask them, "would South's shape have been had he sorted his hand correctly?" [Nige1] Good point David! Sorry! Hand corrected above. From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Mar 7 18:30:29 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 12:30:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Pastures new In-Reply-To: <47D174A7.6080805@NTLworld.com> References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred> <026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47D15C72.4080903@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0803070804uf4e87few17d169e4ee6cf9d4@mail.gmail.com> <47D174A7.6080805@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0803070930o61108bffh2ef38fd04441dee0@mail.gmail.com> > In particular, you are wrong that I'm victimised. Again I repeat: I > criticise legal trends but I don't complain about players or directors. Nigel... Do you want me to start dredging up those posts/emails from years gone by where you complained about all those matches you were losing because your expert competition was violating the Rule of 18 in 3rd seat while your team followed the rules into noble defeat? > My analogy seems germane. The secretary bird contrives to exploit his > intimate knowledge of legal arcana to his advantage, thus annoying the > rest of the menagerie. Take a close look at the stories involving the Secretary Bird. Half the time the Secretary Bird isn't a principle in the actual events. He simply inserts himself into the proceedings as a way to show off. There are some cases where the Secretary Bird is a direct participant. On these occasions he most certainly does use his knowledge of the Laws to his best advantage. You constantly claim that this annoys the rest of the menagerie... Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. I consider this part and parcel of any game of skill. Moreover, this is a legal part of the game. You seem to view this as some kind of violation of the rules. -- 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 daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Mar 7 18:30:31 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:30:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Pastures new References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie><008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred><026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie><47D15C72.4080903@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0803070804uf4e87few17d169e4ee6cf9d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <035501c88078$f1a71930$0100a8c0@stefanie> >> [Nige1] > >> It will be fascinating for secretary birds to devise optimal conventions >> to take advantage of infractions by themselves and opponents :) > Richard Willey > I know that this is a minor point, but it bugs the shit out of me > (particularly since you make the same claim so very very often) > > Mollo's Secretary Bird was not a system designer. [Snip] > All that I ask is that you refrain from these types of obvious > mistakes in nomenclature. A secretary bird is a real, existing creature, so I do not think that it is possible for Victor Mollo to have a copyright on it. I think that everyone knows what Nigel means when he uses this particular phrase as shorthand, and I don't know why one might think he would refrain from using it because another person doesn't like it. I think it is particularly odd to pounce on this sort of thing and write of paranoia when it was Grattan himself who brought up the possible legality of having agreements after your own insufficient bids, and L40B3 seems to suggest that it is indeed legal. I cannot imagine how a thinking person could be other than terrified of this possibility. It seems as if the 2007 Laws represent a complete change in philosophy. There used to be a general understanding that if you committed an infraction, particularly one so basic as getting the actual mechanics of the game wrong, you were likely to suffer as a result. Now following the most fundamental rules of the game seems to be optional. Even if one argues that a deterrent effect is not needed (I would disagree), it is apparently no longer considered important to even pay attention. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Mar 7 20:10:26 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:10:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] Pastures new In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0803070930o61108bffh2ef38fd04441dee0@mail.gmail.com> References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred> <026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47D15C72.4080903@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0803070804uf4e87few17d169e4ee6cf9d4@mail.gmail.com> <47D174A7.6080805@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0803070930o61108bffh2ef38fd04441dee0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47D19322.60806@NTLworld.com> [nige1] In particular, you are wrong that I'm victimised. Again I repeat: I criticise legal trends but I don't complain about players or directors. [richard willey] Nigel... Do you want me to start dredging up those posts/emails from years gone by where you complained about all those matches you were losing because your expert competition was violating the Rule of 18 in 3rd seat while your team followed the rules into noble defeat? [nige2] My complaint was not about *players*. it was about woolly *rules* that I wrote to BLML and the EBU to request elucidation. David Stevenson and David Burn could not agree over their interpretation although the latter had the English Language on his side :) OK. I admit that, in the meantime, my team followed the rules and lost matches as a result :( I did concede, however, that we may have been masochists to comply with rules that few knew, fewer understood, almost nobody obeyed, and were never enforced :) {nige1] My analogy seems germane. The secretary bird contrives to exploit his intimate knowledge of legal arcana to his advantage, thus annoying the rest of the menagerie. [richard willey] Take a close look at the stories involving the Secretary Bird. Half the time the Secretary Bird isn't a principle in the actual events. He simply inserts himself into the proceedings as a way to show off. There are some cases where the Secretary Bird is a direct participant. On these occasions he most certainly does use his knowledge of the Laws to his best advantage. You constantly claim that this annoys the rest of the menagerie... Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. I consider this part and parcel of any game of skill. Moreover, this is a legal part of the game. You seem to view this as some kind of violation of the rules. [nige2] Of course I agree with Richard that it isn't a violation of the rules to abide by them. A theme of Kaplan's Bridge World editorials was that you cannot blame a secretary bird for exploiting a legal loop-hole. IMO, Kaplan was correct. The law makers are at fault for devising such daft rules. I am happy to concede a point to Richard: I *do* claim that there are rules that reward infraction. Not all infractions get reported or attract adverse rulings. Under "Equity" law, law-breakers show a healthy profit because, if they are ever ruled against, they can now expect restoration of the status quo. Manifestly this has little deterrent effect. A slight digression: In the world at large, there will always be people who exceed speed limits, submit inaccurate tax returns and break marriage vows. Such law-breakers are mainly guilty of carelessness or rationalisation. Few regard themselves as cheats or criminals. Victor Mollo cogently argued that there are analogues in the microcosm of bridge. See the "Rule of 18" example above. I hesitate to impugn their ethics, in view of the furious reaction to previous posts, but I dare say that this kind of thing may happen even among Americans :( We can't change human nature and we can't stop all legal infractions :( Nevertheless, I argue that the law itself should not go out of its way to facilitate and encourage law-breaking :) From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 7 20:23:37 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:23:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 27 + Law 13 In-Reply-To: <027601c88063$bb3b4340$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <027601c88063$bb3b4340$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: > I don't know why this should be a good thing. Automatic penalties are > easy > for directors to distribute and for players to understand. The offending > side have no excuses; the game is defined by rules, and it is not asking > too > much for those who play it to do so according to those rules. Especially > when we are talking about things that are completely avoidable -- eg > revokes > and insufficient bids. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England I will try to explain my point about enjoyment. I feel sick when I make a stupid mistake like a revoke and I am punished for it. Of course. But I also do not like it when the opponents make a stupid mistake and they are punished for it beyond what is needed to protect me. (I have passed over the auction 2NT - P - 2H (transfer) just so the director will not be called. My partner has allowed the opponent to correct an error without penalty in a tournament for significant prizes, saying "I don't want to win that way." We always tell our opponents when they are about to make an opening lead out of turn. Etc.) So, adding the two up (big minus for the person being punished and small plus for the side benefitting), players will enjoy the game more when the rules are less punitive. I think the rules should be designed mostly to maximize enjoyment of the players, not the directors. But as director, I feel guilty about handing out the revoke penalty, because it is usually too punitive. Bob From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Fri Mar 7 22:32:05 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:32:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Inequity In-Reply-To: References: <027601c88063$bb3b4340$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47D1B455.70004@NTLworld.com> [Robert Frick] I will try to explain my point about enjoyment. I feel sick when I make a stupid mistake like a revoke and I am punished for it. Of course. But I also do not like it when the opponents make a stupid mistake and they are punished for it beyond what is needed to protect me. (I have passed over the auction 2NT - P - 2H (transfer) just so the director will not be called. My partner has allowed the opponent to correct an error without penalty in a tournament for significant prizes, saying "I don't want to win that way." We always tell our opponents when they are about to make an opening lead out of turn. Etc.) So, adding the two up (big minus for the person being punished and small plus for the side benefitting), players will enjoy the game more when the rules are less punitive. I think the rules should be designed mostly to maximize enjoyment of the players, not the directors. But as director, I feel guilty about handing out the revoke penalty, because it is usually too punitive. [nige1] A player at Reading Bridge Club had a chronic problem that resulted in mechanical errors with bidding cards and playing cards (often several at time). Naturally, no player enforced the law against him. Other Reading players (for example Eric Crowhurst and Stuart Maurice) never take advantage of mechanical errors, no matter by whom. In the general case, I suppose it's OK to ignore an infraction, but it's probably better to draw attention to it and call the director. At least you may deter opponents from making a habit of it :) You *always* have the legal option of asking the director to *waive* the penalty, so the objection to a fair penalties is hard to understand. Please consider this simple example ... Suppose a careless pair C and a fastidious pair F are involved in 5 game contracts (not necessarily in one tournament and not necessarily against each other). C revokes 5 times but in 4 cases opponents notice and the director restores the status quo. In the remaining case, C makes an otherwise doomed game. F suffer the complementary experience. They notice that their opponents' revoke on 4 of 5 occasions. Hence, in 4 cases the director restores the status quo; but on the 5th, F lose a game through lack of vigilance. I hope that this paradigm demonstrates that, in principle and in practice, so-called "Equity" law must always be inequitable to *both* the law-breaker and his victim. When you consider the potential profit from a successful revoke in an otherwise doomed contract, the old law was generous to the law-breaker and awarded the victim moderate recompense. I'm afraid that the new law appears to be a joke in poor taste :( Manifestly: [1] If not all potentially profitable infractions are reported or attract rulings, then it is inadequate simply to restore the status quo. The law-maker must award substantial *additional* redress, even to approach a fair outcome for the perpetrator and his victim (*real* equity). [2] Also, if the law-maker wants to *deter* *future* carelessness and rationalisation by the law-breaker, then he must prescribe *even more* punishment. [3] Furthermore, if the law-maker wants to encourage the *reporting* of an infraction, he must provide *some* "redress" to the "victim" even when the existence of "damage" is contentious. [4] Finally, procedural and disciplinary penalties are a red herring (IMO). They are potentially libellous, highly resented, and almost never applied to world-class players. I feel that - Bridge-players would like the rules of the game to be as simple and easy to understand as possible, while allowing maximum scope for enjoying the challenge of bidding and play. - Players don't mind seemingly draconian rules, provided that they are comprehensible, fair and applied consistently. Also, unless they themselves habitually commit infractions, they have more sympathy for the victim than for the law-breaker. - Players are put off by complex, sophisticated, arcane, and overly subjective rules that, in principle, cannot be equitable (dictionary sense) and cannot be consistently applied. Apologies if all this is completely obvious. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Mar 8 19:29:51 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 10:29:51 -0800 Subject: [blml] Can't find the message I wanted to reply to In-Reply-To: <008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred> References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080308102031.01d4f1c8@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 03:17 AM 7/03/2008, you wrote: >Grattan Endicott[following address discontinued: >grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >***************************** >" One of the few remaining freedoms >we have is the blank page. No one >can prescribe how we should fill it." > [James Kelman 1946- ] Grattan: >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >+=+ We need to be accurate about this. The substituted call does need >to exclude any values/lack of values that the IB excludes. For the Director >it does matter what the player thought he was doing when he made the IB. >I feel sure I must have made the point in whatever I wrote previously. It >has been uppermost in my mind following a lengthy exchange with Max >Bavin. The variety of situations is extensive and the Director has to decide >what he needs to (or whether he needs to) find out in each circumstance. >Method for the Director is a matter for seminars. Easy for you to say. But who makes sure the disseminator is wise in the Law? We have heard that Laurie Kelso in Australia drew the short straw and had to explain the old new L27 at a recent Australian seminar. He may or may not have had any special knowledge other than his own reading of the Lawbook. I know that about 10 years ago I had to give a seminar on the then changes, and I had only BLML chit chat to go on. So, given that the most useful bit of the 1997 laws was the footnote to L75, now incorporated in Law, can we still expect the promised Appenidix of examples, or should I be copying and studying all the examples which are thrown up on BLML? (Not too hopefully) Tony (Sydney) From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Mar 8 01:44:37 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 00:44:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Thought Police References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie><008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080308102031.01d4f1c8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <048d01c880b5$96939770$0100a8c0@stefanie> Grattan: >> For the Director >>it does matter what the player thought he was doing when he made the IB. >>I feel sure I must have made the point in whatever I wrote previously. Yes. I continue not to understand why a private mental process should be a matter of law. Why not let the player choose his intention according to whether he can then get a penalty-free correction? Should two players in the exact same situation, playing the same system and with the same auction including the insufficient bid, get different rulings because they each had a different mistaken impression of what the auction had been? If this is the law, then the law is an ass. >>It >>has been uppermost in my mind following a lengthy exchange with Max >>Bavin. The variety of situations is extensive and the Director has to >>decide >>what he needs to (or whether he needs to) find out in each circumstance. >>Method for the Director is a matter for seminars. Most club directors do not attend seminars. Volunteer playing directors often have no training at all. Things like interpretations and clarifications of bridge law really do not filter down to the masses, at least in the EBU. Stefanie Rohan London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Mar 8 01:47:42 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 00:47:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] Burns investigates. References: <000201c87f92$cef7fad0$78d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000d01c880b6$04c32440$0e496cc0$@com> [TK] We probably can go on for years with examples [DALB] Well, not years. But I would suggest that there may be some merit in this approach: When a major revision of a Law is to take place, the DSC should physically play out several scenarios (some plausible, some fantastical) under the proposed new Law. The least experienced Tournament Director on the DSC should come to an "actual" table where an actual insufficient bid has been made, and - armed only with the proposed new Law as written - attempt to resolve the situation. In that way, the difficulties with the new Law might become more immediately apparent than they were when, for example, the infamous 25(B) was launched upon an unsuspecting world. Maybe this already happens - I don't know how the DSC goes about its business. But somehow, I doubt that it or anything like it happens at all. Not that it matters very much. For the most part, players try not to bid out of turn or to make insufficient bids, and nobody except Nigel Guthrie's opponents actually tries to cheat. And of course, there will be (to a very good approximation) no problems at the highest levels of the game, because screens will eliminate most of the problems that might otherwise occur. But bridge clubs can't afford screens for every duplicate, nor would their members want them. More to the point, they can't afford lack of clarity in the Laws, because that may discourage people from playing the game at all. David Burn London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Mar 8 02:16:02 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:16:02 +0000 Subject: [blml] Burns investigates. In-Reply-To: <000d01c880b6$04c32440$0e496cc0$@com> References: <000201c87f92$cef7fad0$78d4403e@Mildred> <000d01c880b6$04c32440$0e496cc0$@com> Message-ID: <47D1E8D2.40803@NTLworld.com> [David Burn] When a major revision of a Law is to take place, the DSC should physically play out several scenarios (some plausible, some fantastical) under the proposed new Law. The least experienced Tournament Director on the DSC should come to an "actual" table where an actual insufficient bid has been made, and - armed only with the proposed new Law as written - attempt to resolve the situation. In that way, the difficulties with the new Law might become more immediately apparent than they were when, for example, the infamous 25(B) was launched upon an unsuspecting world. Maybe this already happens - I don't know how the DSC goes about its business. But somehow, I doubt that it or anything like it happens at all. Not that it matters very much. For the most part, players try not to bid out of turn or to make insufficient bids, and nobody except Nigel Guthrie's opponents actually tries to cheat. And of course, there will be (to a very good approximation) no problems at the highest levels of the game, because screens will eliminate most of the problems that might otherwise occur. But bridge clubs can't afford screens for every duplicate, nor would their members want them. More to the point, they can't afford lack of clarity in the Laws, because that may discourage people from playing the game at all. [Nigel] I agree with what David says -- except of course -- - I don't accuse my opponents of cheating :) although - I suspect that some players, somewhere, do try :( Cheating at bridge is quite hard. How can you deliberately break a law, - that no ordinary player can *understand*, when - top legal officials *disagree* over its interpretation, and anyway - lawmakers say their *intention* is different from what they wrote. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sat Mar 8 02:52:27 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:52:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] Can't find the message I wanted to reply to In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080308102031.01d4f1c8@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred> <6.1.0.6.2.20080308102031.01d4f1c8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <47D1F15B.2080300@NTLworld.com> [Grattan Endicott]: +=+ We need to be accurate about this. The substituted call does need to exclude any values/lack of values that the IB excludes. For the Director it does matter what the player thought he was doing when he made the IB. I feel sure I must have made the point in whatever I wrote previously. It has been uppermost in my mind following a lengthy exchange with Max Bavin. The variety of situations is extensive and the Director has to decide what he needs to (or whether he needs to) find out in each circumstance. Method for the Director is a matter for seminars. [Tony Musgrove] Easy for you to say. But who makes sure the disseminator is wise in the Law? We have heard that Laurie Kelso in Australia drew the short straw and had to explain the old new L27 at a recent Australian seminar. He may or may not have had any special knowledge other than his own reading of the Lawbook. I know that about 10 years ago I had to give a seminar on the then changes, and I had only BLML chit chat to go on. So, given that the most useful bit of the 1997 laws was the footnote to L75, now incorporated in Law, can we still expect the promised Appenidix of examples, or should I be copying and studying all the examples which are thrown up on BLML? (Not too hopefully) [Nige1] Perhaps a more hopeful prospect is authoritative "Case Law". Previously I had the impression that as far as Bridge rules are concerned, there was no such animal. Then, in a recent post, Grattan cheered us up with ... "I say again this is all personal opinion; I shall expect dissent. No doubt case law will develop." From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Mar 8 12:37:10 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 12:37:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Burns investigates. In-Reply-To: <47C4F8DC008278CE@mail-6-de.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-9-nl.tiscali.it) Message-ID: For some reason I lost this message and it flew away before I finished it. Because I consider the issue to be important I repeat it here. I start with the example David gave and the reaction from Grattan. [4] West opens 2S; North bids 1NT. He did this because he did not see the opening bid. Luckily for him, he plays a strong no trump and 2NT over 2S also shows a strong no trump, so this seems to be a 271(a) case. But is North allowed to bid 2NT without a spade guard? If so, is South allowed to know that North might have done this, and to act accordingly? Are North-South permitted to have methods in this position whereby South can ask North for a spade guard? +=+ He may bid 2NT if it means exactly the same as the 1NT. South is allowed to know what the bid means (shows and excludes). South is allowed to use any methods that are available to him if North bids 2NT over 2S without the IB. Subject to regulation (see Law 40B3) the partnership can have agreements changing their responses following an irregularity. The Director may have to judge whether they have reached a contract they could not normally have reached. Indeed, in all of these cases the reserve powers in Law 27D are available. +=+ ton again: Grattan says: 'he is allowed if 2NT means exactly the same as 1NT.' This is only partly true, he is also allowed if 2NT is contained in (is more precise than) 1NT. 2NT 15 -17 with a spade guard in my opinion fulfils this requirement. So yes the auction continues normally. Grattan says: 'South is allowed to use any methods that are available to him if North bids 2NT over 2S without the IB. This in my opinion is a wrong statement. South is allowed to use anything he wants to use, he may use the information that North might not have a spade control. I would appreciate either confirmation or denial, since we have passed the moment of creating even more confusion on this subject. ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Mar 8 12:37:10 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 12:37:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Burns investigates. In-Reply-To: <47C4F8DC008278CE@mail-6-de.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-9-nl.tiscali.it) Message-ID: For some reason I lost this message and it flew away before I finished it. Because I consider the issue to be important I repeat it here. I start with the example David gave and the reaction from Grattan. [4] West opens 2S; North bids 1NT. He did this because he did not see the opening bid. Luckily for him, he plays a strong no trump and 2NT over 2S also shows a strong no trump, so this seems to be a 271(a) case. But is North allowed to bid 2NT without a spade guard? If so, is South allowed to know that North might have done this, and to act accordingly? Are North-South permitted to have methods in this position whereby South can ask North for a spade guard? +=+ He may bid 2NT if it means exactly the same as the 1NT. South is allowed to know what the bid means (shows and excludes). South is allowed to use any methods that are available to him if North bids 2NT over 2S without the IB. Subject to regulation (see Law 40B3) the partnership can have agreements changing their responses following an irregularity. The Director may have to judge whether they have reached a contract they could not normally have reached. Indeed, in all of these cases the reserve powers in Law 27D are available. +=+ ton again: Grattan says: 'he is allowed if 2NT means exactly the same as 1NT.' This is only partly true, he is also allowed if 2NT is contained in (is more precise than) 1NT. 2NT 15 -17 with a spade guard in my opinion fulfils this requirement. So yes the auction continues normally. Grattan says: 'South is allowed to use any methods that are available to him if North bids 2NT over 2S without the IB. This in my opinion is a wrong statement. South is allowed to use anything he wants to use, he may use the information that North might not have a spade control. I would appreciate either confirmation or denial, since we have passed the moment of creating even more confusion on this subject. ton From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Mar 8 13:57:01 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:57:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004e01c88043$8654d5d0$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <004e01c88043$8654d5d0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <47D28D1D.1030308@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> the law-makers). >> >> Will Herman De Wael be translating the Laws into >> Flemish? If so, how does Herman intend to translate >> Law 20F5(a)? >> >> :-) >> A: there's no such thing as a flemish language - only a dutch one. I have not heard how Ton intends to translate this year - last time, a Belgian did it. B: there's no need to translate L20F5 in any manner differently from what it says in English. In any manner = op eender welke manier. It's even a literal translation! > Richard, that's sneaky. Herman's onside at the moment, don't rock the boat > :) John > Why not rock the boat? I'm being silent - doesn't mean I'm on board! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Mar 8 14:01:46 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:01:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] "board" vs. "deal" (opinion poll) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47D12502.7080205@ulb.ac.be> References: <004e01c88043$8654d5d0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <47D12502.7080205@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47D28E3A.3030600@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : >>> the law-makers). >>> >>> Will Herman De Wael be translating the Laws into >>> Flemish? If so, how does Herman intend to translate >>> Law 20F5(a)? >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> > Don't laugh. The laws have been translated in Dutch. Translating them > into Flemish is still to be done, and needed, as Flemish bridge lingo is > different from the Dutch one. For example, "forcing" means "strong > relay" in Flemish, and suit names are always given in the plural form, > even when calling a card from dummy. > That is also true - but it's not a question of language, only of usage. There used to be a problem in the laws which meant that "zonder troef", the literal translation of "without trumps" was not legal in the dutch laws, whereas "sans atout" was. In Belgium, we use the dutch version, in the Netherlands, the french one (yes, we're crazy). That was changed under the 1997 laws (zonder troef being mentioned in a footnote). However, West-Flemish "koeken", a synonym for "ruiten" (diamonds) and more general "pikken" (piques = spades), which are often used at the table, did not make it into the lawbook. The most crazy difference between Belgian and Netherlands usage is the word "binnen". When a dutchman says "het contract is binnen", he means he's made it. When someone from Antwerp says "twee binnen", it's two down. But no Alain, we don't need a flemish translation, much like we don't need a Wallon one. > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 9 10:36:04 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 09:36:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Burn investigates. References: <47C6898B05664818@mail-12-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-12.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <002001c881c9$2255ff50$abd0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" ; "'max Bavin'" Cc: Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Burns investigates. > For some reason I lost this message and it flew away before I finished it. > Because I consider the issue to be important I repeat it here. I start > with > the example David gave and the reaction from Grattan. > > [4] West opens 2S; North bids 1NT. He did this because he did not see the > opening bid. Luckily for him, he plays a strong no trump and 2NT over 2S > also shows a strong no trump, so this seems to be a 271(a) case. But is > North allowed to bid 2NT without a spade guard? If so, is South allowed to > know that North might have done this, and to act accordingly? Are > North-South permitted to have methods in this position whereby South can > ask > North for a spade guard? > +=+ He may bid 2NT if it means exactly the same as the 1NT. > South is allowed to know what the bid means (shows and > excludes). > South is allowed to use any methods that are available to him > if North bids 2NT over 2S without the IB. Subject to > regulation (see Law 40B3) the partnership can have agreements > changing their responses following an irregularity. The > Director > may have to judge whether they have reached a contract they > could not normally have reached. Indeed, in all of these cases > the reserve powers in Law 27D are available. +=+ > > > ton again: > > Grattan says: 'he is allowed if 2NT means exactly the same as 1NT.' This > is > only partly true, he is also allowed if 2NT is contained in (is more > precise > than) 1NT. 2NT 15 -17 with a spade guard in my opinion fulfils this > requirement. So yes the auction continues normally. > > Grattan says: 'South is allowed to use any methods that are available to > him > if North bids 2NT over 2S without the IB. > > This in my opinion is a wrong statement. South is allowed to use anything > he > wants to use, he may use the information that North might not have a spade > control. > > > I would appreciate either confirmation or denial, since we have passed the > moment of creating even more confusion on this subject. > > ton > +=+ I should clarify that what I said did not deny that the 2NT is also allowed if the 2NT is more precise than the 1NT. I am not clear what Ton is saying about the methods that may be used following the correction with 2NT. My belief is that the methods he may use are those which have been previously disclosed. That at least is what I wished to convey. Under 27B1(a) when neither the 1NT nor the 2NT is artificial in the Director's opinion, he may use the information (if it is available to him) that North may not have a Spade guard. He may use a directional enquiry about the presence of a Spade guard if he has that method among his disclosed understandings. It is my opinion that Regulating Authorities would be well advised to prohibit changes by prior agreement of partnership understandings in consequence of an irregularity by the partnership's own side. In previous emails I have referred to the arguable potential of such arrangements. So, Ton, do you think we are in agreement on this? If not, by all means let us clarify matters further through gentle exploration of the subject. ~ Grattan ~ +=+. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 9 10:36:04 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 09:36:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Burn investigates. References: <47C6898B05664818@mail-12-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-12.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <002001c881c9$2255ff50$abd0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" ; "'max Bavin'" Cc: Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Burns investigates. > For some reason I lost this message and it flew away before I finished it. > Because I consider the issue to be important I repeat it here. I start > with > the example David gave and the reaction from Grattan. > > [4] West opens 2S; North bids 1NT. He did this because he did not see the > opening bid. Luckily for him, he plays a strong no trump and 2NT over 2S > also shows a strong no trump, so this seems to be a 271(a) case. But is > North allowed to bid 2NT without a spade guard? If so, is South allowed to > know that North might have done this, and to act accordingly? Are > North-South permitted to have methods in this position whereby South can > ask > North for a spade guard? > +=+ He may bid 2NT if it means exactly the same as the 1NT. > South is allowed to know what the bid means (shows and > excludes). > South is allowed to use any methods that are available to him > if North bids 2NT over 2S without the IB. Subject to > regulation (see Law 40B3) the partnership can have agreements > changing their responses following an irregularity. The > Director > may have to judge whether they have reached a contract they > could not normally have reached. Indeed, in all of these cases > the reserve powers in Law 27D are available. +=+ > > > ton again: > > Grattan says: 'he is allowed if 2NT means exactly the same as 1NT.' This > is > only partly true, he is also allowed if 2NT is contained in (is more > precise > than) 1NT. 2NT 15 -17 with a spade guard in my opinion fulfils this > requirement. So yes the auction continues normally. > > Grattan says: 'South is allowed to use any methods that are available to > him > if North bids 2NT over 2S without the IB. > > This in my opinion is a wrong statement. South is allowed to use anything > he > wants to use, he may use the information that North might not have a spade > control. > > > I would appreciate either confirmation or denial, since we have passed the > moment of creating even more confusion on this subject. > > ton > +=+ I should clarify that what I said did not deny that the 2NT is also allowed if the 2NT is more precise than the 1NT. I am not clear what Ton is saying about the methods that may be used following the correction with 2NT. My belief is that the methods he may use are those which have been previously disclosed. That at least is what I wished to convey. Under 27B1(a) when neither the 1NT nor the 2NT is artificial in the Director's opinion, he may use the information (if it is available to him) that North may not have a Spade guard. He may use a directional enquiry about the presence of a Spade guard if he has that method among his disclosed understandings. It is my opinion that Regulating Authorities would be well advised to prohibit changes by prior agreement of partnership understandings in consequence of an irregularity by the partnership's own side. In previous emails I have referred to the arguable potential of such arrangements. So, Ton, do you think we are in agreement on this? If not, by all means let us clarify matters further through gentle exploration of the subject. ~ Grattan ~ +=+. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 9 11:12:09 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 10:12:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] Precisely Message-ID: <000701c881ce$3b9cb170$d9d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott (added by postmaster@mail-9.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <008d01c881e9$04c82dd0$8ece403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Cc: Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Burns investigates. > Grattan says: 'he is allowed if 2NT means exactly > the same as 1NT.' This is only partly true, he is also > allowed if 2NT is contained in (is more precise > than) 1NT. 2NT 15 -17 with a spade guard in my > opinion fulfils this requirement. So yes the auction > continues normally. > > Grattan says: 'South is allowed to use any methods > that are available to him if North bids 2NT over 2S > without the IB. > > This in my opinion is a wrong statement. South is > allowed to use anything he wants to use, he may use > the information that North might not have a spade > control. > > +=+ To me the link between 'may use the information' and 'use any methods that are available to him' is a little obscure. Yes he may use the information, but the calls he makes will have meanings as previously disclosed by the partnership. Can he make directional asking bids? Well, what has the partnership disclosed about their use? Alternatively how do Laws 40A3 and 40C1 apply? In the example we are looking at a situation where 27B1(a) applies. Whatever the range of his 2NT, say 20-22, information from the IB (for example its 15-17 HCP range) is AI to South. However, if it then appears to the Director that the outcome of the board could well have been different (for example NS are in a contract they might not have been in) without the infraction, see Law 27D. [Let us say that with 6 HCP South passes 2NT and this is a good decision. Without the IB how sure is it the partnership has the methods to be in 2NT?] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Mar 10 08:59:06 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:59:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pastures new In-Reply-To: <47D19322.60806@NTLworld.com> References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred> <026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47D15C72.4080903@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0803070804uf4e87few17d169e4ee6cf9d4@mail.gmail.com> <47D174A7.6080805@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0803070930o61108bffh2ef38fd04441dee0@mail.gmail.com> <47D19322.60806@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On 07/03/2008, Guthrie wrote: > [nige1] > In particular, you are wrong that I'm victimised. Again I repeat: I > criticise legal trends but I don't complain about players or directors. > > [richard willey] > Nigel... Do you want me to start dredging up those posts/emails from > years gone by where you complained about all those matches you were > losing because your expert competition was violating the Rule of 18 in > 3rd seat while your team followed the rules into noble defeat? > > [nige2] > My complaint was not about *players*. it was about woolly *rules* that I > wrote to BLML and the EBU to request elucidation. > > David Stevenson and David Burn could not agree over their interpretation > although the latter had the English Language on his side :) > > OK. I admit that, in the meantime, my team followed the rules and lost > matches as a result :( I did concede, however, that we may have been > masochists to comply with rules that few knew, fewer understood, almost > nobody obeyed, and were never enforced :) > > {nige1] > My analogy seems germane. The secretary bird contrives to exploit his > intimate knowledge of legal arcana to his advantage, thus annoying the > rest of the menagerie. > > [richard willey] > Take a close look at the stories involving the Secretary Bird. Half > the time the Secretary Bird isn't a principle in the actual events. > He simply inserts himself into the proceedings as a way to show off. > There are some cases where the Secretary Bird is a direct participant. > On these occasions he most certainly does use his knowledge of the > Laws to his best advantage. You constantly claim that this annoys the > rest of the menagerie... Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. I > consider this part and parcel of any game of skill. Moreover, this is a > legal part of the game. You seem to view this as some kind of violation > of the rules. > > [nige2] > Of course I agree with Richard that it isn't a violation of the rules to > abide by them. A theme of Kaplan's Bridge World editorials was that you > cannot blame a secretary bird for exploiting a legal loop-hole. IMO, > Kaplan was correct. The law makers are at fault for devising such daft > rules. > > I am happy to concede a point to Richard: I *do* claim that there are > rules that reward infraction. Not all infractions get reported or > attract adverse rulings. Under "Equity" law, law-breakers Nigel, who are these (habitual?) law-breakers you go around hunting all the time. After having played tournament bridge for 30 years I haven't met them at the table. This campaign of yours strongly remind me of Cervantes Don Quixote and chasing windmills. Bridge Laws give us what we need to penalize the real cheats (there's few of them, btw). As a TD, player and AC member I favour laws that as often as possible allow bridge to continue being played - whenever possible. >show a healthy > profit because, if they are ever ruled against, they can now expect > restoration of the status quo. Manifestly this has little deterrent effect. > > A slight digression: In the world at large, there will always be people > who exceed speed limits, submit inaccurate tax returns and break > marriage vows. Such law-breakers are mainly guilty of carelessness or > rationalisation. Few regard themselves as cheats or criminals. > > Victor Mollo cogently argued that there are analogues in the microcosm > of bridge. See the "Rule of 18" example above. I hesitate to impugn > their ethics, in view of the furious reaction to previous posts, but I > dare say that this kind of thing may happen even among Americans :( > As to Mollo's Secretary Bird, he was a real show-off who always needed to show everyone else how much knowledge on laws he had. AFAICR, anytime he imposed laws when playing himself, this was disastrous for him. He was absolutely unable to visualize the bridge-wise outcome of applying the law. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > We can't change human nature and we can't stop all legal infractions :( > Nevertheless, I argue that the law itself should not go out of its way > to facilitate and encourage law-breaking :) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 10 11:46:32 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:46:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Pastures new References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie><008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred><026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie><47D15C72.4080903@NTLworld.com><2da24b8e0803070804uf4e87few17d169e4ee6cf9d4@mail.gmail.com><47D174A7.6080805@NTLworld.com><2da24b8e0803070930o61108bffh2ef38fd04441dee0@mail.gmail.com><47D19322.60806@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <003c01c8829c$857c6410$05d4403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott On 07/03/2008, Guthrie wrote: >> [nige1] >> In particular, you are wrong that I'm victimised. Again >> I repeat: I criticise legal trends but I don't complain about >> players or directors. >> >> (Stefanie Rohan - in an earlier posting): >> I think that the DSC were truly mistaken in writing that, >> apparently, we are now permitted to have agreements >> after *our own* irregularities. >> +=+ This seems to imply that such prior agreements were not permitted by the 1997 laws. How so? I do not believe the DSC has increased the tolerance of the laws in this particular matter. It may even have slightly tightened the law by drawing attention to the possibility of regulation. This has been reinforced by pointing the Regulating Authorities to the question in particular of prior agreements for changes of partnership understandings consequent upon an irregularity committed by the partnership's own side. The trigger for this concern on the part of some was the recently issued Law 27B1(b). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Mar 10 11:55:53 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:55:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] new L27 In-Reply-To: <0F678E4E-C4DC-4D82-AA5B-CDFAA168021E@starpower.net> Message-ID: >> Taking the example 1H (P) 1H ton: It is important to understand that a replacement by 2H makes the auction normal (no further rectification) But it is worth discussing the possibility of other substitutions. Formally spoken when 1H is made with at least 5 hearts a splinter or 2NT is not a more precise call (assuming it may show 4 hearts). The question now is are we going to say no to such a substitution? Discussing this among top TD's in the Netherlands some did not like the idea that the system being played will get such a dominant place when biddng insufficiently (conclusion: players withe the tendency to make insufficient bids frequently should have a system in which calls have no meaning, then the substitution certainly will be more precise) ton >> 1] Take the player away from the table and determine the intent. The >> player tells me that "I though partner had passed". So I now know >> that was intended to be a 1H opening bid. >> >> 2] Ask the player if they have any bids that show a 4-card heart suit >> and an opening bid when partner opens 1H. They reply that a 2NT >> response and a splinter bid. (I could have asked what would you have >> bid had you seen your partner's 1H bid). >> >> 3] Determine that, in my opinion, both 2NT and a splinter are a more >> precise meaning and thus acceptable. > > AG : ISTM this test will fail : there are hands that would raise to > 2NT, but not open 1H. > Most notably hands with 4 cards in Hearts, but within the range for > their 1NT opening. When we first saw the 2007 version of L27 I raised the question of whether the "information" (now "meaning") which needed to be "incorporated" (now "fully contained") in order to satisfy the criterion in L27C1 (now L27B1(b)) should or should not be interpreted as including any potential negative inferences. This has yet to be addressed, and AFAICT remains an open question. 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 wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Mar 10 12:06:39 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:06:39 +1300 Subject: [blml] new L27 In-Reply-To: References: <1JWpYM-2CwM400@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <200803051306.AA12739@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560803100406q260749f5h245d6c2ab4286ecb@mail.gmail.com> On 07/03/2008, Steve Wright wrote: > In message <200803051306.AA12739 at geller204.nifty.com>, Robert Geller > writes > >Could've been better, could've been worse. > > > >The good news (IMO). > > 1. Most of the time we'll be dealing with an IB replaced by the lowest > >sufficient RB in the same denomination, and this will pose no problem for > >directors. as it's what they're useful. > > 2. A replacement call of RDBL is now also included in 27B1b > > > >The bad news (IMO) > > 1. The pernicious concept of "meaning of the IB" has been retained, > >although in a somewhat less toxic form than the original L27C of the > >2007 Laws. > > 2. The mechanics of 27B1b will probably cause trouble for directors and > >players, not to mention RA's. 27B1a is clear to all. But after the director > >explains 27B1b to an IBer at the table, the player will want to know > >("can I call X without penalty"?). How does the player actually do this? > >Does he ask the director in front of his pard? Or is his pard sent away > >from the table with the oppts allowed to listen in? And how (except in the > >most frequent cases, like a negative dbl of 1S after an IB of 1H) will the > >director answer? This will be fraught..... > > > >Oh well, it could've been much worse. > > > >-Bob > > > > > > > > My gut feeling for how this would work is to do the following: > > Taking the example 1H (P) 1H > > 1] Take the player away from the table and determine the intent. The > player tells me that "I though partner had passed". So I now know that > was intended to be a 1H opening bid. > > 2] Ask the player if they have any bids that show a 4-card heart suit > and an opening bid when partner opens 1H. They reply that a 2NT response > and a splinter bid. (I could have asked what would you have bid had you > seen your partner's 1H bid). > > 3] Determine that, in my opinion, both 2NT and a splinter are a more > precise meaning and thus acceptable. > > 4] Tell the player that when we return to the table, I will give you the > option of bidding 2H or the alternative of either a 2NT or a splinter, > but I won't tell the players what those alternatives are. > > 5] Return to the table as say to the other players, "I know what the > insufficient bid meant - you don't". To the offender I would say, "On > the assumption that LHO does not accept your bid, you have the following > options: You may bid 2H or one of the alternative bids that we > discussed. If you do, then the action will continue without any further > penalty. Or, you may pass or bid something else, in which case partner > will be forced to pass throughout." > > 6] "LHO, do you wish to accept or have it corrected to something legal?" > - "Correct it please" > > 7] "Your 1H is now cancelled". I pick the 1H and return it to the > bidding box. "Please bid, however I should warn you that if you don't > bid hearts and become a defender then there will be lead penalties." > > In some circumstances I would mention at point [5] that they can't > double for penalties. Not in this example as we would be doubling > partner's bid. I would in those circumstances remove the double cards > from the bidding box and the return them after the bid has been > corrected. This emphasises that they can't double on this round, but can > double later. In the past I've had players hear "you can't double on > this round" and being overwhelmed with the whole situation have assumed > that it meant "you can't double for the rest of the auction" :-) > > If I thought there was a possibility of adjustment under "New New L27D", > then I would say at point [7], "If you reach a contract that is > impossible if you had bid properly, and gain from it, then I will adjust > the score" > The way most pairs seem to play splinters I doubt that they would meet the requirement of showing an opening hand. Wayne From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Mar 10 13:46:20 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:46:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] new L27 References: <0F678E4E-C4DC-4D82-AA5B-CDFAA168021E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000f01c882ac$be03e050$3a0ba0f0$@com> [TK] It is important to understand that a replacement by 2H makes the auction normal (no further rectification) But it is worth discussing the possibility of other substitutions. Formally spoken when 1H is made with at least 5 hearts a splinter or 2NT is not a more precise call (assuming it may show 4 hearts). The question now is are we going to say no to such a substitution? Discussing this among top TD's in the Netherlands some did not like the idea that the system being played will get such a dominant place when bidding insufficiently (conclusion: players withe the tendency to make insufficient bids frequently should have a system in which calls have no meaning, then the substitution certainly will be more precise). [DALB] I sent this a few days ago to a couple of members of the DSC: I have been wondering what the phrase "more precise" means in the context of the new Law 27. One might imagine that a statement A about a bridge hand is "more precise" than a statement B if there are fewer hands about which A can be said than there are hands about which B can be said. For example, the statement "I have 0-12 points" is more precise than the statement "I have 0-13 points". The statement "I have exactly 13 hearts" supplies complete information about my hand. The statement "I have exactly 12 hearts" may in the sense above be regarded as less precise, because there are 507 hands with 12 hearts and only one hand with 13. But it is not clear to me that this is what is meant; by this token, the statement "I have exactly three hearts" is less precise than the statement "I have exactly four hearts" (there are 181,823,183,256 hands with exactly three hearts and 151,519,319,380 hands with exactly four hearts, if anyone cares). Yet intuitively, whereas one might think "I have 13 hearts" is more precise than "I have 12 hearts", it is far from obvious (and may not be intended) that "I have four hearts" is more precise than "I have three hearts" (while less precise than "I have two hearts" - there are only 130,732,371,432 hands with exactly two hearts). Similar difficulties may arise, of course, when talking about point counts. I received a reply to the effect that one would not be allowed to replace a call meaning "I have four hearts" with a call meaning "I have three hearts". This of course is perfectly true, but Ton's question above remains undecided. If the definition of "more precise" that I have outlined above is the intended definition, we arrive at this conclusion: a pair playing four-card majors may bid 1H-2NT (Jacoby) having previously bid 1H-1H, because both the second 1H call and the replacement 2NT show opening values with 4+ hearts. But a pair playing five-card majors may not make this replacement, because the second 1H call shows at least five hearts while the replacement 2NT shows at least four (and is therefore less precise - there are more hands with at least four hearts than with at least five). That seems a bit silly. But... David Burn London, England From Gampas at aol.com Mon Mar 10 16:22:47 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:22:47 EDT Subject: [blml] Lucky Grand Message-ID: Director: How can I help you? Beginner A: The auction has just gone 1C - (1S) - 1H Director: Why did you bid 1H, Sir? Did you not see the 1S bid? Beginner B: Yes, but I thought hearts ranked above spades ... I forgot they didn't. Director: Hmm ... It looks like the IB had no systemic meaning whatsoever (bids below 1S are not on your convention card), therefore you can substitute any call you wish. Other than a jump bid. As 1C - (1S) - 1H does not exist you do not have to make a bid which shows four or more hearts and responding values. Beginner B: Ah, excellent, so I can bid 1NT. Director: Yes, but the fact that you bid 1H because you thought hearts ranked above spades is UI to your partner. Beginner B: What is UI? Director: Let me explain.[Half an hour elapses ....] Paul Lamford From Gampas at aol.com Mon Mar 10 16:24:23 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:24:23 EDT Subject: [blml] Another L27 Message-ID: Director: How can I help you? Beginner A: The auction has just gone 1C - (1S) - 1H Director: Why did you bid 1H, Sir? Did you not see the 1S bid? Beginner B: Yes, but I thought hearts ranked above spades ... I forgot they didn't. Director: Hmm ... It looks like the IB had no systemic meaning whatsoever (bids below 1S are not on your convention card), therefore you can substitute any call you wish. Other than a jump bid. As 1C - (1S) - 1H does not exist you do not have to make a bid which shows four or more hearts and responding values. Beginner B: Ah, excellent, so I can bid 1NT. Director: Yes, but the fact that you bid 1H because you thought hearts ranked above spades is UI to your partner. Beginner B: What is UI? Director: Let me explain.[Half an hour elapses ....] Paul Lamford From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Mar 10 16:26:16 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:26:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] new L27 In-Reply-To: <000f01c882ac$be03e050$3a0ba0f0$@com> References: <0F678E4E-C4DC-4D82-AA5B-CDFAA168021E@starpower.net> <000f01c882ac$be03e050$3a0ba0f0$@com> Message-ID: <47D55318.7020009@meteo.fr> David Burn a ?crit : > [TK] > > It is important to understand that a replacement by 2H makes the auction > normal (no further rectification) > > But it is worth discussing the possibility of other substitutions. > > Formally spoken when 1H is made with at least 5 hearts a splinter or 2NT is > not a more precise call (assuming it may show 4 hearts). The question now is > are we going to say no to such a substitution? > > Discussing this among top TD's in the Netherlands some did not like the idea > that the system being played will get such a dominant place when bidding > insufficiently (conclusion: players withe the tendency to make insufficient > bids frequently should have a system in which calls have no meaning, then > the substitution certainly will be more precise). > > [DALB] > > I sent this a few days ago to a couple of members of the DSC: > > I have been wondering what the phrase "more precise" means in the context of > the new Law 27. > > One might imagine that a statement A about a bridge hand is "more precise" > than a statement B if there are fewer hands about which A can be said than > there are hands about which B can be said. For example, the statement "I > have 0-12 points" is more precise than the statement "I have 0-13 points". > > The statement "I have exactly 13 hearts" supplies complete information about > my hand. The statement "I have exactly 12 hearts" may in the sense above be > regarded as less precise, because there are 507 hands with 12 hearts and > only one hand with 13. But it is not clear to me that this is what is meant; > by this token, the statement "I have exactly three hearts" is less precise > than the statement "I have exactly four hearts" (there are 181,823,183,256 > hands with exactly three hearts and 151,519,319,380 hands with exactly four > hearts, if anyone cares). > > Yet intuitively, whereas one might think "I have 13 hearts" is more precise > than "I have 12 hearts", it is far from obvious (and may not be intended) > that "I have four hearts" is more precise than "I have three hearts" (while > less precise than "I have two hearts" - there are only 130,732,371,432 hands > with exactly two hearts). Similar difficulties may arise, of course, when > talking about point counts. > > I received a reply to the effect that one would not be allowed to replace a > call meaning "I have four hearts" with a call meaning "I have three hearts". > This of course is perfectly true, but Ton's question above remains > undecided. If the definition of "more precise" that I have outlined above is > the intended definition, we arrive at this conclusion: a pair playing > four-card majors may bid 1H-2NT (Jacoby) having previously bid 1H-1H, > because both the second 1H call and the replacement 2NT show opening values > with 4+ hearts. But a pair playing five-card majors may not make this > replacement, because the second 1H call shows at least five hearts while the > replacement 2NT shows at least four (and is therefore less precise - there > are more hands with at least four hearts than with at least five). > > That seems a bit silly. But... indeed that seems a bit silly but it's actually very simple once you don't start to muddy waters with peripheral thoughts like the number of hands, the differences between "i have 4 hearts", "i have 4 hearts at least", "i have 4 hearts at most" and so on. it's obvious from the context of L27 that bid A is more precise than bid B, if and only if the set of hands complying with bid A is a subset of the set of hands complying to bid B. period. if follows that the number of hands complying with A is necessarily inferior or equal to the number of B hands but the condition is obviously not sufficient. the relation "is more precise" is only what is called a "partial order relation": given 2 calls, A and B, either A is more precise than B, or B is more precise than A, or (most often) A and B are not "comparable": neither one is more precise than the other one. admittetdly, it may be difficult in some circumstances to state which are the hands complying with a bid, especially with an insufficient bid, but that is a different problem. jpr > > David Burn > London, England > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 10 15:24:50 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:24:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] new L27 In-Reply-To: <000f01c882ac$be03e050$3a0ba0f0$@com> Message-ID: <000701c882ba$80bc4850$6400a8c0@3VY0G0J> To me law 27 as it reads after the revision is clear enough, but let me then give my understanding of "more precise": Let B be the set of hands that fit the understanding of the insufficient bid (before "B" any correction) and let A be the complete set of hands that fit the understanding of the replacement call (after "A" the correction). For A to be more precise than B each and every hand that is a member in A must also be a member in B while not each hand in B needs to be a member in A. So if B includes hands with a specific number of cards of a certain denomination then every hand in A must have exactly the same number of cards in that denomination. If all hands in B contain at least say 5 hearts then A may not include hands that contain only 4 hearts but they can very well have at least more than 5 hearts. If B contains hands with strength in the range 12-20HCP then A may not include hands with less than 12HCP or more than 20HCP but can very well contain hands limited in strength to for instance 15-17HCP And so on. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of David Burn > Sent: 10. mars 2008 13:46 > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blml] new L27 > > [TK] > > It is important to understand that a replacement by 2H makes the auction > normal (no further rectification) > > But it is worth discussing the possibility of other substitutions. > > Formally spoken when 1H is made with at least 5 hearts a splinter or 2NT > is > not a more precise call (assuming it may show 4 hearts). The question now > is > are we going to say no to such a substitution? > > Discussing this among top TD's in the Netherlands some did not like the > idea > that the system being played will get such a dominant place when bidding > insufficiently (conclusion: players withe the tendency to make > insufficient > bids frequently should have a system in which calls have no meaning, then > the substitution certainly will be more precise). > > [DALB] > > I sent this a few days ago to a couple of members of the DSC: > > I have been wondering what the phrase "more precise" means in the context > of > the new Law 27. > > One might imagine that a statement A about a bridge hand is "more precise" > than a statement B if there are fewer hands about which A can be said than > there are hands about which B can be said. For example, the statement "I > have 0-12 points" is more precise than the statement "I have 0-13 points". > > The statement "I have exactly 13 hearts" supplies complete information > about > my hand. The statement "I have exactly 12 hearts" may in the sense above > be > regarded as less precise, because there are 507 hands with 12 hearts and > only one hand with 13. But it is not clear to me that this is what is > meant; > by this token, the statement "I have exactly three hearts" is less precise > than the statement "I have exactly four hearts" (there are 181,823,183,256 > hands with exactly three hearts and 151,519,319,380 hands with exactly > four > hearts, if anyone cares). > > Yet intuitively, whereas one might think "I have 13 hearts" is more > precise > than "I have 12 hearts", it is far from obvious (and may not be intended) > that "I have four hearts" is more precise than "I have three hearts" > (while > less precise than "I have two hearts" - there are only 130,732,371,432 > hands > with exactly two hearts). Similar difficulties may arise, of course, when > talking about point counts. > > I received a reply to the effect that one would not be allowed to replace > a > call meaning "I have four hearts" with a call meaning "I have three > hearts". > This of course is perfectly true, but Ton's question above remains > undecided. If the definition of "more precise" that I have outlined above > is > the intended definition, we arrive at this conclusion: a pair playing > four-card majors may bid 1H-2NT (Jacoby) having previously bid 1H-1H, > because both the second 1H call and the replacement 2NT show opening > values > with 4+ hearts. But a pair playing five-card majors may not make this > replacement, because the second 1H call shows at least five hearts while > the > replacement 2NT shows at least four (and is therefore less precise - there > are more hands with at least four hearts than with at least five). > > That seems a bit silly. But... > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Mar 10 18:22:00 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:22:00 +0000 Subject: [blml] Pastures new In-Reply-To: References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred> <026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47D15C72.4080903@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0803070804uf4e87few17d169e4ee6cf9d4@mail.gmail.com> <47D174A7.6080805@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0803070930o61108bffh2ef38fd04441dee0@mail.gmail.com> <47D19322.60806@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47D56E38.3070701@NTLworld.com> [Harald Skj?ran] Nigel, who are these (habitual?) law-breakers you go around hunting all the time. After having played tournament bridge for 30 years I haven't met them at the table. This campaign of yours strongly remind me of Cervantes Don Quixote and chasing windmills. Bridge Laws give us what we need to penalize the real cheats (there's few of them, btw). As a TD, player and AC member I favour laws that as often as possible allow bridge to continue being played - whenever possible. [nige1] I don't hunt habitual *law-breakers*. A few unfortunate forays have taught me my lesson. I do criticise daft *laws*. Unlike David Burn and other BLMLers, I *don't* accuse other players of *cheating*. On the contrary I *defend* players (like Herman) from such unfounded accusations. In order to cheat, you must understand what the law is; then deliberately and consciously break it. IMO, the first condition rules out most players as possible cheats :) Habitual law-breakers are *confused* by the laws. They have difficulty in interpreting them ( *like most BLMLers* ). Naturally. they tend to interpret them to their own advantage ( *as do some BLMLers* ) Also, naturally, players tend to regard as unimportant the laws that have no "teeth" ( *like the new laws* ). They are *not* cheats. Harald is lucky never to have encountered an habitual law-breaker in his thirty years experience. My experience is different ... I sometimes play in clubs where *most* players routinely break some of the laws. Once, In such a club, I politely called the director and he ruled against our opponents. The director took me aside afterwards. He kindly explained "This club enjoys a informal atmosphere. Please don't call the director again". Of course, I complied. Another typical case is from the last day of a national congress. The "carding" section of opponents' system card was blank. As declarer, I asked opponents about their carding methods, to no avail. In a heated post-mortem, opponents criticised each others' carding. I politely asked opponents to complete the carding section with what they had belatedly revealed. They refused. I called the director to help and he said he'd get back to us. Presumably our opponents had got away with this for several days, previously; and, as far as I know, opponents never altered their card; but at least I began to get the message: Another illustration is the saga of "rule of 18 third-in-hand opening bids" See BLML posts passim ad nauseam. I asked that the regulation be dropped or clarified and enforced. :( Some players habitually broke it. In my experience, it was never enforced. It may have well have been unenforceable. Anyway I got a enough stick from BLMLers for my campaign, to understand its futility. Many other rules are regularly flouted but hard to enforce; and, unfortunately, the new laws are harder to enforce. IMO, it would be better to enforce the law because, in the long term, it creates a more interesting and challenging game for all players; but that is just my personal opinion. Harald says I'm tilting at windmills. Indeeed, sometimes, I flatter myself that I'm a bit like Don Quixote :) although I cannot seem to recruit a Sancho Panza :( Harald may well be right that my quest is futile :( But it is quite fun :) And whether it is Harald or I who is delusional is a moot point :) Time will tell. IMO bridge-law will become simpler or the game will die. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Mar 10 18:27:20 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:27:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] Pastures new In-Reply-To: References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred> <026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47D15C72.4080903@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0803070804uf4e87few17d169e4ee6cf9d4@mail.gmail.com> <47D174A7.6080805@NTLworld.com> <2da24b8e0803070930o61108bffh2ef38fd04441dee0@mail.gmail.com> <47D19322.60806@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47D56F78.7030409@NTLworld.com> [Harald Skj?ran] As to Mollo's Secretary Bird, he was a real show-off who always needed to show everyone else how much knowledge on laws he had. AFAICR, anytime he imposed laws when playing himself, this was disastrous for him. He was absolutely unable to visualize the bridge-wise outcome of applying the law. [Nige1] "Secretary Bird" is short-hand for a player who exploits his intimate knowledge of the complex, sophisticated, subjective, and arcane Bridge laws to his advantage. Stefanie Rohan is correct that it hardly matters whether this evinces every nuance of the behaviour of Victor Mollo's creation. Similarly, BLMLers have caricatured me both as "Rueful Rabbit" and "Walter the Walrus". I doubt that they meant that I slurp cherry brandy past my tusks :) Anyway, Edgar Kaplan is correct that it is the *law-makers* fault for creating legal loop-holes, not the *secretary bird's* fault for exploiting them. The laws now depend more on the subjective judgement of directors. The directors will have to ask more questions to establish facts. In the past such subjective laws created problems. Robert Geller tells us that in his experience, players have learnt to claim a slip of the *hand* rather than of the *mind*. His point is that such laws encourage ordinary upright players to economise with the truth. IMO this one of many areas, where a cunning "secretary bird" may be able to rationalise more profitable behaviour than a player relatively ignorant of the law. Manifestly, subjective laws reward such behaviour. The new law, with its emphasis on "restoring the status quo", increases the incentive for habitual law-breakers. Unless a global database of infractions is maintained, it is unclear how disciplinary and procedural penalties can eliminate habitual law-breaking. If an infraction is ever reported *and* a director rules against it, then the offending SB need not appeal and he can avoid that particular ploy for the duration of the tournament. Also, the new law encourages secretary birds to agree complex conventions that depend on the options taken after infractions (unless the local legislature explicitly forbids them). These will come a nasty shock to players who are less legally sophisticated . From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Mar 10 18:46:15 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:46:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] Pastures new In-Reply-To: <003c01c8829c$857c6410$05d4403e@Mildred> References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie><008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred><026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie><47D15C72.4080903@NTLworld.com><2da24b8e0803070804uf4e87few17d169e4ee6cf9d4@mail.gmail.com><47D174A7.6080805@NTLworld.com><2da24b8e0803070930o61108bffh2ef38fd04441dee0@mail.gmail.com><47D19322.60806@NTLworld.com> <003c01c8829c$857c6410$05d4403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47D573E7.3020802@NTLworld.com> [nige1] In particular, you are wrong that I'm victimised. Again I repeat: I criticise legal trends but I don't complain about players or directors. (Stefanie Rohan - in an earlier posting): I think that the DSC were truly mistaken in writing that, apparently, we are now permitted to have agreements after *our own* irregularities. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ This seems to imply that such prior agreements were not permitted by the 1997 laws. How so? I do not believe the DSC has increased the tolerance of the laws in this particular matter. It may even have slightly tightened the law by drawing attention to the possibility of regulation. This has been reinforced by pointing the Regulating Authorities to the question in particular of prior agreements for changes of partnership understandings consequent upon an irregularity committed by the partnership's own side. The trigger for this concern on the part of some was the recently issued Law 27B1(b). [Nige1] The old laws said little about exploiting infractions. I understand that under the old law, anything not explicitly permitted had, at best, doubtful legal status. The new law seems to explicitly legalise the exploiting of infractions. I half-hoped that we had misinterpreted the new law. I would approve of a law that deterred infraction and provided redress for victims but I don't like a law that encourages legal experts to further exploit infractions (for example with complex conventions contingent on which option is chosen). In short, I would prefer such options to be removed and the law simplified. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Mar 10 19:23:53 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:23:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] new L27 References: <0F678E4E-C4DC-4D82-AA5B-CDFAA168021E@starpower.net> <000f01c882ac$be03e050$3a0ba0f0$@com> Message-ID: <021801c882db$e5a0d2b0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > [TK] > > > Discussing this among top TD's in the Netherlands some did not like the > idea > that the system being played will get such a dominant place when bidding > insufficiently > [DALB] >> If the definition of "more precise" that I have outlined above is > the intended definition, we arrive at this conclusion: a pair playing > four-card majors may bid 1H-2NT (Jacoby) having previously bid 1H-1H, > because both the second 1H call and the replacement 2NT show opening > values > with 4+ hearts. But a pair playing five-card majors may not make this > replacement, because the second 1H call shows at least five hearts while > the > replacement 2NT shows at least four (and is therefore less precise - there > are more hands with at least four hearts than with at least five). > > That seems a bit silly. But... > It seems kind of unfair too. People who play 5-card majors, strong club systems, and other methods where their opening bids are more defined than in basic ACOL will suffer. Perhaps one can say that it is their own fault; they can change their methods if they wish. But this Law seems like it might be a tiny first step in realising the ACBL's dream of mandating a particular bidding system. In any case, the 1H bid could have been a response to some imagined opening bid, so clearly this is the auction the IBer should be allowed to have. I hope that the idea of holding him to whatever auction he was imagining is not given serious consideration. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Mar 10 20:27:25 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:27:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Pastures new References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie><008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred><026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie><47D15C72.4080903@NTLworld.com><2da24b8e0803070804uf4e87few17d169e4ee6cf9d4@mail.gmail.com><47D174A7.6080805@NTLworld.com><2da24b8e0803070930o61108bffh2ef38fd04441dee0@mail.gmail.com><47D19322.60806@NTLworld.com> <003c01c8829c$857c6410$05d4403e@Mildred> <47D573E7.3020802@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <025101c882e4$c7fba010$0100a8c0@stefanie> > (Stefanie Rohan - in an earlier posting): > I think that the DSC were truly mistaken in writing that, apparently, > we are now permitted to have agreements after *our own* irregularities. > > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ This seems to imply that such prior agreements were > not permitted by the 1997 laws. How so? I do not believe > the DSC has increased the tolerance of the laws in this > particular matter. It may even have slightly tightened the law > by drawing attention to the possibility of regulation. This has > been reinforced by pointing the Regulating Authorities to the > question in particular of prior agreements for changes of > partnership understandings consequent upon an irregularity > committed by the partnership's own side. The trigger for > this concern on the part of some was the recently issued > Law 27B1(b). > > [Nige1] > The old laws said little about exploiting infractions. I understand that > under the old law, anything not explicitly permitted had, at best, > doubtful legal status. > > The new law seems to explicitly legalise the exploiting of infractions. > I half-hoped that we had misinterpreted the new law. > > I would approve of a law that deterred infraction and provided redress > for victims but I don't like a law that encourages legal experts to > further exploit infractions (for example with complex conventions > contingent on which option is chosen). I have no problems with agreements based on the opponents' irregularities. But to be permitted to have agreements after our own irregularities seems seriously misguided. I had thought that such agreements were illegal in the past, but it may have been a matter of EBU regulations. Players who can change their bidding systems after they have made an illegal bid, or eg change their carding agreements when they have a penalty card exposed, can turn out to actually profit from their irregularities. I feel very strongly that that should not be the case; they should be in a position to lose out or break even. And yes, I do think that there are players who will deliberately commit an infraction if there is no deterrent. Stefanie Rohan London, England From john at asimere.com Tue Mar 11 01:03:32 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:03:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Pastures new References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie><008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred><026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie><47D15C72.4080903@NTLworld.com><2da24b8e0803070804uf4e87few17d169e4ee6cf9d4@mail.gmail.com><47D174A7.6080805@NTLworld.com><2da24b8e0803070930o61108bffh2ef38fd04441dee0@mail.gmail.com><47D19322.60806@NTLworld.com> <003c01c8829c$857c6410$05d4403e@Mildred><47D573E7.3020802@NTLworld.com> <025101c882e4$c7fba010$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <003101c8830b$57e7b120$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 7:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Pastures new snip > > Players who can change their bidding systems after they have made an > illegal > bid, or eg change their carding agreements when they have a penalty card > exposed, can turn out to actually profit from their irregularities. I feel > very strongly that that should not be the case; they should be in a > position > to lose out or break even. > > And yes, I do think that there are players who will deliberately commit an > infraction if there is no deterrent. I can probably find a way to put a stop to that. There are a number of laws with draconian powers that are seldom employed (for good reason) 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 Tue Mar 11 04:02:26 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:02:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] The old L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0802270551n6fb6a00at3eac4a9f7f1ed535@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Willey: [snip] >If relay sequences aren't your thing, consider the following: > >Partner has just bid 4NT (Simple Blackwood). We have the >agreement that we play D0P1 (Double = Zero, pass = 1) after >interference. RHO now bids an insufficient 4H. > >Does the existence of a D0P1 agreement bar me from accepting >the insufficient bid? 2007 Law 40B3: "The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity." Richard Hills: It seems to me that if a pair plays D0P1 over both sufficient and also insufficient bids, then that partnership is _not_ "varying its understandings". A "variation" would be to play P0D1 over insufficient bids, but D0P1 over sufficient bids. However..... 2007 Law 40B2(a): "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding....." Richard Hills: So the Regulating Authority could create a conditional rule that zero conventions may be used by either side once an insufficient bid is accepted. In that case Richard Willey is not barred from accepting the insufficient 4H over his partner's Blackwood, but he may find it an ineffective strategy to do so. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 11 04:44:53 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:44:53 +1100 Subject: [blml] Another L27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47D11B1D.8000402@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: David Barton: >>...what standard of "proof" do you require... Alain Gottcheiner: >...Now, the question is : what if they don't have >systemic notes that are precise enough to cover >that case ? To bad for them, then. If they didn't >write it down, this isn't their agreement. Richard Hills: An incorrect statement on how Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts) is applied. The criterion laid down in the 2007 Law 85A1 is merely "balance of probabilities". Verbal statements on partnership agreements may have sufficient verisimilitude to weigh heavily in the scales and tip the balance. The more stringent criterion "beyond reasonable doubt" is used only for 2007 Law 79C2 special score adjustments after the expiry of the correction period. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 11 05:38:01 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:38:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004501c88043$0e0ac490$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >...I believe the Law tells his partner to treat this call >as a 2NT overcall, and is not permitted to know he bid 1NT >first. (Withdrawn calls are UI to the offending side)... Richard Hills: Normally withdrawn or cancelled calls are unauthorised information to the offending side, as specified in the 2007 Law 16D2. However, John has overlooked that Law 27B1(a) has a specific exemption, stating that: "Law 16D does not apply but see D following." But the Law 16D exemption for the OS during the auction (and perhaps the defence) has a further Law 27D exception for the NOS at the end of play, protecting the NOS from any damage. Note: The yardstick against which the NOS's Law 27D damage is measured is: "the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred", but the yardstick is _not_ the punitive: "the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bidder's partner been constrained by Law 16D2". So a Reveley Ruling is permissible under a Law 27D correction of a Law 27B1(a) ruling. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 11 05:59:06 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:59:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 + Law 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >...players will enjoy the game more when the rules are less punitive. > >I think the rules should be designed mostly to maximize enjoyment of >the players, not the directors... Richard Hills: Yes, at the grass-roots level contestants do not want 60% Ave+ scores, they want to play cards. Even at the expert level, I prefer to make a 3NT contract on a double squeeze (under the 2007 Laws), rather than get a ridiculous +1100 penalty (under the 1997 Laws) because an opponent misguessed after barring their partner due to a conventional insufficient bid. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 11 06:06:30 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:06:30 +1100 Subject: [blml] Inequity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47D1B455.70004@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >- Players don't mind seemingly draconian rules, Richard Hills: Not so. In the early 1930s the Law-makers introduced draconian rules for vulnerable undertricks, in the misguided belief that mega-penalties would make the game more interesting. These draconian rules were so hugely unpopular that a new, non-draconian Lawbook appeared in the record time of only one year later. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 11 06:22:54 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:22:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] Can find the message [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080308102031.01d4f1c8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >Easy for you to say. But who makes sure the disseminator is wise in >the Law? [snip] >(Not too hopefully) > >Tony (Sydney) Richard Hills: The recently reformed Zone 7 (South Pacific) Laws Committee is chaired by John Wignall MNZM of New Zealand, who is also the Chair of the Drafting Committee. Perhaps John Wignall is wise in the Law? Therefore, temporary South Pacific LC interpretations of the 2007 Lawbook (pending final interpretations by the WBF LC) might give hope to Sydneysider directors. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 Tue Mar 11 06:23:55 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:23:55 +0900 Subject: [blml] "Reveley" ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200803110523.AA12796@geller204.nifty.com> richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >So a Reveley Ruling is permissible under a Law 27D correction >of a Law 27B1(a) ruling. I'd not heard this term before so I googled it, and here's what I came up with (from an old BLML post): > The eponymous Ted Reveley (who won the main Swiss Teams > event) chaired the appeals committee and, naturally, > issued a "Reveley" ruling (which he defined as a technically > illegal compromise ruling to approximate better to justice). (Just in case others besides me also didn't know this term.) -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 11 08:47:03 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:47:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] The old L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47D638F7.1040902@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > R > So the Regulating Authority could create a conditional rule > that zero conventions may be used by either side once an > insufficient bid is accepted. In that case Richard Willey is not barred from accepting the > > insufficient 4H over his partner's Blackwood, but he may find > it an ineffective strategy to do so. > > And would it be a good idea to compel the NOS to choose between two bad choices : having to cope with RHO's possible gamble or be restricted in their system ? Their the NOS, after all. Soon there will be a case where you'll find that the OS benefitted, not from their infraction, but from tha way the RA handled it. Best regards Alain From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Mar 7 15:46:38 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:46:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] new L27 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is a lot of work for no good reason. As long as 1H is natural and the substituted call 2H is also natural the bidding may continue normally. Isn't that what new L27 tells us? ton _____ From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Eitan Levy Sent: donderdag 6 maart 2008 21:40 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] new L27 On 06/03/2008, Steve Wright wrote: My gut feeling for how this would work is to do the following: Taking the example 1H (P) 1H 1] Take the player away from the table and determine the intent. The player tells me that "I though partner had passed". So I now know that was intended to be a 1H opening bid. 2] Ask the player if they have any bids that show a 4-card heart suit and an opening bid when partner opens 1H. They reply that a 2NT response and a splinter bid. (I could have asked what would you have bid had you seen your partner's 1H bid). 3] Determine that, in my opinion, both 2NT and a splinter are a more precise meaning and thus acceptable. 4] Tell the player that when we return to the table, I will give you the option of bidding 2H or the alternative of either a 2NT or a splinter, but I won't tell the players what those alternatives are. 5] Return to the table as say to the other players, "I know what the insufficient bid meant - you don't". To the offender I would say, "On the assumption that LHO does not accept your bid, you have the following options: You may bid 2H or one of the alternative bids that we discussed. If you do, then the action will continue without any further penalty. Or, you may pass or bid something else, in which case partner will be forced to pass throughout." 6] "LHO, do you wish to accept or have it corrected to something legal?" - "Correct it please" 7] "Your 1H is now cancelled". I pick the 1H and return it to the bidding box. "Please bid, however I should warn you that if you don't bid hearts and become a defender then there will be lead penalties." In some circumstances I would mention at point [5] that they can't double for penalties. Not in this example as we would be doubling partner's bid. I would in those circumstances remove the double cards from the bidding box and the return them after the bid has been corrected. This emphasises that they can't double on this round, but can double later. In the past I've had players hear "you can't double on this round" and being overwhelmed with the whole situation have assumed that it meant "you can't double for the rest of the auction" :-) If I thought there was a possibility of adjustment under "New New L27D", then I would say at point [7], "If you reach a contract that is impossible if you had bid properly, and gain from it, then I will adjust the score" -- Steve Wright Leicester, England Ok, so now we need to know how to score the boards that weren't played in the two rounds during the time we were investigating/explaining/clarifying all the above. Eitan Levy _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml Upgrade Your Email - Click here! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080307/0f7ffcfb/attachment.htm From Gampas at aol.com Mon Mar 10 16:20:41 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:20:41 EDT Subject: [blml] Another L27 Message-ID: Director: How can I help you? Beginner A: The auction has just gone 1C - (1S) - 1H Director: Why did you bid 1H, Sir? Did you not see the 1S bid? Beginner B: Yes, but I thought hearts ranked above spades ... I forgot they didn't. Director: Hmm ... It looks like the IB had no systemic meaning whatsoever (bids below 1S are not on your convention card), therefore you can substitute any call you wish. Other than a jump bid. As 1C - (1S) - 1H does not exist you do not have to make a bid which shows four or more hearts and responding values. Beginner B: Ah, excellent, so I can bid 1NT. Director: Yes, but the fact that you bid 1H because you thought hearts ranked above spades is UI to your partner. Beginner B: What is UI? Director: Let me explain.[Half an hour elapses ....] Paul Lamford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080310/508237da/attachment.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 11 14:21:36 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:21:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] new L27 In-Reply-To: <200803111110.HWG54986@mr06.lnh.mail.rcn.net> References: <200803111110.HWG54986@mr06.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: <933AC344-E2D6-4D4B-AC8D-C69C9845D28C@starpower.net> On Mar 7, 2008, at 9:46 AM, ton wrote: > This is a lot of work for no good reason. As long as 1H is natural > and the substituted call 2H is also natural the bidding may > continue normally. Isn't that what new L27 tells us? It tells us that it "may"; not that it must. Under the new L27, an IBer may be in a position to make a call without penalty per L27B1(a), and simultaneously in a position to make a *different* call (or calls) without penalty per L27B1(b). (Example: I don't hear RHO's 1S call, and thinking he has passed, I attempt to open 1H. I can correct to 2H, which is natural but could be made on a much weaker hand than a 1H opening, or I can correct to 3H, an intermediate jump overcall, which has "a more precise meaning than[] the IB".) ISTM that the IBer is fully entitled to choose between these options. It therefore STM that the TD is obligated to explain the IBer's options and offer that choice. The IBer must be entitled to know whether or not a particular call will be allowed without penalty. It also STM that the partner of the IBer is allowed to "be aware" that the IBer had a choice, and draw whatever conclusions he can from the fact that he chose one option rather than the other. (Perhaps that's for another thread.) It would certainly be an egregious error on the part of the TD to offer an IBer only the first unpenalized correction he happens to think of. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 11 14:27:11 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:27:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another L27 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <271E697A-BE76-4111-8D79-08A3CF8E65C7@starpower.net> On Mar 10, 2008, at 11:20 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > Director: How can I help you? > > Beginner A: The auction has just gone 1C - (1S) - 1H > > Director: Why did you bid 1H, Sir? Did you not see the 1S bid? > > Beginner B: Yes, but I thought hearts ranked above spades ... I > forgot they didn't. > > Director: Hmm ... It looks like the IB had no systemic meaning > whatsoever (bids below 1S are not on your convention card), > therefore you can substitute any call you wish. Other than a jump > bid. As 1C - (1S) - 1H does not exist you do not have to make a bid > which shows four or more hearts and responding values. Why not... Director: OK. What does 1H mean when you bid it over a lower- ranking suit? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 11 15:47:13 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:47:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] new L27 References: <47C57EAB067ABFD3@mail-8-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-8.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <00dc01c88395$f419b3b0$2dcd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott wrote: My gut feeling for how this would work is to do the following: Taking the example 1H (P) 1H From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 11 17:33:37 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:33:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Another L27 References: Message-ID: <00dd01c88395$f57ced30$2dcd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: Message-ID: <47D6C54D.2010503@NTLworld.com> [Nigel Guthrie] Players don't mind seemingly draconian rules, [Richard Hills] Not so. In the early 1930s the Law-makers introduced draconian rules for vulnerable undertricks, in the misguided belief that mega-penalties would make the game more interesting. These draconian rules were so hugely unpopular that a new, non-draconian Lawbook appeared in the record time of only one year later. [nige1] If Richard had quoted me in context, it might have been clearer that I that IMO, players prefer draconian rules to non-deterrent and inconsistent rulings. IMO, scoring is of marginal relevance because it is already objective. I'm unsure that I follow Richard's argument. In the thirties and forties, Contract Bridge enjoyed *peak popularity*. Also when we played bridge, there was a clear distinction between *laws* (enforceable) and *proprieties* (not so easy to enforce. In those days, however, our underlying philosophy was that bridge was a game for ladies and gentlemen). More recently, the popularity of f2f Bridge has declined. Richard still has a valid point. Scoring table revisions are often unpopular. For example, many protest that the latest increase in the value of *non* vulnerable doubled undertricks diminishes the fun of the game and reduces the required skill level :( There used to be many more sacrifices against games and slams :) Although f2f bridge is in decline, I readily admit that this is not entirely due to daft laws. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Mar 11 18:49:37 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:49:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] Inequity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47D6C631.8070108@NTLworld.com> [Nigel Guthrie] Players don't mind seemingly draconian rules, [Richard Hills] Not so. In the early 1930s the Law-makers introduced draconian rules for vulnerable undertricks, in the misguided belief that mega-penalties would make the game more interesting. These draconian rules were so hugely unpopular that a new, non-draconian Lawbook appeared in the record time of only one year later. [nige1] Had Richard quoted me in context, it might have been clearer that, IMO, players prefer draconian rules to non-deterrent and inconsistent rulings. IMO, scoring is of marginal relevance because it is already objective. I'm unsure that I follow Richard's argument. In the thirties and forties, Contract Bridge enjoyed *peak popularity*. Also when we played bridge, there was a clear distinction between *laws* (enforceable) and *proprieties* (not so easy to enforce. In those days, however, our underlying philosophy was that bridge was a game for ladies and gentlemen). More recently, the popularity of f2f Bridge has fallen. Richard still has a valid point. Scoring table revisions are often unpopular. For example, many protest that the latest increase in the value of *non* vulnerable doubled undertricks diminishes the fun of the game and reduces the required skill level :( There used to be many more sacrifices against games and slams :) Although f2f bridge is in decline, I readily admit that this is not entirely due to daft laws. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 11 19:45:49 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:45:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] new L27 References: <200803111110.HWG54986@mr06.lnh.mail.rcn.net> <933AC344-E2D6-4D4B-AC8D-C69C9845D28C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <013c01c883a8$44aaae80$2dcd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] new L27 > > It therefore STM that the TD is obligated to explain the IBer's > options and offer that choice. The IBer must be entitled to know > whether or not a particular call will be allowed without penalty. > > It also STM that the partner of the IBer is allowed to "be aware" > that the IBer had a choice, and draw whatever conclusions he can from > the fact that he chose one option rather than the other. (Perhaps > that's for another thread.) > > It would certainly be an egregious error on the part of the TD to > offer an IBer only the first unpenalized correction he happens to > think of. > +=+ We are all highly aware that Law 10C1 applies whenever a player has options prescribed by law. My preference would have been to give Directors a special reminder of this in connection with this law, but I found myself in a minority of one. (Not that I will be prevented from making my personal opinion known.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 11 23:11:50 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:11:50 +1100 Subject: [blml] "Reveley" ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200803110523.AA12796@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>So a Reveley Ruling is permissible under a Law 27D >>correction of a Law 27B1(a) ruling. Bob Geller: >I'd not heard this term before so I googled it, and >here's what I came up with (from an old BLML post): "The eponymous Ted Reveley (who won the main Swiss Teams event) chaired the appeals committee and, naturally, issued a "Reveley" ruling (which he defined as a technically illegal compromise ruling to approximate better to justice)." Bob Geller: >(Just in case others besides me also didn't know >this term.) Richard Hills: A more precise meaning* of Reveley Ruling can be found in the EBU White Book, clause 16.3: "If a call (or play) is disallowed because the TD judges that an illegal alternative was chosen when unauthorised information was present then this call or play may not be used in any calculations of weighting." [Snipped example of demonstrably suggested logical alternative being included in weighted adjustment.] "This is affectionately called a 'Reveley ruling' because of a decision some years ago which brought this problem to the L&EC's notice." * the meaning of (definition of Reveley Ruling) is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. Richard Hills: I was somewhat loosely using the term Reveley Ruling in relation to Law 27D. The classic illegal Reveley Ruling permits the offending side some credit for using UI. But Law 27B1(a) defines the information available to the offending (and non-offending) side as AI. So a Law 27D classic legal ruling is a Gnilur Yelever. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 11 23:59:41 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:59:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] Inequity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47D6C631.8070108@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Had Richard quoted me in context, it might have been clearer >that, IMO, players prefer draconian rules to non-deterrent >and inconsistent rulings. [big snip] Richard Hills: IMO = in my opinion. Nigel Guthrie and Stefanie Rohan have opinions on one side of this debate. Robert Frick and myself have opinions on the other side. Since individual opinions about what the majority of other players prefer are almost worthless, I quoted some actual evidence from the 1930s (admittedly that evidence has limited value seventy years later). Plus it is incorrect to argue that there is not any deterrent to deliberate infractions of the 2007 Laws. Law 23, Law 72B1, Law 85A1 and Law 91 provide ample deterrence. And for repeated careless but accidental infractions, Law 74B1 is the deterrent. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 12 00:16:54 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:16:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] The old L27C2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47D638F7.1040902@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >And would it be a good idea to compel the NOS to choose between two bad >choices : having to cope with RHO's possible gamble or be restricted in >their system ? They're the NOS, after all. Soon there will be a case >where you'll find that the OS benefited, not from their infraction, but >from the way the RA handled it. Richard Hills: It is the prerogative of any Regulating Authority to have a bad idea. But a quality RA is one which fixes its bad ideas with celerity and panache. A mediocre RA, on the other hand, follows the "not invented here" principle, clutching its bad ideas in a death grip. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 12 01:34:23 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:34:23 +1100 Subject: [blml] Pastures new [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47D56E38.3070701@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >I sometimes play in clubs where *most* players routinely break some of >the laws. Once, In such a club, I politely called the director and he >ruled against our opponents. The director took me aside afterwards. He >kindly explained "This club enjoys a informal atmosphere. Please don't >call the director again". Of course, I complied. Richard Hills: I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that Nigel politely called for a Law 16 ruling. In my opinion the club director should long ago have educated his players that to be ruled against on Law 16 means that you have committed a technical infraction assessing logical alternatives, _not_ that you are a ch**t. The club director erred by instead opting for "informal atmosphere", since that means that the club is no longer a Duplicate Bridge club. Nigel Guthrie: >Another typical case is from the last day of a national congress. The >"carding" section of opponents' system card was blank. As declarer, I >asked opponents about their carding methods, to no avail. Richard Hills: Given the quality of the event, I would have summoned the director at this point, since the opponents would likely have at least an implicit agreement about their carding (unless they were rank novices). Nigel Guthrie: >In a heated post-mortem, opponents criticised each others' carding. Richard Hills: So they may have been rank novices, given that they had no agreement about at least some of their carding. Nigel Guthrie: >I politely asked opponents to complete the carding section with what >they had belatedly revealed. They refused. I called the director to >help and he said he'd get back to us. Richard Hills: If this was now a three-way heated post-mortem, the director committed a director's error by running away and not enforcing Law 74A. It is a natural but corrosive error, since players are driven away from the game by rudeness, instead preferring a visit to the dentist. Nigel Guthrie: >Presumably our opponents had got away with this for several days, >previously; Richard Hills: Presumably the opponents had misdefended for several days previously, given that no previous declarer had felt damaged and summoned the TD, who would have required the card to be completed. Nigel Guthrie: >Another illustration is the saga of "rule of 18 third-in-hand opening >bids" See BLML posts passim ad nauseam. I asked that the regulation be >dropped or clarified and enforced. 2006 Orange Book, clause 10B4: "...unless it clearly has equivalent playing strength..." Richard Hills: So the Rules of 18, 19 and 25 have been clarified by permitting other openings. I think it was David Burn who gave an example of this ilk: 7532 7532 753 75 because the 75 tenaces were clearly of equivalent playing strength. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 12 03:30:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:30:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps (Butler scoring against a datum) Dealer West Nil Vulnerable The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 3H X (1) Pass 3S Pass 3NT Pass ? (1) Takeout double You, South, hold: J8654 J 976 AT96 What call do you make? Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 jrmayne at mindspring.com Wed Mar 12 03:46:14 2008 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:46:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <16460539.1205289975027.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Sent: Mar 11, 2008 10:30 PM >To: blml at rtflb.org >Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >Imps (Butler scoring against a datum) >Dealer West >Nil Vulnerable > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >3H X (1) Pass 3S >Pass 3NT Pass ? > >(1) Takeout double > >You, South, hold: > >J8654 >J >976 >AT96 > >What call do you make? 4C. Partner has expressed doubt by not bidding 3N directly. None for me, thanks. --JRM From mustikka at charter.net Wed Mar 12 06:52:33 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:52:33 -0700 Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000901c88405$445abf80$7560cd18@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 7:30 PM Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Imps (Butler scoring against a datum) > Dealer West > Nil Vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 3H X (1) Pass 3S > Pass 3NT Pass ? > > (1) Takeout double > > You, South, hold: > > J8654 > J > 976 > AT96 > > What call do you make? > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Graduates and Developmental Training Section > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8458 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au 4C. If partner had hearts properly stopped, he would have bid 3NT or 2NT instead of takeout Dbl. As he does not have 4 spades (since he chose 3NT instead of 4S), the chances of a better game than 3NT are good. Besides, 3NT may not even make. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 12 07:29:28 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:29:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] new L27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000f01c882ac$be03e050$3a0ba0f0$@com> Message-ID: David Burn: [snip] >the statement "I have exactly three hearts" is less precise >than the statement "I have exactly four hearts" (there are >181,823,183,256 hands with exactly three hearts and >151,519,319,380 hands with exactly four hearts, if anyone >cares). > >Yet intuitively, whereas one might think "I have 13 hearts" >is more precise than "I have 12 hearts", it is far from >obvious (and may not be intended) that "I have four hearts" >is more precise than "I have three hearts" (while less >precise than "I have two hearts" - there are only >130,732,371,432 hands with exactly two hearts). [snip] Richard Hills: By using the word "exactly" David is muddying the waters by talking about disjoint sets. If the insufficient bid showed exactly two hearts, then if Law 27B1(b) is employed by the offender the replacement call must also show exactly two hearts. If the insufficient bid showed exactly four hearts, then if Law 27B1(b) is employed by the offender the replacement call must also show exactly four hearts. But if the insufficient bid showed "I have _at least_ two hearts", then it is legal to select a more precise Law 27B1(b) replacement call saying "I have exactly four hearts". Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 hirsch9000 at verizon.net Wed Mar 12 07:46:12 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:46:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47D77C34.2050205@verizon.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps (Butler scoring against a datum) > Dealer West > Nil Vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 3H X (1) Pass 3S > Pass 3NT Pass ? > > (1) Takeout double > > You, South, hold: > > J8654 > J > 976 > AT96 > > What call do you make? > > Partner doubled, but did not raise spades. What does he have? Partner could be offering a choice between spades and NT. I prefer spades. Partner could be afraid to raise spades with only 3-card support. If they're a good 3 cards, I can handle this. Partner could have a big hand, and been offering me a chance to pass with hearts and little else, fearing that I could not balance with long hearts and weakness. In this case, he will be fairly short in hearts. Perhaps stiff A or Kx. My heart holding and lack of overall strength suggests retreat. Partner could have a flat hand, and be trying for the 9-trick game. I don't have what he's looking for. Partner could be looking for minors, with a short heart stop. I've got help for this. In fact, I don't think I have what partner is looking for for any hand I can think of if I leave it in 3NT. 4C seems to keep the viable options open. Hirsch From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Mar 12 08:49:36 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:49:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/03/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Imps (Butler scoring against a datum) > Dealer West > Nil Vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 3H X (1) Pass 3S > Pass 3NT Pass ? > > (1) Takeout double > > You, South, hold: > > J8654 > J > 976 > AT96 > > What call do you make? > Partner has either got a flexible hand with a doubtful stopper or is very strong. I'm never passing 3NT now with my hand. I'll rebid 4C and await development. I'm passing 4S from partner. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Mar 12 11:33:02 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:33:02 +0000 Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47D7B15E.8030102@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Imps (Butler scoring against a datum) Dealer West Nil Vulnerable You, South, hold: S:J8654 H:J D:976 C:AT96 (3H) _X (_P) 3S (_P) 3N (_P) ?? - _X = Takeout [Nige1] IMO 4S = 10, 4H=7, 4C = 6, _P = 5. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Mar 12 11:20:25 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:20:25 +0000 Subject: [blml] Pastures new [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47D7AE69.20106@NTLworld.com> [Nigel] Another illustration is the saga of "rule of 18 third-in-hand opening bids" See BLML posts passim ad nauseam. I asked that the regulation be dropped or clarified and enforced. [2006 Orange Book, clause 10B4] "...unless it clearly has equivalent playing strength..." [Richard Hills] So the Rules of 18, 19 and 25 have been clarified by permitting other openings. I think it was David Burn who gave an example of this ilk: 7532 7532 753 75 because the 75 tenaces were clearly of equivalent playing strength. [Nige1] This dispute was *before* the 2006 amendment, Richard. David Stevenson and several directors thought it was OK to use their "judgement" in 3rd position when interpreting the Orange book definition of "Rule of 18". Some pleaded, reasonably enough, that they just wanted to "play Bridge". David Burn demonstrated the flaw in this approach. As far as I remember, he claimed that "85", in his experience, was a much undervalued combination :) I don't think he attempted to stretch our credulity by claiming that a mere "75" was worth extra points :) From Gampas at aol.com Wed Mar 12 11:54:14 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:54:14 EDT Subject: [blml] Another L27 Message-ID: In a message dated 11/03/2008 17:03:03 GMT Standard Time, gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes: [gesta] A call with no meaning excludes all possible meanings, so it is the ultimately precise. [lamford] I do not agree with the logic of this. The auction 1C - (1S) - 1H where the perpetrator of the IB thought hearts ranked below spades is making a call with no 'systemic' meaning, and therefore no information is conveyed. It is you that is replacing "no systemic meaning" with "no meaning" and then applying the above logic. I would interpret "no systemic meaning" as "all possible meanings" and therefore it is the least precise, not the most. In our example, however, I think that the relevant part of the law is "in the director's opinion" and I would have no problem with the director, for example, deciding to allow a bid that showed hearts and responding values, such as double or two hearts. I might not perhaps allow a double if 1C - (1H) - 1S showed five spades, as the opener might reasonably draw the inference that partner had five, if he was aware that partner had made the bid because he temporarily thought hearts ranked above spades. And this is another defect of asking the IBer in the presence of the other players for the reason for his error - the conveying of UI. Bids that clearly have no conventional meaning fall into this category. For 1NT - (2NT - minors) - 2NT (fully aware of the auction as given, but still intended as Lebensohl to show a non-forcing hand with hearts). This bid has no systemic meaning, and therefore no information has been conveyed. Again I do not accept the argument that you put forward that any other bid would be less precise, but I might still disallow a 3H bid as "in the director's opinion", there is some aspect of the 2NT bid, whatever it might mean, that is not included in the 3H bid. Indeed if I had to guess what it was, I would assume Lebensohl. Your interpretation of a non-existent bid reminds me of a defence to a strong pass which I played once in my only outing in the Copenhagen pairs championship, where we played that a 1S overcall showed 13 cards. As it gives no information, it is surely the least precise bid available. Let us say that only one opponent was playing a forcing 1NT opener (most of the rest of the field were playing a strong pass), showing 16+ any shape, and someone overcalled 1S which against a strong pass shows 13 cards, but of course has no meaning whatsoever after an artificial NT. The player saw the auction correctly but got confused, intending to make a bid that showed 13 cards. Again I would have no problem in deciding that the 1S bid contained no information and was not the most precise bid the player could make but the least precise, and therefore any substitution other than a jump would be permitted. The director can always use 27B1b if necessary. From Gampas at aol.com Wed Mar 12 12:03:04 2008 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:03:04 EDT Subject: [blml] Another L27 Message-ID: [gampas] Director: How can I help you? Beginner A: The auction has just gone 1C - (1S) - 1H Director: Why did you bid 1H, Sir? Did you not see the 1S bid? Beginner B: Yes, but I thought hearts ranked above spades ... I forgot they didn't. Director: Hmm ... It looks like the IB had no systemic meaning whatsoever (bids below 1S are not on your convention card), therefore you can substitute any call you wish. Other than a jump bid. As 1C - (1S) - 1H does not exist you do not have to make a bid which shows four or more hearts and responding values. [Eric Landau] Why not... Director: OK. What does 1H mean when you bid it over a lower- ranking suit? [gampas] A sensible way of dealing with the problem, I must agree. Unfortunately it will only address some insufficient bids. If the auction had gone 1D - (1S) - 1H thinking that hearts outranked spades, you might get the player responding. "You're not going to catch me out again, director. I now remember that there is no suit between diamonds and hearts, and the convention card is indeed silent on the subject of 1D - (Overcall) - 1H." From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 12 12:40:51 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:40:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <16460539.1205289975027.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <16460539.1205289975027.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <47D7C143.60305@ulb.ac.be> John R. Mayne a ?crit : > -----Original Message----- > >> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Sent: Mar 11, 2008 10:30 PM >> To: blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >> Imps (Butler scoring against a datum) >> Dealer West >> Nil Vulnerable >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> 3H X (1) Pass 3S >> Pass 3NT Pass ? >> >> (1) Takeout double >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> J8654 >> J >> 976 >> AT96 >> >> What call do you make? >> > > 4C. Partner has expressed doubt by not bidding 3N directly. None for me, thanks. > > AG : in classical theory, partner has merely expressed a hand too strong for bidding 3NT directly. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 12 12:52:34 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:52:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <16460539.1205289975027.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <16460539.1205289975027.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <47D7C402.1070605@ulb.ac.be> John R. Mayne a ?crit : > -----Original Message----- > >> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Sent: Mar 11, 2008 10:30 PM >> To: blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >> Imps (Butler scoring against a datum) >> Dealer West >> Nil Vulnerable >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> 3H X (1) Pass 3S >> Pass 3NT Pass ? >> >> (1) Takeout double >> >> You, South, hold: >> >> J8654 >> J >> 976 >> AT96 >> >> What call do you make? >> > > 4C. Partner has expressed doubt by not bidding 3N directly. None for me, thanks. > > --JRM > AG : I'm really baffled. How would you all bid on : KQ - AQx - AKQJx - Qxx ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 12 12:39:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:39:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47D7C104.9090302@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Imps (Butler scoring against a datum) > Dealer West > Nil Vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 3H X (1) Pass 3S > Pass 3NT Pass ? > > (1) Takeout double > > You, South, hold: > > J8654 > J > 976 > AT96 > > What call do you make? > I pass. Yes, there seems to be a trick, because this is so obvious : partner didn't show spades, my HJ is a good card and the contract figures to win. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 12 12:39:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:39:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47D7C104.9090302@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Imps (Butler scoring against a datum) > Dealer West > Nil Vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 3H X (1) Pass 3S > Pass 3NT Pass ? > > (1) Takeout double > > You, South, hold: > > J8654 > J > 976 > AT96 > > What call do you make? > I pass. Yes, there seems to be a trick, because this is so obvious : partner didn't show spades, my HJ is a good card and the contract figures to win. From defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr Wed Mar 12 11:08:38 2008 From: defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr (Henri DEFRANCHI) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:08:38 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] =?utf-8?b?wqBUcmljayBxdWVzdGlvbiDCoCDCoFtTRUM9VU5PRkZJQ0lB?= =?utf-8?q?L=5D?= Message-ID: <32826152.38601205316517986.JavaMail.www@wwinf2614> Pass is my first choice....And my second...And... Alone on my desert island ? Regards > Message du 12/03/08 03:44 > De : richard.hills at immi.gov.au > A : blml at rtflb.org > Copie ? : > Objet : [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Imps (Butler scoring against a datum) > Dealer West > Nil Vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 3H X (1) Pass 3S > Pass 3NT Pass ? > > (1) Takeout double > > You, South, hold: > > J8654 > J > 976 > AT96 > > What call do you make? > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Graduates and Developmental Training 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > Riton from Marseille -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080312/3d1bc536/attachment.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 12 13:42:58 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:42:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Another L27 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <678334D1-4401-477E-B8DC-FBF1AA103EAB@starpower.net> On Mar 12, 2008, at 6:54 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > Again I would have no > problem in deciding that the 1S bid contained no information and > was not the > most precise bid the player could make but the least precise, and > therefore > any substitution other than a jump would be permitted. The > director can always > use 27B1b if necessary. JFTR, the "new new" version of L27 no longer contains the exception for jumps (or redoubles). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Wed Mar 12 14:27:06 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:27:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <007101c88444$c42598e0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > John (MadDog) Probst: > >>...I believe the Law tells his partner to treat this call >>as a 2NT overcall, and is not permitted to know he bid 1NT >>first. (Withdrawn calls are UI to the offending side)... > > Richard Hills: > > Normally withdrawn or cancelled calls are unauthorised > information to the offending side, as specified in the 2007 > Law 16D2. However, John has overlooked that Law 27B1(a) has > a specific exemption, stating that: "Law 16D does not apply > but see D following." > > But the Law 16D exemption for the OS during the auction (and > perhaps the defence) has a further Law 27D exception for the > NOS at the end of play, protecting the NOS from any damage. Yeah, that is how i see it. If a player 9as my mother would have) makes his bid good then he bids as if the original bid hadn't occurred. if i think he's cheated then i might adjust. this bit is fundamental to how we play bridge and has been in the laws for a very long time. i haven't yet decided what to do if we get the change of call to another denomination scenario. I think i'm going to be a bit more strict, although the change of call scenario is itself much more tightly specified as to what's permitted. making the bid good has always been a bit floppy. > > Note: The yardstick against which the NOS's Law 27D damage > is measured is: > > "the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid > not occurred", > > but the yardstick is _not_ the punitive: > > "the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient > bidder's partner been constrained by Law 16D2". > > So a Reveley Ruling is permissible under a Law 27D correction > of a Law 27B1(a) ruling. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Graduates and Developmental Training 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Mar 12 14:30:30 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:30:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] "Reveley" ruling References: <200803110523.AA12796@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <007c01c88445$3df6bf50$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Geller" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 5:23 AM Subject: [blml] "Reveley" ruling > richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >>So a Reveley Ruling is permissible under a Law 27D correction >>of a Law 27B1(a) ruling. A Reveley ruling is where you've decided someone has cheated and adjusted the score. You weight the score and include, in part the original auction and score. It's a Reveley ruling because you've included part of the weight of a score which you deemed illegal. the solution is to find a different auction to the same spot and now it's ok, of course. > > I'd not heard this term before so I googled it, and here's > what I came up with (from an old BLML post): >> The eponymous Ted Reveley (who won the main Swiss Teams >> event) chaired the appeals committee and, naturally, >> issued a "Reveley" ruling (which he defined as a technically >> illegal compromise ruling to approximate better to justice). > > (Just in case others besides me also didn't know this term.) > > -Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Mar 12 14:42:51 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:42:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47D7B15E.8030102@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <00af01c88446$f7d92740$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Richard Hills] > Imps (Butler scoring against a datum) > Dealer West Nil Vulnerable You, South, hold: > S:J8654 H:J D:976 C:AT96 > (3H) _X (_P) 3S > (_P) 3N (_P) ?? > - _X = Takeout > > [Nige1] > IMO 4S = 10, 4H=7, 4C = 6, _P = 5. I figure partner has a "I like 3NT a lot" hand. Better than a direct 3N. 1444 22 count, stiff spade; RHO didn't make a defensive raise? I'll blast 5C and call him a c*** if he's got something different. John > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Mar 12 14:47:39 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:47:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3 In-Reply-To: <025101c882e4$c7fba010$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie><008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred><026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie><47D15C72.4080903@NTLworld.com><2da24b8e0803070804uf4e87few17d169e4ee6cf9d4@mail.gmail.com><47D174A7.6080805@NTLworld.com><2da24b8e0803070930o61108bffh2ef38fd04441dee0@mail.gmail.com><47D19322.60806@NTLworld.com> <003c01c8829c$857c6410$05d4403e@Mildred> <47D573E7.3020802@NTLworld.com> <025101c882e4$c7fba010$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47D7DEFB.8050400@NTLworld.com> [Stefanie Rohan] I have no problems with agreements based on the opponents' irregularities. But to be permitted to have agreements after our own irregularities seems seriously misguided. I had thought that such agreements were illegal in the past, but it may have been a matter of EBU regulations. Players who can change their bidding systems after they have made an illegal bid, or eg change their carding agreements when they have a penalty card exposed, can turn out to actually profit from their irregularities. I feel very strongly that that should not be the case; they should be in a position to lose out or break even. And yes, I do think that there are players who will deliberately commit an infraction if there is no deterrent. [nige1] Unless explicitly forbidden by local legislation, 40B3 seems to permit you to agree different sets of conventions, that depend on any of the following - The question that you or opponents ask. - The answer that you or opponents give. - The option that you or opponent choose after an infraction by you or opponents. It is unpleasant that a normal reading of the law opens a Pandora's box of exploits ... Opponent opens 1C (RHO alerts). Partner doubles (you alert). RHO asks what the double means. You explain that partner ... - Passes without asking lacking anything to say. - Passes after asking with a takeout double. - Doubles without asking with 5+ clubs. - Doubles after asking with weak notrump. - Overcalls without asking with a normal values. - Overcalls after asking with stronger hands ... I agree with Stefanie, that allowing people to vary agreements that depend on such things seems mad. It is hard to believe that the law-makers intended to encourage this kind of thing. I go further than Stefanie. I wish that the law did not encourage different sets of agreements that depend on which option you choose after an infraction by an opponent. Ordinary bidding and play provide a sufficient intellectual challenge for most players. A simple way of doing this would be to specify a single form of redress with no player options. Also, I would like a relatively unqualified version of law 16Aa: "During the auction and play, your only legitimate communication channel with partner is your choice of call or card (respectively). You must use prescribed forms, without elegant variation." [TNLB 16A1a] 1. A player may use information in the auction or play if: (a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; *or* TNLB 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. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Mar 12 14:59:43 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:59:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] "Reveley" ruling In-Reply-To: <200803110523.AA12796@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200803110523.AA12796@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47D7E1CF.6010902@NTLworld.com> [richard.hills] So a Reveley Ruling is permissible under a Law 27D correction of a Law 27B1(a) ruling. [Robert Geller] I'd not heard this term before so I googled it, and here's what I came up with (from an old BLML post): "The eponymous Ted Reveley (who won the main Swiss Teams event) chaired the appeals committee and, naturally, issued a "Reveley" ruling (which he defined as a technically illegal compromise ruling to approximate better to justice)." (Just in case others besides me also didn't know this term.) [Nige1] It was I who wrote that :). From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 12 16:12:14 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:12:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00af01c88446$f7d92740$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <47D7B15E.8030102@NTLworld.com> <00af01c88446$f7d92740$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <47D7F2CE.3060905@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Guthrie" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:33 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >> [Richard Hills] >> Imps (Butler scoring against a datum) >> Dealer West Nil Vulnerable You, South, hold: >> S:J8654 H:J D:976 C:AT96 >> (3H) _X (_P) 3S >> (_P) 3N (_P) ?? >> - _X = Takeout >> >> [Nige1] >> IMO 4S = 10, 4H=7, 4C = 6, _P = 5. >> > > I figure partner has a "I like 3NT a lot" hand. Better than a direct 3N. > 1444 22 count, stiff spade; RHO didn't make a defensive raise? > > I'll blast 5C and call him a c*** if he's got something different. John > While I agree with your interpretation of the strength and orientation of partner's probable hand, 1444 doesn't seem that obvious. Partner could well hold, say, 2353 or 1453 pattern. What about 4C, intending to pass 4NT ? Anyway, I guess the question was about LAs after partner's slow 3NT bid (or questions about 3H), and we've seen there are some. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 12 16:25:44 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:25:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3 In-Reply-To: <47D7DEFB.8050400@NTLworld.com> References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie><008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred><026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie><47D15C72.4080903@NTLworld.com><2da24b8e0803070804uf4e87few17d169e4ee6cf9d4@mail.gmail.com><47D174A7.6080805@NTLworld.com><2da24b8e0803070930o61108bffh2ef38fd04441dee0@mail.gmail.com><47D19322.60806@NTLworld.com> <003c01c8829c$857c6410$05d4403e@Mildred> <47D573E7.3020802@NTLworld.com> <025101c882e4$c7fba010$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47D7DEFB.8050400@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47D7F5F8.90505@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > > Players who can change their bidding systems after they have made an > illegal bid, or eg change their carding agreements when they have a > penalty card exposed, can turn out to actually profit from their > irregularities. I feel very strongly that that should not be the case; > they should be in a position to lose out or break even. > > Extracting some profit from one's irregularity is allowed as long as you didn't do it on purpose (e. g. your penalty card happens to be the right lead) ; having agreements would be an "on purpose" case and could, to the extreme, lead to cases where you'll be glad to expose some card in order to have the right carding agreement for the situation. For this reason, among others, agreements should be disallowed. There is, however, a real problem : any experienced partner will know that your 4S bid after you somehow barred him can be less than pure ; if it happened more than once, this departure from system will be considered an agreement according to L75B. I can't see any way out of this. > And yes, I do think that there are players who will deliberately commit > an infraction if there is no deterrent. > > [nige1] > Unless explicitly forbidden by local legislation, 40B3 seems to permit > you to agree different sets of conventions, that depend on any of the > following > - The question that you or opponents ask. > - The answer that you or opponents give. > Well, in the latter subcase "according to the response they give", it must be allowed, because this is equivalent (if they didn't give MI) to "according to their system", which, of course, is allowed. > I go further than Stefanie. I wish that the law did not encourage > different sets of agreements that depend on which option you choose > after an infraction by an opponent. Same problem. It's obvious that if you allow them to bid 1H over 1S, then raise to 1S, your 1S bid is fairly weak. Once again L75B tells us this will become an agreement even if you didn't discuss it. "According to their question" would lead to the same problem if, like me, you're more prone to double when they showed anxiety about your announced strength. Well, perhaps L75B is the culprit ? Best regards Alain From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 12 17:40:27 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:40:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3 References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie><008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred><026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie><47D15C72.4080903@NTLworld.com><2da24b8e0803070804uf4e87few17d169e4ee6cf9d4@mail.gmail.com><47D174A7.6080805@NTLworld.com><2da24b8e0803070930o61108bffh2ef38fd04441dee0@mail.gmail.com><47D19322.60806@NTLworld.com> <003c01c8829c$857c6410$05d4403e@Mildred> <47D573E7.3020802@NTLworld.com><025101c882e4$c7fba010$0100a8c0@stefanie> <47D7DEFB.8050400@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <00b701c8845f$c76fc690$0100a8c0@stefanie> > [nige1] > Unless explicitly forbidden by local legislation, 40B3 seems to permit > you to agree different sets of conventions, that depend on any of the > following > - The question that you or opponents ask. > - The answer that you or opponents give. > - The option that you or opponent choose after an infraction by you or > opponents. Amazingly, this is what is says. > > It is unpleasant that a normal reading of the law opens a Pandora's box > of exploits ... > > Opponent opens 1C (RHO alerts). Partner doubles (you alert). RHO asks > what the double means. You explain that partner ... > - Passes without asking lacking anything to say. > - Passes after asking with a takeout double. > - Doubles without asking with 5+ clubs. > - Doubles after asking with weak notrump. > - Overcalls without asking with a normal values. > - Overcalls after asking with stronger hands ... > > I agree with Stefanie, that allowing people to vary agreements that > depend on such things seems mad. It is hard to believe that the > law-makers intended to encourage this kind of thing. It is very hard to believe, but I do not see how the law can be read in any other way. Why would it be there if it did not mean exactly what Nigel suggests above? > > I go further than Stefanie. I wish that the law did not encourage > different sets of agreements that depend on which option you choose > after an infraction by an opponent. Ordinary bidding and play provide a > sufficient intellectual challenge for most players. > Well, players with better agreements will profit in a variety of ways. If the opponents have committed an infraction, it is quite appropriate to profit from it as best you can. Some people choose not to do so, and that is their right as well. > A simple way of doing this would be to specify a single form of redress > with no player options. It seems that after something like a bid or play out of turn, or an insufficient bid, the option to accept it is needed, because after all, it is the only way the game can continue smoothly. Yet a NO cannot be forced to accept it, so... Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 12 18:09:02 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:09:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3 References: <01d801c87ffe$919019e0$0100a8c0@stefanie><008601c8804f$deacfdf0$ded6403e@Mildred><026e01c8805e$c57501c0$0100a8c0@stefanie><47D15C72.4080903@NTLworld.com><2da24b8e0803070804uf4e87few17d169e4ee6cf9d4@mail.gmail.com><47D174A7.6080805@NTLworld.com><2da24b8e0803070930o61108bffh2ef38fd04441dee0@mail.gmail.com><47D19322.60806@NTLworld.com> <003c01c8829c$857c6410$05d4403e@Mildred> <47D573E7.3020802@NTLworld.com> <025101c882e4$c7fba010$0100a8c0@stefanie><47D7DEFB.8050400@NTLworld.com> <47D7F5F8.90505@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <011601c88463$c54aedf0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > [nige1] > Unless explicitly forbidden by local legislation, 40B3 seems to permit > you to agree different sets of conventions, that depend on any of the > following > - The question that you or opponents ask. > - The answer that you or opponents give. AG: Well, in the latter subcase "according to the response they give", it must be allowed, because this is equivalent (if they didn't give MI) to "according to their system", which, of course, is allowed. SR: Not too sure about this. If the Law meant "according to their system" it would have said so, no? Also, if your system dictates one action over 2D that is a transfer to spades and another action over 2D that is a weak takeout, then knowing what the bid means and acting accordingly is not "varying your agreements". The agreements were in place an unvarying; the fact that you asked a question is incidental and "counts" as nothing more than the way you discovered what their bid meant. In any case, even if we accept that "according to the response they give" is an innocuous as he has stated, the other three elements are much more problematic and it seems highly improper to allow agreements based on those. So improper that you would think that there is some other intended interpretation of the Law. But what? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 12 18:18:29 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:18:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Inequity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <013501c88465$17b52550$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Nigel Guthrie: > >>- Players don't mind seemingly draconian rules, > > Richard Hills: > > Not so. > > In the early 1930s the Law-makers introduced draconian > rules for vulnerable undertricks, in the misguided > belief that mega-penalties would make the game more > interesting. > > These draconian rules were so hugely unpopular that a > new, non-draconian Lawbook appeared in the record > time of only one year later. > Is a change in the scoring system really comparable to a penalty for an infraction? Can the word "draconian" really be used for a feature of the scoring system? I don't think so. This comparison has no merit. Going for undertricks is a normal part of the game, whilst illegal actions are not. The word "penalty" can be used in both cases, but the similarity between them is an illusion. When we are talking about irregularities, players realise that they shouldn't have done whatever they did, and are willing to take their lumps. If they do something foolish like failing to follow suit, they expect to be penalised for it, and feel that they should. Barring disabilities, no one is forced to make calls or plays that are not legal. so why be overly sympathetic and try mightily to ensure that players who do this are not damaged therefrom? Maybe players prefer automatic penalties that may be harsh but are simple to understand; maybe they do not; obviously opinions in this group are mixed, and no one has, as far as I know, done a poll. But did the DSC have any better idea than we do about what the players prefer in this regard? Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 12 22:20:06 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:20:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47D7C143.60305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : in classical theory, partner has merely expressed a hand too >strong for bidding 3NT directly. Richard Hills: In my classical theory North would bid an immediate 3NT with long running diamonds and a heart stop. So a takeout double must deny that sort of hand, since a 4C response from South could bypass the only making game. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 12 22:35:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:35:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] Inequity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <013501c88465$17b52550$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: Stefanie Rohan: [snip] >Maybe players prefer automatic penalties that may be harsh >but are simple to understand; maybe they do not; obviously >opinions in this group are mixed, and no one has, as far >as I know, done a poll. But did the DSC have any better >idea than we do about what the players prefer in this >regard? Richard Hills: Yes. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 13 00:04:59 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:04:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47D7C402.1070605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >AG: I'm really baffled. How would you all bid on : KQ - AQx - AKQJx - Qxx? Richard Hills: I would bid an immediate 3NT. If pard holds Jxx xxx Txx Jxxx, then nine tricks in 3NT is the only game. An initial takeout double would see pard respond with 4C - goodbye game bonus. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 13 03:16:57 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:16:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps (Butler scoring against a datum) Dealer West Nil Vulnerable The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 3H X (1) Pass 3S Pass 3NT(2) Pass 4C Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) Takeout double (2) Break in tempo The complete deal: AQ3 K62 KQ5 QJ85 T7 K92 QT98743 A5 AJ T8432 43 K72 J8654 J 976 AT96 As the cards lay, 4S was cold with careful play, while 3NT would have been doomed due to the preemptor holding an outside entry. North's break in tempo demonstrably suggested that 3NT might be the wrong contract, so the question is whether a logical alternative to South's 4C would be Pass. Henri Defranchi and Alain Gottcheiner gave an unequivocal "Yes" to a Pass of 3NT being a logical alternative. But the trick to this trick question is this criterion in the 2007 Law 16B1(b) definition of logical alternative: "...using the methods of the partnership..." Harald Skj?ran and Hirsch Davis were using the methods of the North-South partnership - double then 3NT showing a flexible hand, with an immediate 3NT being much more rigid - so Harald and Hirsch gave an unequivocal "No" to a Pass of 3NT being a logical alternative. At the table I held the South cards. My LHO had won many Aussie women's championships, so she was more than capable of summoning the director if she thought she had been damaged by UI. However, after confirming that pard's double was takeout (since our partnership plays many penalty doubles), both she and her equally expert partner decided the director was not required. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 zecurado at gmail.com Thu Mar 13 05:42:18 2008 From: zecurado at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_J=FAlio_Curado?=) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 04:42:18 +0000 Subject: [blml] System Classification Message-ID: Hello! I apologise in advance if this has been discussed before here in blml, but I don't seem to recall it. The WBF (and EBL) System Policy under its General Definitions defines *Length* as 3 or more cards in a suit and *Shortage* as 2 or less cards in a suit.Later it goes on to define HUM Systems and in point 4 we can read: 4 - By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit. By a strict interpretation of this, we might include among yellow systems those where a One Club opening shoes 2 (*Shortage*) or more (*Length*) cards in the Club suit. This is a popular agreement among some players that use the Standard French or SAYC approaches however I never heard of someone trying to "yellow"this... Apparently they must be right not to try it because last Monday I got an e-mail where the WBF Laws Drafting Subcommittee states: 1. - It will recommend to the WBF Laws Committee and the WBF Rules & Regulations Committee that it be agreed that an opening bid in a suit where the hand may contain fewer than three cards in the named suit is among those calls that are 'artificial'. The rationale is that such calls do not express a willingness to play in the denomination named (see definition of 'Artificial Call'). So, here are my questions: How should we read the Systems Policy in order not to consider this 2-card One Club as HUM? Should we read the exception bellow point 5 in the HUM definitions as applying to*all* the previous 5 points? The problem is that in the Portuguese Systems Policy, recently published, this exception is slightly mistranslated and *part of* point 5. One last question: One pair is playing 1NT 15-17, 5 card majors, 4 card diamonds and this One Club opening. If by partnership agreement they con open One Club with S:A1087 H:A986 D:K85 C:75 how would you classify their system? Sorry for the long post and thanks for all the answers. Best regards, Jose Curado Post Script - Why are the definitions of Long Match and Short Mach there? I don't seem to find the need for that anywhere else in the Policy... From geller at nifty.com Thu Mar 13 05:52:17 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:52:17 +0900 Subject: [blml] System Classification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200803130452.AA12833@geller204.nifty.com> Hi, I agree that 1C (showing 2 or more) should probably not be "yellowed" if 1D shows 3 or more and 1H,1S 4 or more, but this is what the WBF decided. As I understand it each NBO is free to adopt its own regulations, which need not be the same as the WBF regulations, so there is no need for your federation to strictly follow the WBF. This is a matter of regulation, not law. -Bob Jos?J?io_Curado ????????: >Hello! > >I apologise in advance if this has been discussed before here in blml, >but I don't seem to recall it. > >The WBF (and EBL) System Policy under its General Definitions defines >*Length* as 3 or more cards in a suit and *Shortage* as 2 or less >cards in a suit.Later it goes on to define HUM Systems and in point 4 >we can read: > >4 - By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows >either length or shortage in a specified suit. > >By a strict interpretation of this, we might include among yellow >systems those where a One Club opening shoes 2 (*Shortage*) or more >(*Length*) cards in the Club suit. This is a popular agreement among >some players that use the Standard French or SAYC approaches however I >never heard of someone trying to "yellow"this... Apparently they must >be right not to try it because last Monday I got an e-mail where the >WBF Laws Drafting Subcommittee states: > >1. - It will recommend to the WBF Laws Committee and the WBF Rules & >Regulations Committee that it be agreed that an opening bid in a suit >where the hand may contain fewer than three cards in the named suit is >among those calls that are 'artificial'. The rationale is that such >calls do not express a willingness to play in the denomination named >(see definition of 'Artificial Call'). > >So, here are my questions: How should we read the Systems Policy in >order not to consider this 2-card One Club as HUM? Should we read the >exception bellow point 5 in the HUM definitions as applying to*all* >the previous 5 points? The problem is that in the Portuguese Systems >Policy, recently published, this exception is slightly mistranslated >and *part of* point 5. > >One last question: One pair is playing 1NT 15-17, 5 card majors, 4 >card diamonds and this One Club opening. If by partnership agreement >they con open One Club with S:A1087 H:A986 D:K85 C:75 how would you >classify their system? > >Sorry for the long post and thanks for all the answers. > >Best regards, >Jose Curado > >Post Script - Why are the definitions of Long Match and Short Mach >there? I don't seem to find the need for that anywhere else in the >Policy... > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Mar 13 08:20:39 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:20:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?System_Classification?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1JZhjz-1HqVTk0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> From: "Jos? J?lio Curado" > The WBF (and EBL) System Policy under its General Definitions defines > *Length* as 3 or more cards in a suit and *Shortage* as 2 or less > cards in a suit.Later it goes on to define HUM Systems and in point 4 > we can read: > > 4 - By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows > either length or shortage in a specified suit. > > By a strict interpretation of this, we might include among yellow > systems those where a One Club opening shoes 2 (*Shortage*) or more > (*Length*) cards in the Club suit. This is a popular agreement among > some players that use the Standard French or SAYC approaches however I > never heard of someone trying to "yellow"this... Apparently they must > be right not to try it because last Monday I got an e-mail where the > WBF Laws Drafting Subcommittee states: > > 1. - It will recommend to the WBF Laws Committee and the WBF Rules & > Regulations Committee that it be agreed that an opening bid in a suit > where the hand may contain fewer than three cards in the named suit is > among those calls that are 'artificial'. ?The rationale is that such > calls do not express a willingness to play in the denomination named > (see definition of 'Artificial Call'). > > So, here are my questions: How should we read the Systems Policy in > order not to consider this 2-card One Club as HUM? shortness: by definition "2 or less" length: by definition "3 or more" So, the sentence "either shortness or length" does not make it "2 or more"! It's rather "(2 or less) or (3 or more)" which means "either max. 2 or min. 3" and that is ,what HUM-4 describes. > Should we read the > exception bellow point 5 in the HUM definitions as applying to*all* > the previous 5 points? The problem is that in the Portuguese Systems > Policy, recently published, this exception is slightly mistranslated > and *part of* point 5. Of course the exception can't apply to no. 1-3, but it does apply to no. 4+5 and is not part of no.5. > One last question: One pair is playing 1NT 15-17, ?5 card majors, 4 > card diamonds and this One Club opening. If by partnership agreement > they con open One Club with S:A1087 H:A986 D:K85 C:75 how would you > classify their system? agressive ;-) otherwise GREEN > Sorry for the long post and thanks for all the answers. > > Best regards, > Jose Curado > > Post Script - Why are the definitions of Long Match and Short Mach > there? I don't seem to find the need for that anywhere else in the > Policy... IIRC there were/are CoCs that allow(ed) Brown Sticker conventions in case of Long matches but not in Short matches. Peter From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 13 23:31:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:31:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: [big snip] >so she was more than capable of summoning the >director if she thought she had been damaged >by UI. However, after confirming that pard's >double was takeout (since our partnership >plays many penalty doubles), both she and her >equally expert partner decided the director >was not required. 2007 Law 72A: "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Richard Hills: Another trick question. If: (a) careful analysis convinces one that one has not been damaged, but (b) careful analysis also convinces one that the gullible director might rule that one has indeed been damaged, then (c) does the Law 72A "object ... to obtain a higher score" require one to summon that gullible director? (In the actual case the director was anything but gullible, being the Chief Director of Australia.) Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 karel at esatclear.ie Fri Mar 14 11:46:20 2008 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:46:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] A question of player ability Message-ID: I've been reading (re)reading several bridge books, bididng, law cases, etc. I know that in many cases when judging a case the level of the player is taken into a/c and a different ruling or a warning may be awarded in similar cases. I just wonder is there any provision for questioning a players bidding, play or defense which appears to be "wild", "unusual", "visionary" - given that players level ? (eg) A really good player makes the only lead (say underleads an ace when they have QJTx or some other fairly standout lead) which beats the contract, for no good reason. Or a really good declarer takes a very low percentage line risking going down in a stone cold contract making plus one, again for no good reason. Or a 3rd example would be a player of any level making a bid which works out unbelievably well but which again there is no good reason for. Do the laws allow you to question such a players action or is it simply put down to a "maddness" which worked ? Where is the line drawn in such cases ? Karel From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 14 06:59:15 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:59:15 +1100 Subject: [blml] Burn investigates. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <008401c8804f$dc13dc80$ded6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: David Burn: [snip] >>More to the point, they can't afford lack of clarity in >>the Laws, because that may discourage people from playing >>the game at all. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I estimate there are three to five matters in the new >laws that players need to know. The rest is for Tournament >Directors. [snip] Richard Hills: To avoid discouraging people from playing the game at all, perhaps Grattan could enunciate with clarity the three to five matters in the new laws that players need to know? Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Mar 13 13:13:10 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:13:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Reveley" ruling In-Reply-To: <007c01c88445$3df6bf50$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <200803110523.AA12796@geller204.nifty.com> <007c01c88445$3df6bf50$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: On 12/03/2008, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Geller" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 5:23 AM > Subject: [blml] "Reveley" ruling > > > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > >>So a Reveley Ruling is permissible under a Law 27D correction > >>of a Law 27B1(a) ruling. > > A Reveley ruling is where you've decided someone has cheated and adjusted > the score. You weight the score and include, in part the original auction > and score. It's a Reveley ruling because you've included part of the weight > of a score which you deemed illegal. the solution is to find a different > auction to the same spot and now it's ok, of course. That might work when we're looking at bidding only. But it doens't work if we're talking about defence or opening lead. I once held something like 8x 9xxx Jxx Jxxx in a teams game. RHO opened 1NT and LHO raised to 3NT. Now I knew I was going to lead S8. Partner had a problem, and thought about his call for quite a long time before passing. Of course I now "knew" he had spades and was thinking about doubling (or bidding 4S). So I had a problem. Knowing that I'd lead S8 on this sequence with this hand 100% of the time I decided to do just that, thus 3NT went down. It's making on any other lead. If TD/AC decide that other leads are LAs and Reveley ruling is illegal, 3NT will always be ruled making. Which IMP is wrong. However, both the TD and AC ruled that there was no LA lead, and ruled 3NT-1. I don't agree with that ruling, and would prefer a weighted score based upon x% 3NT-1 and 100-x% 3NT made (I don't remember if there was overtricks on a non-spade lead). -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > > I'd not heard this term before so I googled it, and here's > > what I came up with (from an old BLML post): > >> The eponymous Ted Reveley (who won the main Swiss Teams > >> event) chaired the appeals committee and, naturally, > >> issued a "Reveley" ruling (which he defined as a technically > >> illegal compromise ruling to approximate better to justice). > > > > (Just in case others besides me also didn't know this term.) > > > > -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 > From tsvecfob at iol.ie Thu Mar 13 16:10:35 2008 From: tsvecfob at iol.ie (Fearghal O'Boyle) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:10:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] L26 or not References: Message-ID: <000901c8851c$652ff780$570a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> For your consideration: W N E S 1D P 1H P 4NT P 4H(2 aces) TD rules and East bids 6H. South ends up in 6SX. What are the lead penalties (if any) on West? Regards, Fearghal. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 13 15:37:46 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:37:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] System Classification In-Reply-To: <200803130452.AA12833@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200803130452.AA12833@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <47D93C3A.7030908@ulb.ac.be> Robert Geller a e'crit : > Hi, > I agree that 1C (showing 2 or more) should probably not be "yellowed" > if 1D shows 3 or more and 1H,1S 4 or more, but this is what the WBF > decided. But that's absurd ! In that case, both the 1C and 1D opening of all Strong Clubs would be. From john at asimere.com Thu Mar 13 12:18:15 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:18:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] System Classification References: Message-ID: <000c01c884fb$ef0be110$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jos? J?lio Curado" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 4:42 AM Subject: [blml] System Classification > Hello! > > I apologise in advance if this has been discussed before here in blml, > but I don't seem to recall it. > > The WBF (and EBL) System Policy under its General Definitions defines > *Length* as 3 or more cards in a suit and *Shortage* as 2 or less > cards in a suit.Later it goes on to define HUM Systems and in point 4 > we can read: > > 4 - By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows > either length or shortage in a specified suit. > > By a strict interpretation of this, we might include among yellow > systems those where a One Club opening shoes 2 (*Shortage*) or more > (*Length*) cards in the Club suit. This is a popular agreement among > some players that use the Standard French or SAYC approaches however I > never heard of someone trying to "yellow"this... Apparently they must > be right not to try it because last Monday I got an e-mail where the > WBF Laws Drafting Subcommittee states: shortage or length example: 1S = 0-1 or 4+. I'm sure of this; a non-contiguous range of length. > > 1. - It will recommend to the WBF Laws Committee and the WBF Rules & > Regulations Committee that it be agreed that an opening bid in a suit > where the hand may contain fewer than three cards in the named suit is > among those calls that are 'artificial'. The rationale is that such > calls do not express a willingness to play in the denomination named > (see definition of 'Artificial Call'). > > So, here are my questions: How should we read the Systems Policy in > order not to consider this 2-card One Club as HUM? Should we read the > exception bellow point 5 in the HUM definitions as applying to*all* > the previous 5 points? The problem is that in the Portuguese Systems > Policy, recently published, this exception is slightly mistranslated > and *part of* point 5. > > One last question: One pair is playing 1NT 15-17, 5 card majors, 4 > card diamonds and this One Club opening. If by partnership agreement > they con open One Club with S:A1087 H:A986 D:K85 C:75 how would you > classify their system? Mind you any nation that believes the best way to launch a balanced 18 count is by bidding a small doubleton deserves the English. John > > Sorry for the long post and thanks for all the answers. > > Best regards, > Jose Curado > > Post Script - Why are the definitions of Long Match and Short Mach > there? I don't seem to find the need for that anywhere else in the > Policy... > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 13 15:36:49 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:36:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] System Classification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47D93C01.1060208@ulb.ac.be> Jos? J?lio Curado a ?crit : > Hello! > > I apologise in advance if this has been discussed before here in blml, > but I don't seem to recall it. > > The WBF (and EBL) System Policy under its General Definitions defines > *Length* as 3 or more cards in a suit and *Shortage* as 2 or less > cards in a suit.Later it goes on to define HUM Systems and in point 4 > we can read: > > 4 - By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows > either length or shortage in a specified suit. > > By a strict interpretation of this, we might include among yellow > systems those where a One Club opening shoes 2 (*Shortage*) or more > (*Length*) cards in the Club suit. > Showing 2+ cards in a suit (either in thiscase, or for a Precision 1D for example) isn't showing either length or shortness. Showing either more than n or fewer than n (as in : 0-3 or 6+ spades) is what the classification committee had in mind, as can be seen from examples given. You see, the 1C opening doesn't show either 2 clubs or 3+ (which could have been summed as 2+), it shows either clubs or a balanced hand of some type. > > One last question: One pair is playing 1NT 15-17, 5 card majors, 4 > card diamonds and this One Club opening. If by partnership agreement > they con open One Club with S:A1087 H:A986 D:K85 C:75 how would you > classify their system? > > In Belgium, green provided there are no other quirks. 1C isn't artificial, it is merely "residual", e.g. defined as "no other opening possible". In some other countries, 1C could be considered artificial, but not yellow (an artificial 1C makes your system blue, not yellow).. Best regards Alain From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Mar 13 14:14:32 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:14:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] System Classification In-Reply-To: <1JZhjz-1HqVTk0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> References: <1JZhjz-1HqVTk0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On 13/03/2008, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: "Jos? J?lio Curado" > > The WBF (and EBL) System Policy under its General Definitions defines > > *Length* as 3 or more cards in a suit and *Shortage* as 2 or less > > cards in a suit.Later it goes on to define HUM Systems and in point 4 > > we can read: > > > > 4 - By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows > > either length or shortage in a specified suit. > > > > By a strict interpretation of this, we might include among yellow > > systems those where a One Club opening shoes 2 (*Shortage*) or more > > (*Length*) cards in the Club suit. This is a popular agreement among > > some players that use the Standard French or SAYC approaches however I > > never heard of someone trying to "yellow"this... Apparently they must > > be right not to try it because last Monday I got an e-mail where the > > WBF Laws Drafting Subcommittee states: > > > > 1. - It will recommend to the WBF Laws Committee and the WBF Rules & > > Regulations Committee that it be agreed that an opening bid in a suit > > where the hand may contain fewer than three cards in the named suit is > > among those calls that are 'artificial'. The rationale is that such > > calls do not express a willingness to play in the denomination named > > (see definition of 'Artificial Call'). > > > > So, here are my questions: How should we read the Systems Policy in > > order not to consider this 2-card One Club as HUM? > > shortness: by definition "2 or less" > length: by definition "3 or more" > > So, the sentence "either shortness or length" does not make > it "2 or more"! > It's rather "(2 or less) or (3 or more)" which means > "either max. 2 or min. 3" and that is ,what HUM-4 describes. > > > Should we read the > > exception bellow point 5 in the HUM definitions as applying to*all* > > the previous 5 points? The problem is that in the Portuguese Systems > > Policy, recently published, this exception is slightly mistranslated > > and *part of* point 5. > > Of course the exception can't apply to no. 1-3, but it does > apply to no. 4+5 and is not part of no.5. > > > One last question: One pair is playing 1NT 15-17, 5 card majors, 4 > > card diamonds and this One Club opening. If by partnership agreement > > they con open One Club with S:A1087 H:A986 D:K85 C:75 how would you > > classify their system? > > agressive ;-) > otherwise GREEN I'd say RED, due to the 1C opening. I play a similar system and we classify it as red in Norway. > > > Sorry for the long post and thanks for all the answers. > > > > Best regards, > > Jose Curado > > > > Post Script - Why are the definitions of Long Match and Short Mach > > there? I don't seem to find the need for that anywhere else in the > > Policy... > > IIRC there were/are CoCs that allow(ed) Brown Sticker conventions > in case of Long matches but not in Short matches. That's correct. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Peter > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 14 02:41:43 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:41:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] 40B3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00b701c8845f$c76fc690$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>Opponent opens 1C (RHO alerts). Partner doubles (you >>alert). RHO asks what the double means. You explain >>that partner ... >> - Passes without asking lacking anything to say. >> - Passes after asking with a takeout double. >> - Doubles without asking with 5+ clubs. >> - Doubles after asking with weak notrump. >> - Overcalls without asking with a normal values. >> - Overcalls after asking with stronger hands ... Stefanie Rohan: >It is very hard to believe, but I do not see how the law >can be read in any other way. Richard Hills: I can read it another way. The initial phrase of Law 40B3 is: "The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement...". This is _not_ logically equivalent to: "All prior agreements are automatically legal if not disallowed by the Regulating Authority". For example, prior agreements (such as those hypothesised by Nigel Guthrie) are automatically illegal when they infract Law 73B1: "Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them." Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 13 11:41:16 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:41:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] System Classification References: <1JZhjz-1HqVTk0@fwd30.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000c01c884f6$c6e496f0$2ccf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 7:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] System Classification From: "Jos? J?lio Curado" > > So, here are my questions: How should we read the Systems Policy in > order not to consider this 2-card One Club as HUM? shortness: by definition "2 or less" length: by definition "3 or more" +=+ Read the examples given under the definition of a Red system and see if the method qualifies as one of these. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 14 12:28:39 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:28:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47DA6167.2080807@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Imps (Butler scoring against a datum) > Dealer West > Nil Vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 3H X (1) Pass 3S > Pass 3NT(2) Pass 4C > Pass 4S Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Takeout double > (2) Break in tempo > > The complete deal: > > AQ3 > K62 > KQ5 > QJ85 > T7 K92 > QT98743 A5 > AJ T8432 > 43 K72 > J8654 > J > 976 > AT96 > > As the cards lay, 4S was cold with careful > play, while 3NT would have been doomed due to > the preemptor holding an outside entry. > > North's break in tempo demonstrably suggested > that 3NT might be the wrong contract, so the > question is whether a logical alternative to > South's 4C would be Pass. > > Henri Defranchi and Alain Gottcheiner gave an > unequivocal "Yes" to a Pass of 3NT being a > logical alternative. > Even if we didn't, the fact that some other contributors gave a fair score to 3NT would be enough to set off the key phrase "might seriously consider". Well, if your methods are that D + 3NT = same strength than 3NT, but more flexible, pass is no moer a LA ; I suppose you could prove this from your system notes ; mine are 90+ pages long but don't mention this peculiar case. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 14 12:28:39 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:28:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Trick question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47DA6167.2080807@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Imps (Butler scoring against a datum) > Dealer West > Nil Vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 3H X (1) Pass 3S > Pass 3NT(2) Pass 4C > Pass 4S Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) Takeout double > (2) Break in tempo > > The complete deal: > > AQ3 > K62 > KQ5 > QJ85 > T7 K92 > QT98743 A5 > AJ T8432 > 43 K72 > J8654 > J > 976 > AT96 > > As the cards lay, 4S was cold with careful > play, while 3NT would have been doomed due to > the preemptor holding an outside entry. > > North's break in tempo demonstrably suggested > that 3NT might be the wrong contract, so the > question is whether a logical alternative to > South's 4C would be Pass. > > Henri Defranchi and Alain Gottcheiner gave an > unequivocal "Yes" to a Pass of 3NT being a > logical alternative. > Even if we didn't, the fact that some other contributors gave a fair score to 3NT would be enough to set off the key phrase "might seriously consider". Well, if your methods are that D + 3NT = same strength than 3NT, but more flexible, pass is no moer a LA ; I suppose you could prove this from your system notes ; mine are 90+ pages long but don't mention this peculiar case. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 14 12:32:44 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:32:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] System Classification In-Reply-To: <000c01c884fb$ef0be110$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <000c01c884fb$ef0be110$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <47DA625C.7010606@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > Mind you any nation that believes the best way to launch a balanced 18 count > is by bidding a small doubleton deserves the English. > John > > About half the World believes that 1C followed by 1NT should be a strong bid, independent from the Cub holding. And this isn't Yellow but Blue (eg Precision, Blue Club) or Red (eg Polish, Monaco). ISTM like you fell in the classical trap of 'If I don't play it, it must be Yellow'. Regards alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 14 12:39:15 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:39:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question of player ability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47DA63E3.4090604@ulb.ac.be> Karel a ?crit : > > (eg) A really good player makes the only lead (say underleads an ace > when they have QJTx or some other fairly standout lead) which beats > the contract, for no good reason. Or a really good declarer takes a > very low percentage line risking going down in a stone cold contract > making plus one, again for no good reason. Or a 3rd example would be > a player of any level making a bid which works out unbelievably well > but which again there is no good reason for. > I'd be very careful with all those examples. Plays and (mainly) bids that seem to verge on the irrational can be justified by bridge reasons that you can't prove, e.g. an opponent showed you his hand, nearly took another bid from his bidding box, or his questions gave you a hint about what his problem was. Still more difficult to prove : you opened light because 'you felt, from opponent's behaviour, that he had a strong hand'. If a player, questioned about some play or bid, gives one of the above as an explanation, would you feel you're allowed to discard his claim ? Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 14 13:40:18 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:40:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] L26 or not In-Reply-To: <000901c8851c$652ff780$570a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> References: <000901c8851c$652ff780$570a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> Message-ID: <6AAC2477-4BE8-4373-B697-6E0C8CE04D0B@starpower.net> On Mar 13, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > For your consideration: > > W N E S > 1D P 1H P > 4NT P 4H(2 aces) > > TD rules and East bids 6H. > South ends up in 6SX. > > What are the lead penalties (if any) on West? Declarer may forbid the lead of any one suit. L27B1 does not apply; 6H is neither the least sufficient bid in the same denomination nor does it "fully contain" the "meaning" two aces. L27B2 refers us to L26. L26A does not apply; 4H was not "related solely to a specified suit or suits". L26B specifies the lead penalty. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From karel at esatclear.ie Fri Mar 14 15:50:35 2008 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:50:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] A question of player ability In-Reply-To: <47DA63E3.4090604@ulb.ac.be> References: <47DA63E3.4090604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: I'll give 2 examples reported to me from a local club game. (1) Declarer is in 4H's and has DQTxx opposite DJ9 in a side suit. In spades SAK8 opposite SJ9xx. The opps have lead and knocked out declarer CA which were 2/2 to start with. So at this point in time Dec. has 3 losers (2 diamonds + 1 club). The contract is stone cold as you knock out the DAK and discard your S8 on the DQ. Rigid. The declarer led the SJ, covered by the Q and won, back to dummy with a trump and led a spade to the 8 won. Cashed a trump high in hand. Cashed the SA break 3/3 and pitched a loser on the 3rd spade via a 3rd trump to dummy. Dec had to use dummy trump entries to do this so ran the risk of a spade ruff (spades 5/1). Percentage wise this needs spades 3/3 AND QTx under the AK8, spades not to be 5/1 or incur a ruff. So 25% * 36% = 9% probably less. This declarer did not see RHO's cards (1st thing I asked) and was more than good enough to know this was a very poor line. If the SJ is not covered it is now huge odds its going to lose if run and the opps will cash out for -1 and a duck. Not only that but you cannot now legitimately make the contract as you have given away the tempo and set up a spade loser for the opps. so 9% versus 100%, declarer once he leads the SJ is fully commited to 9%, and is more than good enough to know this. What's going on ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (2) S KQJTxxxx H- D Jx C xxx Bidding goes 1H P 7S all pass 1H opener has S Ax H Jxxx D AQT9 C Ax Diamond finesse works and K drops ... care to explain this ? I can come up with lots of inexplicable scenarios, some real clangers, others dubious at best, some have a small measure of logic but vastly against the odds for the risk taken (case 1). There are situations like this which have no bridge logic. Is there any recourse in the laws ? K. From john at asimere.com Fri Mar 14 16:56:45 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:56:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] L26 or not References: <000901c8851c$652ff780$570a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> Message-ID: <002c01c885ec$015394d0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:10 PM Subject: [blml] L26 or not > For your consideration: > > W N E S > 1D P 1H P > 4NT P 4H(2 aces) > > TD rules and East bids 6H. > South ends up in 6SX. > > What are the lead penalties (if any) on West? I'd ban the lead of any one suit. The withdrawn call does not relate to a suit. > > Regards, > Fearghal. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Mar 15 21:59:17 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:59:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] "Reveley" ruling In-Reply-To: References: <200803110523.AA12796@geller204.nifty.com><007c01c88445$3df6bf50$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <2D6482C4314E463BA6A8A7ADEDF2E33A@erdos> "Harald Skj?ran" writes: > On 12/03/2008, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Geller" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 5:23 AM >> Subject: [blml] "Reveley" ruling >> >> >> > richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: >> >>So a Reveley Ruling is permissible under a Law 27D correction >> >>of a Law 27B1(a) ruling. >> >> A Reveley ruling is where you've decided someone has cheated and adjusted >> the score. You weight the score and include, in part the original auction >> and score. It's a Reveley ruling because you've included part of the weight >> of a score which you deemed illegal. the solution is to find a different >> auction to the same spot and now it's ok, of course. > > That might work when we're looking at bidding only. But it doens't > work if we're talking about defence or opening lead. > > I once held something like 8x 9xxx Jxx Jxxx in a teams game. RHO > opened 1NT and LHO raised to 3NT. Now I knew I was going to lead S8. > Partner had a problem, and thought about his call for quite a long > time before passing. Of course I now "knew" he had spades and was > thinking about doubling (or bidding 4S). So I had a problem. Knowing > that I'd lead S8 on this sequence with this hand 100% of the time I > decided to do just that, thus 3NT went down. It's making on any other > lead. If TD/AC decide that other leads are LAs and Reveley ruling is > illegal, 3NT will always be ruled making. Which IMP is wrong. The principle is that the lead of the S8 is either an infraction or not. If the lead is an infraction, then you must get a score, or combination of scores, which could have been achieved without the infraction. If the lead is not an infraction, then you must get the table result. A split score gives you a better score than you would have had if you had obeyed the Law. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Mar 16 05:24:25 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 04:24:25 +0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47DCA0F9.5000605@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills]t I can read it another way. The initial phrase of Law 40B3 is: "The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement...". This is _not_ logically equivalent to: "All prior agreements are automatically legal if not disallowed by the Regulating Authority". For example, prior agreements (such as those hypothesised by Nigel Guthrie) are automatically illegal when they infract Law 73B1: "Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them." [Nige1] I agree with Richard that the new 40B3 seems incompatible with the old 73B1. Anyway, F2F, without screens, local regulations seem to supervene, making 73B1 a non-starter in relation to alerts (and non-alerts), questions asked (and not asked), and explanations. These all *communicate* information to partner. Previously, I understood that such unauthorised information did not matter, provided that partner refrained from acting on it. Now 40B3 seems to permit agreements about such things, by default. Richard is in an excellent position to inform us of the intentions of the law-makers. Unfortunately, I feel that Stefanie and I have high-lighted an English interpretation of L40B3, that other players will follow. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Mar 16 06:17:27 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 05:17:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] A question of player ability In-Reply-To: References: <47DA63E3.4090604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47DCAD67.80600@NTLworld.com> [Karel] I'll give 2 examples reported to me from a local club game. (1) Declarer is in 4H's and has DQTxx opposite DJ9 in a side suit. In spades SAK8 opposite SJ9xx. The opps have lead and knocked out declarer CA which were 2/2 to start with. So at this point in time Dec. has 3 losers (2 diamonds + 1 club). The contract is stone cold as you knock out the DAK and discard your S8 on the DQ. Rigid. The declarer led the SJ, covered by the Q and won, back to dummy with a trump and led a spade to the 8 won. Cashed a trump high in hand. Cashed the SA break 3/3 and pitched a loser on the 3rd spade via a 3rd trump to dummy. Dec had to use dummy trump entries to do this so ran the risk of a spade ruff (spades 5/1). Percentage wise this needs spades 3/3 AND QTx under the AK8, spades not to be 5/1 or incur a ruff. So 25% * 36% = 9% probably less. This declarer did not see RHO's cards (1st thing I asked) and was more than good enough to know this was a very poor line. If the SJ is not covered it is now huge odds its going to lose if run and the opps will cash out for -1 and a duck. Not only that but you cannot now legitimately make the contract as you have given away the tempo and set up a spade loser for the opps. so 9% versus 100%, declarer once he leads the SJ is fully commited to 9%, and is more than good enough to know this. What's going on ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (2) S KQJTxxxx H- D Jx C xxx Bidding goes 1H P 7S all pass 1H opener has S Ax H Jxxx D AQT9 C Ax Diamond finesse works and K drops ... care to explain this ? I can come up with lots of inexplicable scenarios, some real clangers, others dubious at best, some have a small measure of logic but vastly against the odds for the risk taken (case 1). There are situations like this which have no bridge logic. Is there any recourse in the laws ? [nige1] Others will point out logical reasons for what seem unlikely intuitions. For example tactical considerations that dictate playing for a swing. Also experts do make mistakes. Notwithstanding such mitigations, I feel that in some contexts, when the expert can advance no logical reason for a successful bid or play that is well against the odds, the probability may be overwhelming that an infraction has occurred: thus, cases like (2), smack of some kind illicit knowledge of the board (perhaps an overheard post-mortem). I think the law should empower the director to impose a penalty. In a criminal court, an alleged law-breaker may be convicted even if the modus operandi is unclear. Anyway, as with similar Bridge laws, the director can explain that this ruling does not imply deliberate wrong-doing by this particular player -- it is simply a *deterrent* measure against hypothetical bad-guys who might be tempted to do naughty things if there were no penalty. From the tenor of Karel's posts, I feel that I echo her attitude. If so, I hope that my support does not alienate orthodox BLMLers. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Mar 16 08:31:50 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 02:31:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] A question of player ability In-Reply-To: <47DCAD67.80600@NTLworld.com> References: <47DA63E3.4090604@ulb.ac.be> <47DCAD67.80600@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:17:27 -0500, Guthrie wrote: > [Karel] > I'll give 2 examples reported to me from a local club game. > (1) Declarer is in 4H's and has DQTxx opposite DJ9 in a side suit. > In spades SAK8 opposite SJ9xx. The opps have lead and knocked out > declarer CA which were 2/2 to start with. So at this point in time > Dec. has 3 losers (2 diamonds + 1 club). The contract is stone cold > as you knock out the DAK and discard your S8 on the DQ. Rigid. > The declarer led the SJ, covered by the Q and won, back to dummy with > a trump and led a spade to the 8 won. Cashed a trump high in hand. > Cashed the SA break 3/3 and pitched a loser on the 3rd spade via a 3rd > trump to dummy. Dec had to use dummy trump entries to do this so ran > the risk of a spade ruff (spades 5/1). > Percentage wise this needs spades 3/3 AND QTx under the AK8, spades > not to be 5/1 or incur a ruff. So 25% * 36% = 9% probably less. This > declarer did not see RHO's cards (1st thing I asked) and was more than > good enough to know this was a very poor line. If the SJ is not > covered it is now huge odds its going to lose if run and the opps will > cash out for -1 and a duck. Not only that but you cannot now > legitimately make the contract as you have given away the tempo and > set up a spade loser for the opps. so 9% versus 100%, declarer once he > leads the SJ is fully commited to 9%, and is more than good enough to > know this. What's going on ? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > (2) S KQJTxxxx H- D Jx C xxx > Bidding goes 1H P 7S all pass > 1H opener has > S Ax H Jxxx D AQT9 C Ax > Diamond finesse works and K drops ... care to explain this ? > I can come up with lots of inexplicable scenarios, some real clangers, > others dubious at best, some have a small measure of logic but vastly > against the odds for the risk taken (case 1). There are situations > like this which have no bridge logic. Is there any recourse in the > laws ? > > > [nige1] > Others will point out logical reasons for what seem unlikely intuitions. > For example tactical considerations that dictate playing for a swing. > > Also experts do make mistakes. > > Notwithstanding such mitigations, I feel that in some contexts, when the > expert can advance no logical reason for a successful bid or play that > is well against the odds, the probability may be overwhelming that an > infraction has occurred: thus, cases like (2), smack of some kind > illicit knowledge of the board (perhaps an overheard post-mortem). I > think the law should empower the director to impose a penalty. In a > criminal court, an alleged law-breaker may be convicted even if the > modus operandi is unclear. > > Anyway, as with similar Bridge laws, the director can explain that this > ruling does not imply deliberate wrong-doing by this particular player > -- it is simply a *deterrent* measure against hypothetical bad-guys who > might be tempted to do naughty things if there were no penalty. > > From the tenor of Karel's posts, I feel that I echo her attitude. If > so, I hope that my support does not alienate orthodox BLMLers. I agree with Nigel. (2) is flagrant cheating. Gives the opps an average+ and ask the 7S bidder not to come back to the club. (Unless there is more going on here than is described -- I can't imagine why even a cheater would bid this way.) I think you destroy the morale of the other players if you allow this at your club. From karel at esatclear.ie Sun Mar 16 11:23:26 2008 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:23:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] A question of player ability In-Reply-To: References: <47DA63E3.4090604@ulb.ac.be> <47DCAD67.80600@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: So it appears that unless the case is clear cut as per my 2nd example there is no way to question the opponents more murky dubious decisions even when there is very little if any bridge reasons to support such a decision. Just for arguments sake - say in the 2nd case the guy said "I'm very sorry I meant to pull out 5S's and when I looked at the table 7S's was there. I didnt know what to do, so I left it there. I didn't think it would make ... " or something similar. The 1st case would have me much more worried. We all know there are times we are behind and require a swing - but there are boards you do this on and there are others you dont. Swapping a 100% line for a 10% one for a good player is IMO unacceptable. But in case one for arguments sake guy says - "Ya sry I could have sworn I had the AKT and not AK8. When I played the J I had no choice but to continue with the double finesse ...." a 3rd example (again local club) Again a very good player Bidding goes P P 3D ?? S AJxx H KQx D - C AKJTxx Good hand - I think almost everyone without exception would double. No rush to bid clubs, spade or even heart game possible, and a slam in either of the 3 suits concievable. The actual bid was 6C's !! Dummy comes down with S QTx H xxxx D Axx C Qxx Spade K on side 12 tricks - for a joint bottom. Now I can see some rational behind this bid. Passed opener, weak 3 diamond bid 3rd seat, partner must have some values, probably outside of diamonds. Didnt want to double incase pd left it in with Dxxxx. The opps might sacrifice in 6D's. Depending on partner maybe doesnt have the system to investigate scientifically - punted what they felt would be maybe on a finesse. All valid reasons - but none so outstanding/concrete/urgent to avoid the normal double and for the level of the player make a quite remarkable bid ? Just imagine this was Zia, known for his flair - would one not feel something was out of place ? K. On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:17:27 -0500, Guthrie wrote: > > > [Karel] > > > I'll give 2 examples reported to me from a local club game. > > (1) Declarer is in 4H's and has DQTxx opposite DJ9 in a side suit. > > In spades SAK8 opposite SJ9xx. The opps have lead and knocked out > > declarer CA which were 2/2 to start with. So at this point in time > > Dec. has 3 losers (2 diamonds + 1 club). The contract is stone cold > > as you knock out the DAK and discard your S8 on the DQ. Rigid. > > The declarer led the SJ, covered by the Q and won, back to dummy with > > a trump and led a spade to the 8 won. Cashed a trump high in hand. > > Cashed the SA break 3/3 and pitched a loser on the 3rd spade via a 3rd > > trump to dummy. Dec had to use dummy trump entries to do this so ran > > the risk of a spade ruff (spades 5/1). > > Percentage wise this needs spades 3/3 AND QTx under the AK8, spades > > not to be 5/1 or incur a ruff. So 25% * 36% = 9% probably less. This > > declarer did not see RHO's cards (1st thing I asked) and was more than > > good enough to know this was a very poor line. If the SJ is not > > covered it is now huge odds its going to lose if run and the opps will > > cash out for -1 and a duck. Not only that but you cannot now > > legitimately make the contract as you have given away the tempo and > > set up a spade loser for the opps. so 9% versus 100%, declarer once he > > leads the SJ is fully commited to 9%, and is more than good enough to > > know this. What's going on ? > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > (2) S KQJTxxxx H- D Jx C xxx > > Bidding goes 1H P 7S all pass > > 1H opener has > > S Ax H Jxxx D AQT9 C Ax > > Diamond finesse works and K drops ... care to explain this ? > > I can come up with lots of inexplicable scenarios, some real clangers, > > others dubious at best, some have a small measure of logic but vastly > > against the odds for the risk taken (case 1). There are situations > > like this which have no bridge logic. Is there any recourse in the > > laws ? > > > > > > [nige1] > > Others will point out logical reasons for what seem unlikely intuitions. > > For example tactical considerations that dictate playing for a swing. > > > > Also experts do make mistakes. > > > > Notwithstanding such mitigations, I feel that in some contexts, when the > > expert can advance no logical reason for a successful bid or play that > > is well against the odds, the probability may be overwhelming that an > > infraction has occurred: thus, cases like (2), smack of some kind > > illicit knowledge of the board (perhaps an overheard post-mortem). I > > think the law should empower the director to impose a penalty. In a > > criminal court, an alleged law-breaker may be convicted even if the > > modus operandi is unclear. > > > > Anyway, as with similar Bridge laws, the director can explain that this > > ruling does not imply deliberate wrong-doing by this particular player > > -- it is simply a *deterrent* measure against hypothetical bad-guys who > > might be tempted to do naughty things if there were no penalty. > > > > From the tenor of Karel's posts, I feel that I echo her attitude. If > > so, I hope that my support does not alienate orthodox BLMLers. > > I agree with Nigel. (2) is flagrant cheating. Gives the opps an > average+ and ask the 7S bidder not to come back to the club. (Unless there > is more going on here than is described -- I can't imagine why even a > cheater would bid this way.) I think you destroy the morale of the other > players if you allow this at your club. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Mar 16 22:24:51 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:24:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Phoenix 1995 NABC Open Pairs Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass 1H X 1NT Pass Pass 2D ? You, North, hold: 762 AJ J8753 A74 What call do you make? Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Mar 16 22:48:29 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:48:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] A question of player ability [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Karel: [snip] >so 9% versus 100%, declarer once he leads the SJ is fully committed >to 9%, and is more than good enough to know this. What's going on? [snip] Richard Hills: Declarer may have legally used an option provided by Law 74C5: "...but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing an opponent's card..." Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Mar 17 00:20:13 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:20:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47DDAB2D.4050703@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] Phoenix 1995 NABC Open Pairs Dlr: North Vul: East-West You, North, hold: S:762 H:AJ D:J8753 C:A74 ---- _P (_P) 1H (_X) 1N (_P) _P 2D ?? [Nige1] IMO, If double would be ... Penalty then X = 10, _P = 2. Take-out then P = 10, _X = 2. "Values but no clear bid" then X = 10, _P = 9. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 16 13:59:00 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:59:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] A question of player ability References: <47DA63E3.4090604@ulb.ac.be> <47DCAD67.80600@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000401c887c4$7d43e340$3ecd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 5:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A question of player ability > I feel that in some > contexts, when the > expert can advance no logical reason for a successful bid or play that > is well against the odds, the probability may be overwhelming that an > infraction has occurred: thus, cases like (2), smack of some kind > illicit knowledge of the board (perhaps an overheard post-mortem). I > think the law should empower the director to impose a penalty. In a > criminal court, an alleged law-breaker may be convicted even if the > modus operandi is unclear. > > Anyway, as with similar Bridge laws, the director can explain that this > ruling does not imply deliberate wrong-doing by this particular player > -- it is simply a *deterrent* measure against hypothetical bad-guys who > might be tempted to do naughty things if there were no penalty. > > From the tenor of Karel's posts, I feel that I echo her attitude. If > so, I hope that my support does not alienate orthodox BLMLers. > +=+ Bridge is a mansion with many rooms. My advice would be that any player with doubts such as Karel recites should discuss the approach to the question with a senior TD in the locality where the problem arises. Depending on the place the response may well be different. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 17 01:38:26 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:38:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47DDAB2D.4050703@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >IMO, If double would be ... >Penalty then X = 10, _P = 2. >Take-out then P = 10, _X = 2. >"Values but no clear bid" then X = 10, _P = 9. Richard Hills: Sorry, I omitted a footnote. In the antediluvian North-South methods, double by North would be penalty. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 17 02:23:11 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:23:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001801c887cd$7da09320$3ecd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Nigel Guthrie: > >>IMO, If double would be ... >>Penalty then X = 10, _P = 2. >>Take-out then P = 10, _X = 2. >>"Values but no clear bid" then X = 10, _P = 9. > > Richard Hills: > > Sorry, I omitted a footnote. > > In the antediluvian North-South methods, double > by North would be penalty. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > +=+ My methods are by definition pre-antediluvian. I would pass because opponents are not in their best contract. I have shown most of my HCP values and partner still has his turn to come. A reopening double is available to him. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 17 03:43:31 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:43:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] A question of player ability [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Karel: >a 3rd example (again local club) > >Again a very good player > >Bidding goes P P 3D ?? > >S AJxx >H KQx >D - >C AKJTxx > >Good hand - I think almost everyone without exception would double. [snip] >The actual bid was 6C's !! Richard Hills: The call I would choose myself opposite a passed partner, since now the grand slam is unlikely. Karel: [valid reasons snipped] >All valid reasons - but none so outstanding/concrete/urgent to >avoid the normal double Richard Hills: No, a double is lunacy on this hand with its huge playing strength. The diamond void means that there is an unacceptable risk of pard passing for an inadequate penalty. If: (a) I am a very good (albeit optimistic) player, and (b) I would leap to 6C at the table, then (c) perhaps the other good player's ethics are beyond reproach? Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 17 08:02:06 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:02:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001801c887cd$7da09320$3ecd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ My methods are by definition pre-antediluvian. > I would pass because opponents are not in > their best contract. I have shown most of my > HCP values and partner still has his turn to come. > A reopening double is available to him. > ~ G ~ +=+ Phoenix 1995 Appeals Casebook, number 34: "...North stated that he thought he would get +200 for passing 2D and he feared that doubling would force East- West into a better spot (spades)." Dlr: North 762 Vul: East-West AJ J8753 A74 AKQ J984 K Q9876 AKT96 4 QT92 J63 T53 T5432 Q2 K85 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass 1H X 1NT Pass Pass 2D Pass Pass Pass Result: 2D made two, +90 Committee Decision: "...To even suggest that partner might consider reopening with a double is insulting. In real life, that is not possible with this hand and the given auction. The Committee applied the Rule of Coincidence... ... Another way of handling a case like this is to use [1987] Law 16B. This Law states that if a player has information about a hand he must report that fact to the Director. In this case, we can say we believed North had some information about this hand without ever addressing the source of that information." Casebook panellist Michael Rosenberg: "It was natural for North to fear a runout to 2S. I don't see why +200 was unlikely in 2D. Whatever anyone says about [1987] Law 16B, deciding against North-South for fielding a psyche was tantamount to an accusation. You could use whatever words you wanted in whichever order, but that was what it was." Casebook panellist Howard Weinstein: "I would much rather that this case had been adjusted under [1987] Law 40 or [1987] Law 75 implying a concealed partnership understanding. This understanding could have been explicit or gained through partnership experience. I never knew where the Rule of Coincidence came from and, as much as I'd like to see a Rule of Coincidence, I'm not entirely happy with this interpretation of [1987] Law 16B. I assume that when a Director and/or a Committee determines that someone fielded a psyche that there was a procedure to automatically record the hand involved?" Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 sater at xs4all.nl Mon Mar 17 09:19:47 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:19:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <001801c887cd$7da09320$3ecd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <008c01c88807$aa442380$fecc6a80$@nl> I must say that I considered both double and pass, biggest reason for not doubling would indeed be opponents running to a much better spot. But tell me, did the committee spend one moment on West's second call? What would have been wrong with a second double? West is the only player on the table that should have a strong clue what is going on. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: maandag 17 maart 2008 8:02 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Grattan Endicott: >+=+ My methods are by definition pre-antediluvian. > I would pass because opponents are not in > their best contract. I have shown most of my > HCP values and partner still has his turn to come. > A reopening double is available to him. > ~ G ~ +=+ Phoenix 1995 Appeals Casebook, number 34: "...North stated that he thought he would get +200 for passing 2D and he feared that doubling would force East- West into a better spot (spades)." Dlr: North 762 Vul: East-West AJ J8753 A74 AKQ J984 K Q9876 AKT96 4 QT92 J63 T53 T5432 Q2 K85 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass 1H X 1NT Pass Pass 2D Pass Pass Pass Result: 2D made two, +90 Committee Decision: "...To even suggest that partner might consider reopening with a double is insulting. In real life, that is not possible with this hand and the given auction. The Committee applied the Rule of Coincidence... ... Another way of handling a case like this is to use [1987] Law 16B. This Law states that if a player has information about a hand he must report that fact to the Director. In this case, we can say we believed North had some information about this hand without ever addressing the source of that information." Casebook panellist Michael Rosenberg: "It was natural for North to fear a runout to 2S. I don't see why +200 was unlikely in 2D. Whatever anyone says about [1987] Law 16B, deciding against North-South for fielding a psyche was tantamount to an accusation. You could use whatever words you wanted in whichever order, but that was what it was." Casebook panellist Howard Weinstein: "I would much rather that this case had been adjusted under [1987] Law 40 or [1987] Law 75 implying a concealed partnership understanding. This understanding could have been explicit or gained through partnership experience. I never knew where the Rule of Coincidence came from and, as much as I'd like to see a Rule of Coincidence, I'm not entirely happy with this interpretation of [1987] Law 16B. I assume that when a Director and/or a Committee determines that someone fielded a psyche that there was a procedure to automatically record the hand involved?" Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Mar 17 09:35:26 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:35:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 or not In-Reply-To: <6AAC2477-4BE8-4373-B697-6E0C8CE04D0B@starpower.net> Message-ID: ton: Interesting question, should be on the agenda for the 2018 laws. It seems reasonable to create a connection between L27, 26, 32 and others to make UI the decisive factor for rectifications. Assume in this example coming from Fearghal that East replaces 4H by 5H, showing the same 2 aces. In our new laws West then is allowed to make any call, but what about law 26? I am afraid that the lead penalties apply, which in my opinion should not be the case. May I have your opinion about the idea to combine lead penalties with L27B1: if no further rectification in 27B1 then also no lead penalty. I you agree you need patience. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Eric Landau Sent: vrijdag 14 maart 2008 13:40 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] L26 or not On Mar 13, 2008, at 11:10 AM, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > For your consideration: > > W N E S > 1D P 1H P > 4NT P 4H(2 aces) > > TD rules and East bids 6H. > South ends up in 6SX. > > What are the lead penalties (if any) on West? Declarer may forbid the lead of any one suit. L27B1 does not apply; 6H is neither the least sufficient bid in the same denomination nor does it "fully contain" the "meaning" two aces. L27B2 refers us to L26. L26A does not apply; 4H was not "related solely to a specified suit or suits". L26B specifies the lead penalty. 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 PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Mar 17 10:41:42 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:41:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?L26_or_not?= Message-ID: <1JbBqg-0YODE80@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> > ton: > Interesting question, should be on the agenda for the 2018 laws. It > seems reasonable to create a connection between L27, 26, 32 and others > to make UI the decisive factor for rectifications. > > Assume in this example coming from Fearghal that East replaces 4H by > 5H, showing the same 2 aces. In our new laws West then is allowed to > make any call, but what about law 26? I am afraid that the lead > penalties apply, which in my opinion should not be the case. May I > have your opinion about the idea to combine lead penalties with L27B1: > if no further rectification in 27B1 then also no lead penalty. > I you agree you need patience. I'm patient ;-) But, should the prase "the auction proceeds without further rectifications" in L27B1 not be read as "Law 26 will not apply" ?? Peter From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 17 11:01:56 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:01:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question of player ability In-Reply-To: <47DCAD67.80600@NTLworld.com> References: <47DA63E3.4090604@ulb.ac.be> <47DCAD67.80600@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47DE4194.4010308@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [ > > Notwithstanding such mitigations, I feel that in some contexts, when the > expert can advance no logical reason for a successful bid or play that > is well against the odds, the probability may be overwhelming that an > infraction has occurred: thus, cases like (2), smack of some kind > illicit knowledge of the board (perhaps an overheard post-mortem). One thing upsets me : imagine for one moment that a player has overheard that 7S was cold and decided to use this information. Would one bid 7S directly over 1H, thereby provoking all sorts of suspicions, as we see ? I don't favor this explanation and would like to find some other, perhaps something like the Rabbit's punitive 4C bid : "how else would partner let me play in my 8-card suit ?" Best regards Alaon From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 17 11:06:05 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:06:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47DE428D.1030404@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Phoenix 1995 NABC Open Pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass Pass 1H > X 1NT Pass Pass > 2D ? > > You, North, hold: > > 762 > AJ > J8753 > A74 > > What call do you make? > It very much depends on style -both yours and the opponents- : are they likely to get lucky by jumping from the 2D frying pan into the 2S inoffensive fire, as the suit lies well for them ? My style is to double what's in front of me and worry later, but surely pass is a LA (BTW, 2NT probably is, too). Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 17 11:06:05 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:06:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47DE428D.1030404@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Phoenix 1995 NABC Open Pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass Pass 1H > X 1NT Pass Pass > 2D ? > > You, North, hold: > > 762 > AJ > J8753 > A74 > > What call do you make? > It very much depends on style -both yours and the opponents- : are they likely to get lucky by jumping from the 2D frying pan into the 2S inoffensive fire, as the suit lies well for them ? My style is to double what's in front of me and worry later, but surely pass is a LA (BTW, 2NT probably is, too). Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 17 11:17:01 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:17:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question of player ability [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47DE451D.2050004@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Karel: > > >> a 3rd example (again local club) >> >> Again a very good player >> >> Bidding goes P P 3D ?? >> >> S AJxx >> H KQx >> D - >> C AKJTxx >> >> Good hand - I think almost everyone without exception would double. >> > Richard Hills: > > No, a double is lunacy on this hand with its huge playing strength. > The diamond void means that there is an unacceptable risk of pard > passing for an inadequate penalty. > > Alain : Agree with Richard. This isn't what I'd call transferable values. The choice is between 5C, 6C, and 4D if that suits your system. > If: > > (a) I am a very good (albeit optimistic) player, and > (b) I would leap to 6C at the table, then > (c) perhaps the other good player's ethics are beyond reproach? > > Somebody who claims his opponents knew the deal everytime they leap to an over-aggressive slam doesn't know much about the way this game is played. This happened against me last saturday, in a T4 match (just to be sure that there isn't any question of overhearing comments at the next table) : QJx K10xx AJx Kxx AJ10xxxx Qx --- Jxx 1D 1S 6D At the other table, I thought I had a good result in 5DX+1. So what ? Of course, in that case, I know there shouldn't be any suspicion. I know the lady ; that's her style for 40 years, including a small international carreer. Why shouldn't she be entitled to her educated shot at some well-earned IMPs ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 17 11:26:33 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:26:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <008c01c88807$aa442380$fecc6a80$@nl> References: <001801c887cd$7da09320$3ecd403e@Mildred> <008c01c88807$aa442380$fecc6a80$@nl> Message-ID: <47DE4759.2070403@ulb.ac.be> Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > > > Phoenix 1995 Appeals Casebook, number 34: > > "...North stated that he thought he would get +200 for > passing 2D and he feared that doubling would force East- > West into a better spot (spades)." > > Dlr: North 762 > Vul: East-West AJ > J8753 > A74 > AKQ J984 > K Q9876 > AKT96 4 > QT92 J63 > T53 > T5432 > Q2 > K85 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass Pass 1H > X 1NT Pass Pass > 2D Pass Pass Pass > > Result: 2D made two, +90 > > I think that in a high-level match, with well-documented partnerships, it wouldn't be too difficult to enquire. If North's claim that he wouldn't double when they're in their worst contract is supported by his decisions in other deals, you should allow him his pass. A quick poll among my friends gave 4 votes out of five in favor of pass, so perhaps double isn't such an obvious LA ? One thing is sure : polloing good players in such a situation would have been very useful. Did the AC do it ? Do snakes make pushups ? Best regards Alain From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Mar 17 12:17:49 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:17:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 or not In-Reply-To: <1JbBqg-0YODE80@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: > ton: > Interesting question, should be on the agenda for the 2018 laws. It > seems reasonable to create a connection between L27, 26, 32 and others > to make UI the decisive factor for rectifications. > > Assume in this example coming from Fearghal that East replaces 4H by > 5H, showing the same 2 aces. In our new laws West then is allowed to > make any call, but what about law 26? I am afraid that the lead > penalties apply, which in my opinion should not be the case. May I > have your opinion about the idea to combine lead penalties with L27B1: > if no further rectification in 27B1 then also no lead penalty. > I you agree you need patience. I'm patient ;-) But, should the prase "the auction proceeds without further rectifications" in L27B1 not be read as "Law 26 will not apply" ?? Peter ton: Difficult not to get you ashamed: L26 is not applied during the auction (waiting for the reply that the opening lead is done during the auction period). Let me anticipate another reaction. In 27B2 and 27B3 a reference to L26 is made. Does that not imply that in B1 it doesn't? In the past we have said that L26 is an 'absolute law', applying whenever an offending side has withdrawn a call. This means that a reference is not needed. We might need to reconsider this approach in this case. ton From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 17 13:32:04 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:32:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] L26 or not References: <1JbBqg-0YODE80@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <006601c8882a$f3208da0$2dd0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 9:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L26 or not > > I'm patient ;-) > > But, should the prase "the auction proceeds without > further rectifications" in L27B1 not be read as "Law 26 > will not apply" ?? > > Peter > +=+ That was part of the intention as I understood it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 17 16:21:48 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:21:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] L26 or not References: <1JbBqg-0YODE80@fwd31.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <002b01c88844$30775620$bbd2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 9:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L26 or not >> ton: >> Interesting question, should be on the agenda for the 2018 laws. It >> seems reasonable to create a connection between L27, 26, 32 and others >> to make UI the decisive factor for rectifications. >> >> Assume in this example coming from Fearghal that East replaces 4H by >> 5H, showing the same 2 aces. In our new laws West then is allowed to >> make any call, but what about law 26? I am afraid that the lead >> penalties apply, which in my opinion should not be the case. May I >> have your opinion about the idea to combine lead penalties with L27B1: >> if no further rectification in 27B1 then also no lead penalty. >> I you agree you need patience. > > I'm patient ;-) > > But, should the prase "the auction proceeds without > further rectifications" in L27B1 not be read as "Law 26 > will not apply" ?? > > Peter > +=+ One thing that we must not forget. Law 26 is concerned with 'Lead Restrictions', not 'Lead Penalties'. The change is significant in the sense that they are no longer included in the generic term 'penalties' which applies to Law 90 and Law 91 awards only. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 17 16:46:40 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:46:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] L26 or not References: <47C6783509C5DF7A@mail-11-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-11.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <000b01c88846$71cd5730$9ad5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L26 or not > > period). > > Let me anticipate another reaction. In 27B2 and 27B3 a reference to L26 is > made. Does that not imply that in B1 it doesn't? > > ton > > Let me anticipate another reaction. In 27B2 and 27B3 a reference to L26 is > made. Does that not imply that in B1 it doesn't? > > ton > +=+ Failure to mention Law 26 in B1 may possibly mean that it was considered to be included in the statement "without further rectification". It all depends whether a 'restriction' is a 'rectification' (defined as 'the remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director's attention'). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Mar 17 18:20:54 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:20:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] L26 or not References: <47C6783509C5DF7A@mail-11-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added bypostmaster@mail-11.uk.tiscali.com) <000b01c88846$71cd5730$9ad5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <052401c88853$41e46790$0100a8c0@stefanie> I do not understand why it might be desirable to avoid lead restrictions in the case under discussion. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Mar 17 18:25:15 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:25:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Do we really need a whole book of Bridge Laws? Message-ID: <052801c88853$dd2bfdd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Why not a brochure setting out the mechanics of the game, and then at the bottom, in bold type: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE ABOVE WILL NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, INCUR A PENALTY Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Mar 17 18:44:16 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:44:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring Message-ID: <054e01c88856$85b2c630$0100a8c0@stefanie> Hi all, This is not a question about Bridge Laws. I would like some opinions about scoring. I recently played in a lovely Congress, in a remote and scenic County. There was a Swiss Teams event scored by VPs, and at all the tables except for the top twelve or so, there were hand-dealt boards. Now, before joining in a chorus of "You can't use hand-dealt boards in a Swiss Teams scored by Victory Points!", let us assume that, due to staffing difficulties, this is sometimes necessary. In such a case, would it be best to calculate VPs on a ratio of IMPs won to the number of IMPs that changed hands? Or is win/loss the only way to have a fair contest? Or is the way it was done not really such a big deal? Many thanks to all who post comments on this matter. Stefanie Rohan London, England From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Mon Mar 17 19:17:07 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:17:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring In-Reply-To: <054e01c88856$85b2c630$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <054e01c88856$85b2c630$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <47DEB5A3.6040304@NTLworld.com> [Stefanie Rohan] This is not a question about Bridge Laws. I would like some opinions about scoring. I recently played in a lovely Congress, in a remote and scenic County. There was a Swiss Teams event scored by VPs, and at all the tables except for the top twelve or so, there were hand-dealt boards. Now, before joining in a chorus of "You can't use hand-dealt boards in a Swiss Teams scored by Victory Points!", let us assume that, due to staffing difficulties, this is sometimes necessary. In such a case, would it be best to calculate VPs on a ratio of IMPs won to the number of IMPs that changed hands? Or is win/loss the only way to have a fair contest? Or is the way it was done not really such a big deal? [Nige1] It might be better to award Win=3, Draw=2, Loss=1. Enormous loss=0. A VP scale depending on margin/total imps would be better than a cruder VP scale but there are some pairs/teams who generate swings. Hence a large number of imps changing hands does not always imply just swingy boards. From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Mon Mar 17 19:25:06 2008 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:25:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] L26 or not In-Reply-To: <052401c88853$41e46790$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D093A9C@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> > I do not understand why it might be desirable to avoid lead restrictions in > the case under discussion. I think it is the issue of ruling on the basis of the meaning of illegal calls. If there had been no magic annotation ("two aces" - where did that come from?), 4H might mean "to play". If 4H means hearts, there is no lead penalty because hearts have been legally specified. 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 ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 17 21:31:15 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:31:15 -0400 Subject: [blml] L26 or not In-Reply-To: <052401c88853$41e46790$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47C6783509C5DF7A@mail-11-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added bypostmaster@mail-11.uk.tiscali.com) <000b01c88846$71cd5730$9ad5403e@Mildred> <052401c88853$41e46790$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <61E54953-49D2-47DA-A833-EAEBDAE50F67@starpower.net> On Mar 17, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > I do not understand why it might be desirable to avoid lead > restrictions in > the case under discussion. This is getting confusing. There are two cases under discussion. In Fearghal's original, where East bid 6H, we seem to agree that L26B applies and specifies the lead restriction. In Ton's variation, where East bid 5H, permitted "without further rectification" per L27B1 (b), there would seem to be no lead restriction, but Ton questions whether L26 ("an 'absolute law'") although unmentioned in L27B1 (in contrast to L27B2-3) might apply, based on "the auction proceeds" being intended to exclude (semantically, with the effect of permitting) rectifications during the play. But the same issue arises in the 1997 laws, where L27B1(a) says "*the auction* [emphasis mine] proceeds as though the irregularity had not occurred", L26, explicitly referenced in L27B2-3, is not mentioned, and nobody (AFAIK) has ever suggested that there should be a lead restriction after a L27B1 correction. Especially given that the "new new" (2008A?) version of L27B1 "grandfathers" the 1997 L27B1(a), it hardly seems credible that the lawmakers might have intended to slip a new lead penalty in on the sly. To answer Stefanie, it might be desirable to avoid lead restrictions newly introduced where they previously did not exist (particularly as no one has suggested why we might want them). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 18 00:54:47 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:54:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Do we really need a whole book of Bridge Laws? In-Reply-To: <052801c88853$dd2bfdd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <052801c88853$dd2bfdd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:25:15 -0500, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Why not a brochure setting out the mechanics of the game, and then at the > bottom, in bold type: > > FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE ABOVE WILL NEVER, UNDER ANY > CIRCUMSTANCES, > INCUR A PENALTY This would probably work well in a club game of casual players and beginners. One man here runs a game with 50 tables. I don't know if it is the secret to his success, but I have been told he doesn't accept director calls. I have no idea how the players handle revokes. Bob From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Mar 18 00:10:50 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:10:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 or not In-Reply-To: <052401c88853$41e46790$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: I do not understand why it might be desirable to avoid lead restrictions in the case under discussion. Stefanie Rohan London, England ton: That is a complete other issue than the one we try to discuss about. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Mar 18 00:31:07 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:31:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 or not In-Reply-To: <61E54953-49D2-47DA-A833-EAEBDAE50F67@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric: But the same issue arises in the 1997 laws, where L27B1(a) says "*the auction* [emphasis mine] proceeds as though the irregularity had not occurred", L26, explicitly referenced in L27B2-3, is not mentioned, and nobody (AFAIK) has ever suggested that there should be a lead restriction after a L27B1 correction. ton: How do we up till this summer deal with 2 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Mar 18 00:33:05 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:33:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 or not In-Reply-To: <61E54953-49D2-47DA-A833-EAEBDAE50F67@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric: But the same issue arises in the 1997 laws, where L27B1(a) says "*the auction* [emphasis mine] proceeds as though the irregularity had not occurred", L26, explicitly referenced in L27B2-3, is not mentioned, and nobody (AFAIK) has ever suggested that there should be a lead restriction after a L27B1 correction. ton: How do you up till this summer deal with the following: 2 From john at asimere.com Tue Mar 18 01:30:23 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:30:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring References: <054e01c88856$85b2c630$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <001f01c8888f$410a6400$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 5:44 PM Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring > Hi all, > > This is not a question about Bridge Laws. I would like some opinions about > scoring. > > I recently played in a lovely Congress, in a remote and scenic County. > There > was a Swiss Teams event scored by VPs, and at all the tables except for > the > top twelve or so, there were hand-dealt boards. > > Now, before joining in a chorus of "You can't use hand-dealt boards in a > Swiss Teams scored by Victory Points!", let us assume that, due to > staffing > difficulties, this is sometimes necessary. In such a case, would it be > best > to calculate VPs on a ratio of IMPs won to the number of IMPs that changed > hands? Or is win/loss the only way to have a fair contest? Or is the way > it > was done not really such a big deal? No it's no big deal. VP Swiss is entirely random however you score it. I guess it's a bit firer if you play the same boards, and it's all about consistently scoring imps over 49 boards, however procured. John http://www.asimere.com/BridgeArticles/VPScales.htm > > Many thanks to all who post comments on this matter. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 18 02:48:11 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:48:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <008c01c88807$aa442380$fecc6a80$@nl> Message-ID: Committee Decision: [snip] >The Committee applied the Rule of Coincidence... [snip] >Another way of handling a case like this is to use [1987] >Law 16B. This Law states that if a player has information >about a hand he must report that fact to the Director. In >this case, we can say we believed North had some information >about this hand without ever addressing the source of that >information." Richard Hills: This seems a case of verdict first, evidence afterwards. The Committee seems to be assuming that at the previous table South loudly announced, "I had only 5 hcp", then at the new table North (but not East or West) overheard this loud announcement, then North chose to infract the 1987 Law 16B by not calling the director. But the first thing the Committee should have done was to establish whether there was any evidence of such a 1987 Law 16B crime, not follow the Rule of Coincidence principle, "He must be guilty or he wouldn't be here". Alain Gottcheiner: >A quick poll among my friends gave 4 votes out of five in >favor of pass, so perhaps double isn't such an obvious LA? Richard Hills: There was not any evidence presented to the Committee that South broke tempo when South opened ultralight. So even if both Pass and Double are logical alternatives, in the absence of UI North could freely choose either ..... ..... unless ..... North-South happen to have a not-vul vs vul implicit concealed partnership understanding about ultralight third seat opening bids, caused by frequently doing so in the past. But what evidence exists of such a CPU? Is choosing a lucky logical alternative enough (without any other evidence) to convict North-South of that CPU? Or must the bar be set higher, with one lucky illogical alternative or two lucky logical alternatives needed to demonstrate a CPU? The problem with the Rule of Coincidence is that it gives the Director and Appeals Committee an exemption from assessing facts. For example, in the parallel thread "A question of player ability", the "lucky" (actually an example of an optimistic expert's hand evaluation) leap to a successful 6C would automatically be deemed by the RoC to have been based on an infraction. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 swillner at nhcc.net Tue Mar 18 03:20:18 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:20:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring In-Reply-To: <200803171756.m2HHum0B026275@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200803171756.m2HHum0B026275@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47DF26E2.2020605@nhcc.net> > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > ... a Swiss Teams event scored by VPs, and at all the tables except for the > top twelve or so, there were hand-dealt boards. > ... would it be best > to calculate VPs on a ratio of IMPs won to the number of IMPs that changed > hands? Or is win/loss the only way to have a fair contest? Or is the way it > was done not really such a big deal? If you specified the number of teams, boards, and rounds, you could do a quantitative calculation. However, for any reasonable numbers, I'd be very surprised if the variance introduced by playing different board sets at different tables is more than the variance introduced by scoring on a 3 or 5 VP scale (i.e., win-loss) instead of a 20 VP or 30 VP scale. Hand dealing is the norm for Swiss Teams over here in ACBL territory because duplicating machines are rare. Oddly enough, :-) the winners are almost always a known-to-be-strong team. From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Mar 18 04:20:23 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:20:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring In-Reply-To: <001f01c8888f$410a6400$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <054e01c88856$85b2c630$0100a8c0@stefanie> <001f01c8888f$410a6400$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <47DF34F7.1010009@NTLworld.com> [John Probst] No it's no big deal. VP Swiss is entirely random however you score it. I guess it's a bit firer if you play the same boards, and it's all about consistently scoring imps over 49 boards, however procured. {Nige1] IMO. John is mistaken. Given a fixed number of teams (or pairs) and a fixed number of boards to play, I believe that *Swiss* is the ideal compromises between a *Round robin* of short matches and a *Knockout* of longer matches. IMO a Swiss gives a "better" result than either of the others. By that I mean that the resulting ranking list is likely to correlate better with "God's order" From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Mar 18 05:12:57 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:12:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47DF4149.5070707@NTLworld.com> [Committee Decision] The Committee applied the Rule of Coincidence... [Richard Hills] This seems a case of verdict first, evidence afterwards. The Committee seems to be assuming that at the previous table South loudly announced, "I had only 5 hcp", then at the new table North (but not East or West) overheard this loud announcement, then North chose to infract the 1987 Law 16B by not calling the director. But the first thing the Committee should have done was to establish whether there was any evidence of such a 1987 Law 16B crime, not follow the Rule of Coincidence principle, "He must be guilty or he wouldn't be here". [Alain Gottcheiner] A quick poll among my friends gave 4 votes out of five in favor of pass, so perhaps double isn't such an obvious LA? [Richard Hills] There was not any evidence presented to the Committee that South broke tempo when South opened ultralight. So even if both Pass and Double are logical alternatives, in the absence of UI North could freely choose either ..... ..... unless ..... North-South happen to have a not-vul vs vul implicit concealed partnership understanding about ultralight third seat opening bids, caused by frequently doing so in the past. But what evidence exists of such a CPU? Is choosing a lucky logical alternative enough (without any other evidence) to convict North-South of that CPU? Or must the bar be set higher, with one lucky illogical alternative or two lucky logical alternatives needed to demonstrate a CPU? The problem with the Rule of Coincidence is that it gives the Director and Appeals Committee an exemption from assessing facts. For example, in the parallel thread "A question of player ability", the "lucky" (actually an example of an optimistic expert's hand evaluation) leap to a successful 6C would automatically be deemed by the RoC to have been based on an infraction. [Nige1] Richard seems to think it is a good idea for the director to take a group ot the pair's peers, tell them that double would be for penalty, and poll them about logical alternatives. I agree but I disagree with Alain about the logical call in this context. Also, for what its worth (not much), the friends whom I've polled also believe that pass is not a sensible option. For the sake of argument, assume that the director reaches a conclusion nearer mine than Alain's or Richard's. Digressing for a moment: a bridge dispute has more in common with a Civil case than a Criminal case. One side's gain is the other's loss. Hence "balance of probability" seems a more appropriate criterion than "Beyond reasonable doubt". Thus, in most judgement cases, directors base their ruling on what they assess to be the "balance of probability". In this kind of context, however, Americans (and Richard) fret about the "Rule of Coincidence" and seem to hanker after proof "beyond reasonable doubt". I can understand a director's reluctance, if he fears that an adverse ruling would imply that this pair were *cheating* i.e. - deliberately developing concealed partnership understandings or - deliberately passing and using unauthorised information. As explained in previous posts, the director need not go down that road: he can penalize this honest pair's amazing good luck, as a deterrent to emulation of their actions by less upstanding players. He can also record these interesting events for the education of others :) From mustikka at charter.net Tue Mar 18 05:59:50 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:59:50 -0700 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47DF4149.5070707@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <000f01c888b4$eccd56b0$eb1f5e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" (snipped discussion) Nigel writes: > > Thus, in most judgement cases, directors base their ruling on what they > assess to be the "balance of probability". In this kind of context, > however, Americans (and Richard) fret about the "Rule of Coincidence" > and seem to hanker after proof "beyond reasonable doubt". ********** I have seen no evidence or posts on BLML that Americans and/or Richard hanker after proof, ie. "beyond reasonable doubt". Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but it was not present in the discussion I snipped. Raija From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 18 07:14:42 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:14:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47DF34F7.1010009@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >IMO. John is mistaken. Given a fixed number of teams (or pairs) and a >fixed number of boards to play, I believe that *Swiss* is the ideal >compromises between a *Round robin* of short matches and a *Knockout* >of longer matches. IMO a Swiss gives a "better" result than either of >the others. By that I mean that the resulting ranking list is likely >to correlate better with "God's order" Richard Hills: Given a fixed number of teams and a fixed number of boards: (a) An unseeded knockout of long matches is best for determining first place, but very random for determining second or lower places (since the second-best team may meet the best team in the first round, thus causing the second-best team's finishing position to be equal last); (b) A seeded knockout (such as the Spingold or the Vanderbilt) raises equity and accuracy issues. An overseeded team of once-great players is in effect donated imps by the seeding committee (by getting an easy ride to the quarter-finals). Meanwhile an underseeded team of teenage hotshots is in effect penalised imps. (c) A round-robin maximises the chance that all teams will finish close to "God's order", but minimises the chance that the best of the contending teams will finish first, since a round-robin minimises the number of boards contending teams play against each other. (d) A Swiss is better than a round-robin in accurately determining first place, but less accurate than a knockout. The nature of the Swiss pairing system means that minor placings are only reasonably accurate for the first few (and last few) places. For teams of middling ability the luck of the Swiss draw - especially in the final round - randomly alters their finishing positions. As noted by Steve Willner, a three point VP scale (1 = win, 1/2 = exact tie, 0 = loss) creates more random results than a VP scale with many more points, such as a 20 to 0 or 20 to -5 scale. This is because the fewer the points on the VP scale, the fewer imps affect the result. For example, under a win/loss VP scale, if Nigel's team is leading by 1 imp, then Nigel gains 13 imps by making 6NT on a double squeeze, Nigel's good play is irrelevant to the final result. It has been argued that if you concede 1 & 1/2 imps per board, or fewer, to the opponents, then you have done well. The late lamented Zirinsky VP scale tried to address this issue by a modified quotient system, so that winning a match by 10 imps to nil was worth more VPs than winning that match by 30 imps to 20. As Edgar Kaplan noted, the problem with such a method (when boards are not duplicated across the field) is that some sets of boards are inherently more lively than others. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Mar 18 07:35:00 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:35:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <07ae01c888c2$31321d60$0100a8c0@stefanie> Richard Hills: > As noted by Steve Willner, a three point VP scale (1 = win, 1/2 = exact > tie, 0 = loss) creates more random results than a VP scale with many > more points, such as a 20 to 0 or 20 to -5 scale. This is because the > fewer the points on the VP scale, the fewer imps affect the result. But perhaps using a larger scale is more random when playing different sets of boards. > > For example, under a win/loss VP scale, if Nigel's team is leading by 1 > imp, then Nigel gains 13 imps by making 6NT on a double squeeze, Nigel's > good play is irrelevant to the final result. True, but on the other hand, other teams will not have had the opportunity to play as well as Nigel, if they played different boards. > > It has been argued that if you concede 1 & 1/2 imps per board, or fewer, > to the opponents, then you have done well. The late lamented Zirinsky > VP scale tried to address this issue by a modified quotient system, so > that winning a match by 10 imps to nil was worth more VPs than winning > that match by 30 imps to 20. > As Edgar Kaplan noted, the problem with > such a method (when boards are not duplicated across the field) is that > some sets of boards are inherently more lively than others. But possibly better than straight IMPs in a similar situation. Possibly the reverse of Zirinsky's system would be best when boards are not duplicated? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Mar 18 07:38:59 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:38:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring References: <200803171756.m2HHum0B026275@cfa.harvard.edu> <47DF26E2.2020605@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <07b601c888c2$bfdb1c60$0100a8c0@stefanie> From: "Steve Willner" > Hand dealing is the norm for Swiss Teams over here in ACBL territory > because duplicating machines are rare. Oddly enough, :-) the winners > are almost always a known-to-be-strong team. If they are the only strong team in the field, then the system seems to be working well. But perhaps there are several strong teams, so the winner has had to have a fair amount of luck in the boards they dealt? Major ACBL tournaments are usually held in big cities, where presumably there are lots of bridge clubs. Could the ACBL not borrow the clubs' duplicating machines? Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 18 07:41:25 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:41:25 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000f01c888b4$eccd56b0$eb1f5e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: Raija: >I have seen no evidence or posts on BLML that Americans and/or Richard >hanker after proof, ie. "beyond reasonable doubt". Perhaps I missed >it somewhere, but it was not present in the discussion I snipped. Edgar Kaplan, Bridge World Editorial about the Rule of Coincidence: "There ain't no such animal." Appeals Committee (1995): [snip] "The Rule of Coincidence is documented in the Active Ethics Manual which was first published in the mid 1980s. It deals with a situation like this when one player takes an overbid and the other partner an underbid. When the two actions work together to produce a good result, this Rule can be applied. The Rule of Coincidence should never be applied to inexperienced players." [snip] Appeals panellist Rich Colker (1985): "This seems like a good invocation of "The Rule of Coincidence". North- South should additionally have been informed that this ruling carried no implication that they did anything unethical or improper." [snip] Richard Hills: Yes, my viewpoint is not that "beyond reasonable doubt" is required, but that if Rich Colker deems that there is no implication of anything improper - such as an infraction - then logically Rich Colker should also deem that there is not any Lawful basis to adjust the score. Instead of the RoC, the EBU system of classifying and recording alleged psyches has merit, since then it is easy to provide evidence to make an informed decision about the "balance of probabilities" on whether an alleged psyche is actually an implicit CPU pseudo-psyche. For what it is worth, if this deal had occurred in an EBU event, and I had been the EBU Director, I would have classified South's alleged psyche as Amber. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Mar 18 07:57:08 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:57:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Do we really need a whole book of Bridge Laws? References: <052801c88853$dd2bfdd0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <07c401c888c5$48e76c00$0100a8c0@stefanie> From: "Robert Frick" > One man here runs a game with 50 tables. I don't know if it is > the secret to his success, but I have been told he doesn't accept director > calls. I have no idea how the players handle revokes. > > I am surprised that this man has so many tables, as I had always thought that most players preferred to play in clubs that are affiliated to the NBO, and perhaps have the right to issue masterpoints. Stefanie Rohan London, England From mustikka at charter.net Tue Mar 18 08:08:37 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:08:37 -0700 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring References: <200803171756.m2HHum0B026275@cfa.harvard.edu><47DF26E2.2020605@nhcc.net> <07b601c888c2$bfdb1c60$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <000901c888c6$e3293590$eb1f5e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Swiss scoring > > From: "Steve Willner" > >> Hand dealing is the norm for Swiss Teams over here in ACBL territory >> because duplicating machines are rare. Oddly enough, :-) the winners >> are almost always a known-to-be-strong team. > > If they are the only strong team in the field, then the system seems to be > working well. But perhaps there are several strong teams, so the winner > has > had to have a fair amount of luck in the boards they dealt? > > Major ACBL tournaments are usually held in big cities, where presumably > there are lots of bridge clubs. Could the ACBL not borrow the clubs' > duplicating machines? > > > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England You are joking - duplicating machine in ACBL clubs - I have never heard of a club that has one. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Mar 18 08:08:58 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:08:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring References: <200803171756.m2HHum0B026275@cfa.harvard.edu><47DF26E2.2020605@nhcc.net><07b601c888c2$bfdb1c60$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000901c888c6$e3293590$eb1f5e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <07fe01c888c6$f005c030$0100a8c0@stefanie> From: "raija" > > You are joking - duplicating machine in ACBL clubs - I have never heard of > a > club that has one. Oh, OK. Here in London, even some small once-a-week clubs have their own Duplimate machines, and Bridgemates as well. Clubs without machines often get boards supplied by clubs that have them. I have not played in a club game without hand records for a very long time. I assume that the same is true in other cities. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 12 14:49:37 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:49:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] new L27 Message-ID: <000001c8844c$d50b07f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> TK: This is a lot of work for no good reason. As long as 1H is natural and the substituted call 2H is also natural the bidding may continue normally. Isn't that what new L27 tells us? But there will be differences in the number of hearts shown and also in the HCP limits, depending on what the 1H bid is likely to mean. So the new Law is pretty restrictive; more so than before, I think. Stefanie Rohan London, England -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080312/3abac570/attachment-0001.htm From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 12 15:50:39 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:50:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] new L27 Message-ID: <004701c88450$70b5ec80$0100a8c0@stefanie> TK: This is a lot of work for no good reason. As long as 1H is natural and the substituted call 2H is also natural the bidding may continue normally. Isn't that what new L27 tells us? Sort of. But there will be differences in suit length and HCP minimums/maximums that will cause restrictions based on what 1H is presumed to be (incidentally, another can of worms). It seems that the new L27 is much more restrictive than in the past, even though I believe that the intention was for it to be the other way round. Stefanie Rohan London, England -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080312/9989bae9/attachment-0001.htm From defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr Tue Mar 18 00:43:32 2008 From: defranchi.henri at wanadoo.fr (Henri DEFRANCHI) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:43:32 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] L26 or not Message-ID: <6268944.1487541205797412818.JavaMail.www@wwinf1b09> 26 B..... Withdraw call does not specify a suit.... > Message du 17/03/08 14:32 > De : "ton" > A : "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Copie ? : > Objet : Re: [blml] L26 or not > > > > ton: > > Interesting question, should be on the agenda for the 2018 laws. It > > seems reasonable to create a connection between L27, 26, 32 and others > > to make UI the decisive factor for rectifications. > > > > Assume in this example coming from Fearghal that East replaces 4H by > > 5H, showing the same 2 aces. In our new laws West then is allowed to > > make any call, but what about law 26? I am afraid that the lead > > penalties apply, which in my opinion should not be the case. May I > > have your opinion about the idea to combine lead penalties with L27B1: > > if no further rectification in 27B1 then also no lead penalty. > > I you agree you need patience. > > I'm patient ;-) > > But, should the prase "the auction proceeds without further rectifications" > in L27B1 not be read as "Law 26 will not apply" ?? > > Peter > > > ton: > Difficult not to get you ashamed: L26 is not applied during the auction > (waiting for the reply that the opening lead is done during the auction > period). > > Let me anticipate another reaction. In 27B2 and 27B3 a reference to L26 is > made. Does that not imply that in B1 it doesn't? > > In the past we have said that L26 is an 'absolute law', applying whenever an > offending side has withdrawn a call. This means that a reference is not > needed. We might need to reconsider this approach in this case. > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > Riton from Marseille -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080318/2f091338/attachment.htm From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Mar 18 08:24:11 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:24:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring In-Reply-To: <07fe01c888c6$f005c030$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <200803171756.m2HHum0B026275@cfa.harvard.edu> <47DF26E2.2020605@nhcc.net> <07b601c888c2$bfdb1c60$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000901c888c6$e3293590$eb1f5e47@DFYXB361> <07fe01c888c6$f005c030$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: On 18/03/2008, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > From: "raija" > > > > You are joking - duplicating machine in ACBL clubs - I have never heard of > > a > > club that has one. > > Oh, OK. Here in London, even some small once-a-week clubs have their own > Duplimate machines, and Bridgemates as well. Clubs without machines often > get boards supplied by clubs that have them. I have not played in a club > game without hand records for a very long time. I assume that the same is > true in other cities. ACBL in an entirely different continent. :-) When it comes to bridge and tech, they're unbelievably far behind the rest of the world. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Mar 19 02:23:14 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:23:14 -0700 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring In-Reply-To: <000901c888c6$e3293590$eb1f5e47@DFYXB361> References: <200803171756.m2HHum0B026275@cfa.harvard.edu> <47DF26E2.2020605@nhcc.net> <07b601c888c2$bfdb1c60$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000901c888c6$e3293590$eb1f5e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080318182234.01dbdb40@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 12:08 AM 18/03/2008, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Stefanie Rohan" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:38 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Swiss scoring > > > > > > From: "Steve Willner" > > > >> Hand dealing is the norm for Swiss Teams over here in ACBL territory > >> because duplicating machines are rare. Oddly enough, :-) the winners > >> are almost always a known-to-be-strong team. > > > > If they are the only strong team in the field, then the system seems to be > > working well. But perhaps there are several strong teams, so the winner > > has > > had to have a fair amount of luck in the boards they dealt? > > > > Major ACBL tournaments are usually held in big cities, where presumably > > there are lots of bridge clubs. Could the ACBL not borrow the clubs' > > duplicating machines? I think the US suffers from the Not Invented Here problem Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > > > Stefanie Rohan > > London, England > >You are joking - duplicating machine in ACBL clubs - I have never heard of a >club that has one. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Mar 18 08:57:28 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:57:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] L26 or not In-Reply-To: <61E54953-49D2-47DA-A833-EAEBDAE50F67@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric: But the same issue arises in the 1997 laws, where L27B1(a) says "*the auction* [emphasis mine] proceeds as though the irregularity had not occurred", L26, explicitly referenced in L27B2-3, is not mentioned, and nobody (AFAIK) has ever suggested that there should be a lead restriction after a L27B1 correction. ton: This sounds very strong to me (nobody, ever). Take 2S - 1NT overcall, not accepted and substituted with 2NT under the '97 laws. The auction proceeds as though the irregularity had not occurred. But why don't you apply L26 if this side becomes defender? ton From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 18 10:11:41 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:11:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47DF874D.2020201@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard Hills: > > Given a fixed number of teams and a fixed number of boards: > > (a) An unseeded knockout of long matches is best for determining first > place, but very random for determining second or lower places (since > the second-best team may meet the best team in the first round, thus > causing the second-best team's finishing position to be equal last); > This may be true in sports that have a high probability of the better team winning, but bridge is notoriously fickle. I suspect that the chance of the best team indeed winning all their matches is something like 1/2^n. Only by adding all the results from all the boards do we get something near a fair result. > (b) A seeded knockout (such as the Spingold or the Vanderbilt) raises > equity and accuracy issues. An overseeded team of once-great players > is in effect donated imps by the seeding committee (by getting an easy > ride to the quarter-finals). Meanwhile an underseeded team of teenage > hotshots is in effect penalised imps. > Of course this method increases the likelihood of the second-best team making it to the final, but only because we have decided which should be the second-best team. If indeed the nr 4 seed is the second-best team, their chances of making it to the final are less than those of teams seeded 2 or 3. > (c) A round-robin maximises the chance that all teams will finish close > to "God's order", but minimises the chance that the best of the > contending teams will finish first, since a round-robin minimises the > number of boards contending teams play against each other. > No, what the round-robin does is place more value on minnows-bashing. But it all depends on what we believe God's order ought to be. Is minnows-bashing a quality we approve of or not? Tastes will differ, but IMO a team ought to be able to handle all aspects of the game, and minnows-bashing is one of those aspects. > (d) A Swiss is better than a round-robin in accurately determining first > place, but less accurate than a knockout. The nature of the Swiss > pairing system means that minor placings are only reasonably accurate > for the first few (and last few) places. For teams of middling ability > the luck of the Swiss draw - especially in the final round - randomly > alters their finishing positions. > I believe Swiss winners are usually quite well playing teams (says he, who has just finished 43rd in the Flemish Cup, while a team from his same fourth division won the title!) It is very true that the lower places are more subject to randomisation. We lost one match 25-2 and were rewarded, two rounds later, with a drop to table 22 where we met a team from the top division! We later also met a team that had enlisted the help of a pair from the national champions. > As noted by Steve Willner, a three point VP scale (1 = win, 1/2 = exact > tie, 0 = loss) creates more random results than a VP scale with many > more points, such as a 20 to 0 or 20 to -5 scale. This is because the > fewer the points on the VP scale, the fewer imps affect the result. > > For example, under a win/loss VP scale, if Nigel's team is leading by 1 > imp, then Nigel gains 13 imps by making 6NT on a double squeeze, Nigel's > good play is irrelevant to the final result. > > It has been argued that if you concede 1 & 1/2 imps per board, or fewer, > to the opponents, then you have done well. The late lamented Zirinsky > VP scale tried to address this issue by a modified quotient system, so > that winning a match by 10 imps to nil was worth more VPs than winning > that match by 30 imps to 20. As Edgar Kaplan noted, the problem with > such a method (when boards are not duplicated across the field) is that > some sets of boards are inherently more lively than others. > The other problem is that when two teams play the same system, they will usually reach the same kind of contracts, and the result will be 10-0. But if they use different systems, the contracts are more likely to be different, and the final score will more likely be 30-20. If 30-20 scores less than 10-0, the team with the extreme system is at a disadvantage over the mainstream. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Mar 18 09:38:26 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:38:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] new L27 In-Reply-To: <000001c8844c$d50b07f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: ton: Stefanie seems not to understand (new) L27. If both calls are natural in the same denomination and the second on the lowest legal level there is no restriction at all in the auction. Which means that after 1H - 1H replaced by 2H, the opening bidder with K7 QJ953 A62 J95 may bid what he wants, for example 2NT or 3H. The only problem he has is to describe the weakness of his hand. He is not obliged to pass. The new law, nor the old one, is restrictive in any way in this situation. ton _____ From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan Sent: woensdag 12 maart 2008 14:50 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] new L27 TK: This is a lot of work for no good reason. As long as 1H is natural and the substituted call 2H is also natural the bidding may continue normally. Isn't that what new L27 tells us? But there will be differences in the number of hearts shown and also in the HCP limits, depending on what the 1H bid is likely to mean. So the new Law is pretty restrictive; more so than before, I think. Stefanie Rohan London, England Upgrade Your Email - Click here! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080318/75b48176/attachment.htm From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Mar 18 10:11:53 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:11:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] new L27 In-Reply-To: <004701c88450$70b5ec80$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <004701c88450$70b5ec80$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <017601c888d8$1bf1e410$53d5ac30$@nl> Stefanie, are you looking at the old new L27 or the new new L27? Hans From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Stefanie Rohan Sent: woensdag 12 maart 2008 15:51 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] new L27 TK: This is a lot of work for no good reason. As long as 1H is natural and the substituted call 2H is also natural the bidding may continue normally. Isn't that what new L27 tells us? Sort of. But there will be differences in suit length and HCP minimums/maximums that will cause restrictions based on what 1H is presumed to be (incidentally, another can of worms). It seems that the new L27 is much more restrictive than in the past, even though I believe that the intention was for it to be the other way round. Stefanie Rohan London, England -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080318/22219ed7/attachment-0001.htm From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 18 10:56:41 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:56:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47DF91D9.3030301@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > There was not any evidence presented to the Committee that > South broke tempo when South opened ultralight. So even if > both Pass and Double are logical alternatives, in the absence > of UI North could freely choose either ..... > > ..... unless ..... > > North-South happen to have a not-vul vs vul implicit concealed > partnership understanding about ultralight third seat opening > bids, caused by frequently doing so in the past. > > I still have questions. 1. Why should the agreement to open ultralight 3rd-in-hand, and to be ultra-cautious facing 3rd-in-hand openings, be considered as concealed ? This agreement, IMHO, wouldn't be alertable. But it should be explicitly stated in the pre-alert section of the CC. So ... 2. Did the AC check NS's convention card ? Did they enquire about what NS orally pre-alerted ? This isn't mentioned. It seems clear that there were procedral irregularities, which is a bigger fault than plain misjudgment. Best regards Alain From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Mar 18 13:43:16 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:43:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080318182234.01dbdb40@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <200803171756.m2HHum0B026275@cfa.harvard.edu> <47DF26E2.2020605@nhcc.net> <07b601c888c2$bfdb1c60$0100a8c0@stefanie> <000901c888c6$e3293590$eb1f5e47@DFYXB361> <6.1.0.6.2.20080318182234.01dbdb40@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0803180543x30324bacnbf39687e703e0adf@mail.gmail.com> > > > Major ACBL tournaments are usually held in big cities, where presumably > > > there are lots of bridge clubs. Could the ACBL not borrow the clubs' > > > duplicating machines? > > I think the US suffers from the Not Invented Here problem > > Tony (Sydney) I suspect that institutional inertia has more to do with things than not invented here: Case in point: In the greater Boston area a number of the local clubs have already purchased dealing machines. I made a suggestion to the local district that they should rent the machines for use in local tournament. This didn't go any where. A number of folks were critical on the basis of cost. They didn't want to raise card fees by 25 cents to pay for time on the machine. My suspicion is that this was really a cover for the fact that the local tournament directors are old, grumpy, and very set in their ways. None of them has the slightest interest in learning how to use a dealing machine, so they actively look for excuses not to deploy them. -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminant Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Tue Mar 18 16:43:48 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:43:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000f01c888b4$eccd56b0$eb1f5e47@DFYXB361> References: <47DF4149.5070707@NTLworld.com> <000f01c888b4$eccd56b0$eb1f5e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <47DFE334.7070706@NTLworld.com> [Raija] I have seen no evidence or posts on BLML that Americans and/or Richard hanker after proof, ie. "beyond reasonable doubt". Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but it was not present in the discussion I snipped. {Nige1] In the EBU, the director accepts probabilistic circumstantial evidence: the apparent "fielding" of a psych. The EBU director may penalise a pair even if this is the *first* and only time that a *red* psych is recorded against them. Unless there is a record of a pattern of similar previous incidents for this pair, Richard Hills seems to require more direct and concrete evidence (for example, admission of a CPU or use of UI). I prefer the EBU approach which seems to work well in practice. It would work better if TFLB stated that - the *perpetrator* recorded his deviation. - the director checked the facts recorded. - global records were kept. Zia might be kept busy :( but ordinary American players might feel less inhibited and then psychs might become as common as they are in the EBU :) IMO: psychs are part of the game and add to our enjoyment and interest. Nevertheless, there should be a legal way -- short of extracting confessions -- for the director to deter associated CPUs and so on. From karel at esatclear.ie Tue Mar 18 20:01:09 2008 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:01:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] A question of player ability In-Reply-To: <47DE4194.4010308@ulb.ac.be> References: <47DA63E3.4090604@ulb.ac.be> <47DCAD67.80600@NTLworld.com> <47DE4194.4010308@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Well this is an extremely good point which numerous people I've discussed this with have all pointed out. IF the person had some information about the board from some source, surely they would hide this knowledge with a long winded auction arriving at optimal contract. I have no answer to this, except to say that many bridge players lack logic /tact / finesse and like the spectacular. K. On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Guthrie a ?crit : > > [ > > > > Notwithstanding such mitigations, I feel that in some contexts, when the > > expert can advance no logical reason for a successful bid or play that > > is well against the odds, the probability may be overwhelming that an > > infraction has occurred: thus, cases like (2), smack of some kind > > illicit knowledge of the board (perhaps an overheard post-mortem). > One thing upsets me : imagine for one moment that a player has overheard > that 7S was cold and decided to use this information. Would one bid 7S > directly over 1H, thereby provoking all sorts of suspicions, as we see ? > I don't favor this explanation and would like to find some other, > perhaps something like the Rabbit's punitive 4C bid : "how else would > partner let me play in my 8-card suit ?" > > Best regards > > Alaon > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Mar 18 20:15:50 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:15:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring In-Reply-To: <07b601c888c2$bfdb1c60$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <200803171756.m2HHum0B026275@cfa.harvard.edu><47DF26E2.2020605@nhcc.net> <07b601c888c2$bfdb1c60$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <2F3194B339E340CB96FB96AF03702911@erdos> Duplicating machines aren't even the only problem; there is also a need for more boards if you use the same boards across the field in a Swiss. With hand-dealt boards, a 100-table Swiss needs 10 sets of boards, as there are 20 tables playing 1-7. 8-14, 15-21, 22-28, and 29-35. With computer-dealt boards, everyone needs to play boards 1-7 in the first match, so you need 50 sets of boards 1-7, or 25 sets if you allow two matches to share a set of boards. And if you have only this many sets, then you can only play five matches of seven boards each before you have to re-deal the same boards, so you'll have to have all the duplicating machines at the tournament and re-deal a lot of boards during the dinner break. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Swiss scoring > > From: "Steve Willner" > >> Hand dealing is the norm for Swiss Teams over here in ACBL territory >> because duplicating machines are rare. Oddly enough, :-) the winners >> are almost always a known-to-be-strong team. > > If they are the only strong team in the field, then the system seems to be > working well. But perhaps there are several strong teams, so the winner has > had to have a fair amount of luck in the boards they dealt? > > Major ACBL tournaments are usually held in big cities, where presumably > there are lots of bridge clubs. Could the ACBL not borrow the clubs' > duplicating machines? > > > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Mar 18 20:34:07 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:34:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring In-Reply-To: <2F3194B339E340CB96FB96AF03702911@erdos> References: <200803171756.m2HHum0B026275@cfa.harvard.edu> <47DF26E2.2020605@nhcc.net> <07b601c888c2$bfdb1c60$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2F3194B339E340CB96FB96AF03702911@erdos> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0803181234y1634a407sac1270b5f072c18@mail.gmail.com> On 3/18/08, David Grabiner wrote: > Duplicating machines aren't even the only problem; there is also a need for more > boards if you use the same boards across the field in a Swiss. With hand-dealt > boards, a 100-table Swiss needs 10 sets of boards, as there are 20 tables > playing 1-7. 8-14, 15-21, 22-28, and 29-35. With computer-dealt boards, > everyone needs to play boards 1-7 in the first match, so you need 50 sets of > boards 1-7, or 25 sets if you allow two matches to share a set of boards. And > if you have only this many sets, then you can only play five matches of seven > boards each before you have to re-deal the same boards, so you'll have to have > all the duplicating machines at the tournament and re-deal a lot of boards > during the dinner break. Running a large tournament using dealing machines is quite different than running a large tournament without dealing machines. From what I can tell using dealing machines to generate new boards during the tournament is pretty much standard. Case in point: A few years back I played in Iceland in the IcelandAir open (wonderful tournament BTW). As I recall, we were playing three board rounds. Prior to the tournament, the tournament organizers had pre-dealt the first nine boards. (BTW, the actual "boards" were made of cloth). One board green, then next was yellow, the third was red. You played them in order green, yellow, then red. They might have also had velcroed on some baord numbers. its been a while. (I certainly didn't pay much attention) Once everyone was seated, the caddies ran around and dropped a set of boards at each table. At the end of the round, the caddies scuttled arround, grabbed the first boards and dropped off the next set of three. All of the boards for round 4 were dealt using the completed boards from round 1 during the time that we were playing round 2... -- 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 Mar 18 23:19:30 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:19:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. Message-ID: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> Hola Blnlers! The idea that a pair, in advance, will plan to make illegal bids (insufficient for example) and then discuss what to do (what conventions, etc.) after these bids boggles what is left of my mind. JE From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 19 00:56:08 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:56:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:19:30 -0500, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hola Blnlers! The idea that a pair, in advance, will plan to make > illegal bids (insufficient for example) and then discuss what to do > (what conventions, etc.) after these bids boggles what is left of my > mind. JE I'm pretty sure this can't be done. If you don't realize your bid is insufficient, then you will "forget" to use your convention. Conversely, if you are following your convention, you know you are making an insufficient bid. Which is illegal. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 19 01:56:33 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:56:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring References: <200803171756.m2HHum0B026275@cfa.harvard.edu><47DF26E2.2020605@nhcc.net><07b601c888c2$bfdb1c60$0100a8c0@stefanie> <2F3194B339E340CB96FB96AF03702911@erdos> Message-ID: <009901c8895c$13ce41a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > Duplicating machines aren't even the only problem; there is also a need > for more > boards if you use the same boards across the field in a Swiss. With > hand-dealt > boards, a 100-table Swiss needs 10 sets of boards, as there are 20 tables > playing 1-7. 8-14, 15-21, 22-28, and 29-35. With computer-dealt boards, > everyone needs to play boards 1-7 in the first match, so you need 50 sets > of > boards 1-7, or 25 sets if you allow two matches to share a set of boards. > And > if you have only this many sets, then you can only play five matches of > seven > boards each before you have to re-deal the same boards, so you'll have to > have > all the duplicating machines at the tournament and re-deal a lot of boards > during the dinner break. What you need is enough boards for each table to start with two. So, for a 100-table Swiss teams with 7-board rounds, you need slightly more than 25 sets of boards. And yes, you do need to have duplicating machines at the tournament and re-deal the boards, but this can be done during the session as boards are taken out of play. I guess a lot of people in England agree with me that duplicated boards are important (and, of course, essential in Swiss Pairs!), so the EBU bother to do all this. If Americans prefer to do things differently, then of course it is not worth the time and effort to duplicate boards. Speaking of Swiss, why do we not use arrow-switches (say, the first two boards that arrive at your table) in Swiss Pairs in the EBU? Simply too accident-prone? Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 19 02:01:54 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:01:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> Message-ID: <00a301c8895c$d33399f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Jeff Easterson: > >> Hola Blnlers! The idea that a pair, in advance, will plan to make >> illegal bids (insufficient for example) and then discuss what to do >> (what conventions, etc.) after these bids boggles what is left of my >> mind. JE > Robert Frick: > I'm pretty sure this can't be done. If you don't realize your bid is > insufficient, then you will "forget" to use your convention. Conversely, > if you are following your convention, you know you are making an > insufficient bid. Which is illegal. No, what Jeff means is a convention that is used after attention has been drawn to an accidental insufficient bid. Or after the bid is accepted, in the hope that partner will notice that his bid is insufficient by the time the auction gets back to him (If partner has to shuffle through his already-used bidding cards, or borrow a card from someone else's box, you will probably be prompted to notice that your bid is insufficient. However, the actual auction is AI. Anyway, I have been worried about this for many weeks. As well as things like using the suit and/or rank of your exposed penalty card as some sort of pivot for your signalling. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 19 02:53:57 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:53:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47DFE334.7070706@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >In the EBU, the director accepts probabilistic circumstantial >evidence: the apparent "fielding" of a psych. > >The EBU director may penalise a pair even if this is the *first* >and only time that a *red* psych is recorded against them. > >Unless there is a record of a pattern of similar previous >incidents for this pair, Richard Hills seems to require more >direct and concrete evidence (for example, admission of a CPU or >use of UI). Richard Hills: No. Nigel is misstating my view. Also, it seems to me that Nigel has missed some nuances in the EBU colour-coded rules on (alleged) psyching. Let us look at the most relevant EBU regulations. EBU Orange Book: >>6 B 1 The actions of the psycher's partner following a psyche - >>and, possibly, further actions by the psycher himself - may >>provide evidence of an unauthorised, and therefore illegal, >>understanding. If so, then the partnership is said to have >>'fielded' the psyche. The TD will judge actions objectively by >>the standards of a player's peers; that is to say intent will >>not be taken into account. [snip] >>6 B 3 A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for >>the TD to find that it has an unauthorised understanding and the >>score will be adjusted in principle (eg 60% to the non-offending >>side and 30% to the offending side is normal in pairs). This is >>classified as a Red psyche. >> >>6 B 4 A TD may find that whilst there is some evidence of an >>unauthorised understanding it is not sufficient, of itself, to >>justify an adjusted score. This is classified as an Amber >>psyche. In particular, if both partners psyche on the same hand, >>then a classification of at least Amber is likely to be >>justified. >> >>6 B 5 In the majority of cases the TD will find nothing untoward >>and classify it as a Green psyche. >> >>6 B 6 A TD may use evidence from a partnership's actions on two >>or more boards to assess a partnership's actions. Whilst a >>single instance may not provide sufficient evidence of an >>unauthorised understanding to warrant a score adjustment, a >>repetition reinforces the conclusion that an unauthorised >>understanding exists. In other words, if two psyches are >>classified as Amber, the classification of both automatically >>becomes Red, and the score on all such boards is adjusted >>accordingly. Richard Hills: If I was an EBU TD, I would interpret the Orange Book 6B1 criterion "objectively by the standards of player's peers" as requiring: (a) a ruling of Red Psyche if the pseudo-psycher's partner chose an illogical alternative which complemented the pseudo-psyche, (b) a ruling of Amber Psyche if the alleged psycher's partner chose from amongst peer-supported logical alternatives a peer- supported logical alternative which complemented the alleged psyche, and (c) a ruling of Green Psyche if the psycher's partner chose to believe the psyche, consequently suffering a -1700 penalty. Of course these colour-coded EBU regulations are not entirely consistent with what is required by Law. WBF Code of Practice, page 8: "A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed." In case (c) above, a player may have an illegal Concealed Partnership Understanding, but choose to conceal the CPU by perversely electing a -1700 penalty. But the colour-coded EBU regulations are 99% consistent with Law due to human nature. If a player is willing to infract Law by having a CPU, why would that same player be willing to knowingly kamikaze into -1700? Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 swillner at nhcc.net Wed Mar 19 03:24:03 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:24:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring In-Reply-To: <200803181445.m2IEjOVP028694@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200803181445.m2IEjOVP028694@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47E07943.70709@nhcc.net> > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > Major ACBL tournaments are usually held in big cities, where presumably > there are lots of bridge clubs. Could the ACBL not borrow the clubs' > duplicating machines? As others have written, duplicating machines are almost non-existent here. The ACBL owns one, but I don't know whether they bring it to NABC sites or keep it in Memphis and ship the boards. The pre-duplicated boards are used only for the most important events. Most pair events use player duplication from hand records, and most team events use hand- dealt boards. > But perhaps using a larger scale is more random when playing different sets > of boards. I don't see how using a larger scale could ever increase randomness. It may be that playing different boards introduces enough randomness that the choice of scales is immaterial, but I doubt it. This is a quantitative question with a definite answer for any specified number of boards, rounds, etc., though it would take some calculation to find it. > But possibly better than straight IMPs in a similar situation. A suitable VP scale may well be less random than straight IMPs, but "suitable" will have more than three steps. (Win-loss really has only barely more than two steps -- one bit of information -- because exact ties are rare.) From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 19 04:09:46 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:09:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring References: <200803181445.m2IEjOVP028694@cfa.harvard.edu> <47E07943.70709@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001c01c8896e$afbe6ec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Steve Willner: >> But perhaps using a larger scale is more random when playing different >> sets >> of boards. > > I don't see how using a larger scale could ever increase randomness. It seems to me that a larger scale will produce larger differences in score between those teams who dealt board-sets that had swings available, and those who dealt board-sets that didn't. Of course you can win 20-nil on a series of partscore battles, but you can also lose most of the partscore battles and win 20-nil because there was a double-game swing or a slam that was tricky to bid or play, etc. This is the way using a larger scale increases randomness, but I had thought that it was fairly obvious, so maybe I am missing something. >> But possibly better than straight IMPs in a similar situation. > > A suitable VP scale may well be less random than straight IMPs, but > "suitable" will have more than three steps. (Win-loss really has only > barely more than two steps -- one bit of information -- because exact > ties are rare.) I meant "straight IMPs" as the raw material for use with a VP scale, not "Total IMPs". The latter is almost never used, and I have no particular desire to change that. This is why I am thinking of some sort of ratio as an alternative to straight IMPs. Perhaps losing by less than 10% of the IMPs that changed hands could be a close loss, etc.And maybe a 10- or even 20-point VP scale could be devised on this basis. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 19 04:09:54 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:09:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring References: <200803181445.m2IEjOVP028694@cfa.harvard.edu> <47E07943.70709@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <001d01c8896e$b4abb960$0100a8c0@stefanie> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 2:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Swiss scoring >> From: "Stefanie Rohan" >> Major ACBL tournaments are usually held in big cities, where presumably >> there are lots of bridge clubs. Could the ACBL not borrow the clubs' >> duplicating machines? > > As others have written, duplicating machines are almost non-existent > here. The ACBL owns one, but I don't know whether they bring it to NABC > sites or keep it in Memphis and ship the boards. The pre-duplicated > boards are used only for the most important events. Most pair events > use player duplication from hand records, and most team events use hand- > dealt boards. > >> But perhaps using a larger scale is more random when playing different >> sets >> of boards. > > I don't see how using a larger scale could ever increase randomness. > > It may be that playing different boards introduces enough randomness > that the choice of scales is immaterial, but I doubt it. This is a > quantitative question with a definite answer for any specified number of > boards, rounds, etc., though it would take some calculation to find it. > >> But possibly better than straight IMPs in a similar situation. > > A suitable VP scale may well be less random than straight IMPs, but > "suitable" will have more than three steps. (Win-loss really has only > barely more than two steps -- one bit of information -- because exact > ties are rare.) > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 19 05:21:14 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:21:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: <00a301c8895c$d33399f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> <00a301c8895c$d33399f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:01:54 -0500, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Jeff Easterson: >> >>> Hola Blnlers! The idea that a pair, in advance, will plan to make >>> illegal bids (insufficient for example) and then discuss what to do >>> (what conventions, etc.) after these bids boggles what is left of my >>> mind. JE > >> Robert Frick: > >> I'm pretty sure this can't be done. If you don't realize your bid is >> insufficient, then you will "forget" to use your convention. Conversely, >> if you are following your convention, you know you are making an >> insufficient bid. Which is illegal. > > No, what Jeff means is a convention that is used after attention has been > drawn to an accidental insufficient bid. Or after the bid is accepted, in > the hope that partner will notice that his bid is insufficient by the > time > the auction gets back to him (If partner has to shuffle through his > already-used bidding cards, or borrow a card from someone else's box, you > will probably be prompted to notice that your bid is insufficient. > However, > the actual auction is AI. > > Anyway, I have been worried about this for many weeks. Hi Stephanie. Interesting idea. I just worked with if changing my insufficient bid. This is tough to do because Law 72B1 bars you from making any bid better than the ones that were at your disposal. After considerable effort: If a nonconventional or conventional bid is made sufficient by raising it a level, it has the same meaning. For example, my partner opens 1S, RHO bids 2D which I do not see, and I bid 2D natural showing a diamond suit. A correction to 3D would then be natural, showing diamonds. Or my partner opens 1S, opps bid 2NT unusual, and I foolishly bid 2C not seeing the 2NT bid. A correction to 3C is now clubs, not unusual over unusual. This convention would have been useful for the old laws, but then it could be used only when both bids were nonconventional. E.g., I open 1C and discover my opp has already opened. My bid of 2C should now mean the same as my bid of 1C did. It does allow you to show a hand that you otherwise might not have been able to show...but you have to hope that you don't gain from that in the auction, because if you do then 27D kicks in. (And hence this is nothing for you to "worry" about.) Apologies if this is already known. If not, it's the "what I just said" convention. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 19 05:08:28 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:08:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Edgar Kaplan, Bridge World Editorial about the Rule of Coincidence: "There ain't no such animal." Imps (Butler pairs scored against a datum) Dlr: West Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 1NT(14-16) X 2S Pass Pass ? You, South, hold: AK A7 AKQJ7 9753 What call do you make? Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 19 05:36:03 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:36:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills, nuanced weaving of weft: >(a) a ruling of Red Psyche if the pseudo-psycher... >... >(b) a ruling of Amber Psyche if the alleged psycher... >... >(c) a ruling of Green Psyche if the psycher... (d) a ruling of Pink-With-Purple-Spots Psyche if the non-psycher... My happiest memory of (d) was when, with all vul, pard dealt and opened 3C. RHO doubled for takeout. I bid an obvious "baby psyche" 3NT, passed back to RHO who exposed my psyche with another double. Now I revealed my Pink-With-Purple-Spots Psyche with a redouble, eventually scoring +1800 for 3NTxx with two vulnerable redoubled overtricks. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 19 06:26:22 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:26:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >Hola Blmlers! The idea that a pair, in advance, >will plan to make illegal bids (insufficient for >example) and then discuss what to do (what >conventions, etc.) after these bids boggles what >is left of my mind. JE Richard Hills: Originally posted in the "Insufficient rebid" thread, 26th October 2006 -> You and your partner have agreed to play a weak notrump and the lebensohl convention. Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, none vul. You, South, hold: Q63 93 KJ53 AK87 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1NT 1H 1S Pass ? What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 19 06:37:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:37:09 +1100 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0803180543x30324bacnbf39687e703e0adf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Willey: >I suspect that institutional inertia has more to do with things Richard Hills: I agree. For many years the evening sessions at the Canberra Bridge Club used dealing machine boards, but the daytime sessions used hand dealt boards, due to the inertia of the Little Old Ladies who had spent decades becoming used to hand dealt boards. This daytime policy changed a year or so ago, as a new generation of LOLs replaced the old, so now the dealing machine is used for all Canberra Bridge Club sessions. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 19 08:07:02 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:07:02 +1100 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47DF874D.2020201@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >This may be true in sports that have a high probability >of the better team winning, but bridge is notoriously fickle. Richard Hills: Yes, the nature of tennis scoring (a huge number of winners needed before a player reaches match point) means that a somewhat better tennis player almost always wins when playing against a somewhat weaker tennis player. For a different reason, perfect information, a somewhat better chess player almost wins when playing against a somewhat weaker chess player. But... The fickleness of a fixed number of Duplicate Bridge deals can be varied by varying the conditions of contest. If the CoC increases the number of meaningful decisions which can be made, then a somewhat better bridge player (whose expertise is defined by making good decisions) is less likely to lose to the fickle finger of fate. So a 20 to -5 vp scale automatically increases the number of meaningful decisions compared to a 1 to 0 vp scale. The nature of the scoring system can also be relevant. Point a board / board a match (BAM) scoring automatically increases the number of at-the-table meaningful decisions compared to imp scoring, due to every bid and every trick possibly swinging the entire board at BAM. On the other hand, imp scoring rewards away-from-the-table partnership homework. This is due to the reward/penalty ratio at imps between concentrating on developing one's own card play to gain overtricks, or concentrating on mutual partnership agreements to gain slam swings. At BAM the reward/penalty ratio is the other way around. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Mar 19 08:47:25 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:47:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> Message-ID: On 19/03/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Jeff Easterson: > > >Hola Blmlers! The idea that a pair, in advance, > >will plan to make illegal bids (insufficient for > >example) and then discuss what to do (what > >conventions, etc.) after these bids boggles what > >is left of my mind. JE > > Richard Hills: > > Originally posted in the "Insufficient rebid" > thread, 26th October 2006 -> > > You and your partner have agreed to play a > weak notrump and the lebensohl convention. > > Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, none vul. > > You, South, hold: > > Q63 > 93 > KJ53 > AK87 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1NT > 1H 1S Pass ? > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? Pass. (Even normally playing negative double of 1H as denying 4+S, I'd expect 1S to be natural here. Og course that's normally after a 1m opening, not 1NT....) I'd expect partner to be too weak to bid 2S over a sufficient 2H by LHO. I'd consider bidding 2C as a lead directing bid, as I'm able to rebid 2S over a penalty double. I'd not consider anything else. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Graduates and Developmental Training Section > Department of Immigration and Citizenship > Telephone: 02 6223 8458 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 19 10:19:58 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:19:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47E0DABE.6020304@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Edgar Kaplan, Bridge World Editorial about the Rule of Coincidence: > > "There ain't no such animal." > > > Imps (Butler pairs scored against a datum) > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 1NT(14-16) X > 2S Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > AK > A7 > AKQJ7 > 9753 > > What call do you make? > This question would be better asked to those whose doubles of strong notrumps are penalties, a group which is losing members day after day, but let's assume 1NT was 13-15 (which most would consider as weak, meaning their double would be strength-showing). The choice seems to be between natural bids of 2NT and 3NT. I've no strong feelings about either. Double is a possibility (I mean, a LA), but I don't see what it could accomplish. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 19 10:19:58 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:19:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47E0DABE.6020304@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Edgar Kaplan, Bridge World Editorial about the Rule of Coincidence: > > "There ain't no such animal." > > > Imps (Butler pairs scored against a datum) > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 1NT(14-16) X > 2S Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > AK > A7 > AKQJ7 > 9753 > > What call do you make? > This question would be better asked to those whose doubles of strong notrumps are penalties, a group which is losing members day after day, but let's assume 1NT was 13-15 (which most would consider as weak, meaning their double would be strength-showing). The choice seems to be between natural bids of 2NT and 3NT. I've no strong feelings about either. Double is a possibility (I mean, a LA), but I don't see what it could accomplish. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 19 10:22:10 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:22:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47E0DB42.3030200@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> This may be true in sports that have a high probability >> of the better team winning, but bridge is notoriously fickle. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, the nature of tennis scoring (a huge number of winners > needed before a player reaches match point) means that a > somewhat better tennis player almost always wins when playing > against a somewhat weaker tennis player. > > For a different reason, perfect information, a somewhat better > chess player almost wins when playing against a somewhat > weaker chess player. > > But... > > The fickleness of a fixed number of Duplicate Bridge deals can > be varied by varying the conditions of contest. If the CoC > increases the number of meaningful decisions which can be > made, then a somewhat better bridge player (whose expertise is > defined by making good decisions) is less likely to lose to > the fickle finger of fate. > > So a 20 to -5 vp scale automatically increases the number of > meaningful decisions compared to a 1 to 0 vp scale. > You are forgetting one thing here, Richard. When a stronger team playes a weaker over a 1VP scale, they have a chance of losing, but if they don't, the 1VP is in the bank. Over a 25VP scale, they have less chance of "losing", but they might win "only" 16-14, thereby dropping 9VP on their rivals. I'm not certain which one will give the best final result. > The nature of the scoring system can also be relevant. Point > a board / board a match (BAM) scoring automatically increases > the number of at-the-table meaningful decisions compared to imp > scoring, due to every bid and every trick possibly swinging the > entire board at BAM. > > On the other hand, imp scoring rewards away-from-the-table > partnership homework. This is due to the reward/penalty ratio > at imps between concentrating on developing one's own card play > to gain overtricks, or concentrating on mutual partnership > agreements to gain slam swings. At BAM the reward/penalty > ratio is the other way around. > That comparison is not worthwhile - you might just as well compare pair games with pairs or butler scoring. This says nothing about the problem at hand, of picking a winner (or a number of selectees) from a field of 64 teams. > > Best wishes > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Mar 19 10:38:18 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:38:18 +1300 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <47DF874D.2020201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560803190238m75c4c8bfo60560564995f8559@mail.gmail.com> On 19/03/2008, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > > >This may be true in sports that have a high probability > >of the better team winning, but bridge is notoriously fickle. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, the nature of tennis scoring (a huge number of winners > needed before a player reaches match point) means that a > somewhat better tennis player almost always wins when playing > against a somewhat weaker tennis player. > > For a different reason, perfect information, a somewhat better > chess player almost wins when playing against a somewhat > weaker chess player. > > But... > > The fickleness of a fixed number of Duplicate Bridge deals can > be varied by varying the conditions of contest. If the CoC > increases the number of meaningful decisions which can be > made, then a somewhat better bridge player (whose expertise is > defined by making good decisions) is less likely to lose to > the fickle finger of fate. > > So a 20 to -5 vp scale automatically increases the number of > meaningful decisions compared to a 1 to 0 vp scale. > This would be true in a round-robin but i am not so sure in a swiss. Since the penalty imposed from a loss is a likely easier draw in the next round. Likewise the reward from winning is a likely tougher draw in the next round. This affect seems to compress the scores over the field. This is counter-product to descriminating between the teams. Wayne > The nature of the scoring system can also be relevant. Point > a board / board a match (BAM) scoring automatically increases > the number of at-the-table meaningful decisions compared to imp > scoring, due to every bid and every trick possibly swinging the > entire board at BAM. > > On the other hand, imp scoring rewards away-from-the-table > partnership homework. This is due to the reward/penalty ratio > at imps between concentrating on developing one's own card play > to gain overtricks, or concentrating on mutual partnership > agreements to gain slam swings. At BAM the reward/penalty > ratio is the other way around. > > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > Graduates and Developmental Training 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Mar 19 10:50:03 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:50:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47E0E1CB.9060706@NTLworld.com> [Edgar Kaplan, Bridge World Editorial about the Rule of Coincidence] "There ain't no such animal." [Richard Hills] Imps (Butler pairs scored against a datum) Dlr: West Vul: East-West You, South, hold: S:AK H:A7 D:AKQJ7 C:9753 (_P) _P (1N) _X (2S) _P (_P) ?? - 1N = 14-16 [Nige1] IMO 2N=10, 3N=8, 3D=6, P=5, X=4. From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Mar 19 11:01:37 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:01:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47E0DB42.3030200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0d7d01c889a8$38dfc800$e28c0453@k247d1879834a4> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > You are forgetting one thing here, Richard. When a stronger team > playes a weaker over a 1VP scale, they have a chance of losing, but if > they don't, the 1VP is in the bank. Over a 25VP scale, they have less > chance of "losing", Why? > but they might win "only" 16-14, thereby dropping > 9VP on their rivals. I am pretty sure that the average expectancy is the same regardless of the VP scale - 0-1 or 0-25. What changes is the variance which means that weaker teams have a better chance to win the 0-1 event. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dzwon tanio w Swieta! kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1d62 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 19 14:37:30 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:37:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> <00a301c8895c$d33399f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <89E33294-E41A-44A6-8F2C-85569484D0E9@starpower.net> On Mar 19, 2008, at 12:21 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Hi Stephanie. Interesting idea. I just worked with if changing my > insufficient bid. This is tough to do because Law 72B1 bars you from > making any bid better than the ones that were at your disposal. > > After considerable effort: > > If a nonconventional or conventional bid is made sufficient by > raising it > a level, it has the same meaning. For example, my partner opens 1S, > RHO > bids 2D which I do not see, and I bid 2D natural showing a diamond > suit. A > correction to 3D would then be natural, showing diamonds. Or my > partner > opens 1S, opps bid 2NT unusual, and I foolishly bid 2C not seeing > the 2NT > bid. A correction to 3C is now clubs, not unusual over unusual. > > This convention would have been useful for the old laws, but then > it could > be used only when both bids were nonconventional. E.g., I open 1C and > discover my opp has already opened. My bid of 2C should now mean > the same > as my bid of 1C did. It does allow you to show a hand that you > otherwise > might not have been able to show...but you have to hope that you don't > gain from that in the auction, because if you do then 27D kicks in. > (And > hence this is nothing for you to "worry" about.) > > Apologies if this is already known. If not, it's the "what I just > said" > convention. Under the 1997 laws, this was not a "convention"; it was a logical necessity. You had at most one replacement call (RC) which would be allowed without penalty; if you made it, the IB was AI to your partner, who then knew to (legally) interpret the RC as having the presumptive meaning of the original IB. This did not raise the issue under discussion. This changes with the new(est) L27. It is now possible for an IBer to have more than one RC he can make without penalty. In my favored methods, if I try to open 1H, only to discover the my RHO has opened 1S in front of me, I can correct without penalty to 2H under L27B1 (a), and can also correct to either 2S or 3H under L27B1(b). My partner knows this, and also has the AI that I intended to open 1H. No agreement is needed for him to understand that my choice among the three calls I can make without barring him carries some message. Since, for example, 2S would show 5-5 in hearts and a minor with opening values or better, he can surely assume that if I correct to 2H or 3H I do not have a 5-card minor! More subtly, since 2H shows a weaker hand than 3H -- usually less than opening bid values, but I can't have that here -- partner will assume, even without agreement, that a 3H RC would be stronger than a 2H RC, even though we have no agreement as to where the cutoff might be. The point, of course, is that even if you make no explicit agreements about RCs after specific IBs, you may be forced by circumstance to develop implicit agreements over time. The Law can't ban you from doing something that you cannot avoid doing. And since the Law makes it clear that implicit agreements are to be treated no differently than explicit ones, if you can't ban the former in a particular circumstance you can't ban the latter either. This is one of several circumstances in which the Law would be well served if it recognized a clear distinction between meanings of calls that can be derived from a partnership's fundamental systemic principles and general "bridge logic" and meanings that depend on specific partnership agreement -- whether or not the former has been previously revealed at the table. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Wed Mar 19 14:43:52 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:43:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring References: <200803171756.m2HHum0B026275@cfa.harvard.edu><47DF26E2.2020605@nhcc.net><07b601c888c2$bfdb1c60$0100a8c0@stefanie><2F3194B339E340CB96FB96AF03702911@erdos> <009901c8895c$13ce41a0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <003301c889c7$4496a640$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Swiss scoring >> Duplicating machines aren't even the only problem; there is also a need >> for more >> boards if you use the same boards across the field in a Swiss. With >> hand-dealt >> boards, a 100-table Swiss needs 10 sets of boards, as there are 20 tables >> playing 1-7. 8-14, 15-21, 22-28, and 29-35. With computer-dealt boards, >> everyone needs to play boards 1-7 in the first match, so you need 50 sets >> of >> boards 1-7, or 25 sets if you allow two matches to share a set of boards. >> And >> if you have only this many sets, then you can only play five matches of >> seven >> boards each before you have to re-deal the same boards, so you'll have to >> have >> all the duplicating machines at the tournament and re-deal a lot of >> boards >> during the dinner break. > > What you need is enough boards for each table to start with two. So, for a > 100-table Swiss teams with 7-board rounds, you need slightly more than 25 > sets of boards. > > And yes, you do need to have duplicating machines at the tournament and > re-deal the boards, but this can be done during the session as boards are > taken out of play. > > I guess a lot of people in England agree with me that duplicated boards > are > important (and, of course, essential in Swiss Pairs!), so the EBU bother > to > do all this. If Americans prefer to do things differently, then of course > it > is not worth the time and effort to duplicate boards. > > Speaking of Swiss, why do we not use arrow-switches (say, the first two > boards that arrive at your table) in Swiss Pairs in the EBU? Simply too > accident-prone? If you were going to do so it would be only one board. However the scoring is effectively a NS and an EW line, but the move then scrambles the field, so it's not necessary; By the end of the tourney the competition between each pair of competitors will be ok (ish) > > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Mar 19 14:47:52 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:47:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring References: <200803181445.m2IEjOVP028694@cfa.harvard.edu><47E07943.70709@nhcc.net> <001c01c8896e$afbe6ec0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <003c01c889c7$d3ad5b30$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 3:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Swiss scoring > Steve Willner: > >>> But perhaps using a larger scale is more random when playing different >>> sets >>> of boards. >> >> I don't see how using a larger scale could ever increase randomness. > > It seems to me that a larger scale will produce larger differences in > score > between those teams who dealt board-sets that had swings available, and > those who dealt board-sets that didn't. Of course you can win 20-nil on a > series of partscore battles, but you can also lose most of the partscore > battles and win 20-nil because there was a double-game swing or a slam > that > was tricky to bid or play, etc. > > This is the way using a larger scale increases randomness, but I had > thought > that it was fairly obvious, so maybe I am missing something. > > >>> But possibly better than straight IMPs in a similar situation. >> >> A suitable VP scale may well be less random than straight IMPs, but >> "suitable" will have more than three steps. (Win-loss really has only >> barely more than two steps -- one bit of information -- because exact >> ties are rare.) > > I meant "straight IMPs" as the raw material for use with a VP scale, not > "Total IMPs". The latter is almost never used, and I have no particular > desire to change that. > > This is why I am thinking of some sort of ratio as an alternative to > straight IMPs. Perhaps losing by less than 10% of the IMPs that changed > hands could be a close loss, etc.And maybe a 10- or even 20-point VP scale > could be devised on this basis. This is an out and out penalisation of my own tactics, which involve playing high variance bridge. i seldom get under the 2 imps per board conceded, but still win a lot of matches. My total imps scored is about 40% more than the average. You change the game if you try anything but nett imps. > > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Mar 19 22:47:50 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:47:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?40B3=2C_etc=2E=B2?= Message-ID: <47E18A06.2060807@aol.com> Perhaps I ought to clarify what was boggling the remnants of my mind. It was: that a pair could discuss what new conventions and meanings their bids would have after they themselves make an insufficient bid (or possibly other violation). I couldn't imagine anyone actually doing this but it seems to be the point of the discussion about changes of meaning of bids after one's own insufficient (or other violation) bid. Ciao, JE From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Mar 20 00:40:51 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:40:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> <00a301c8895c$d33399f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> Message-ID: <01a801c88a1a$aa9ae5c0$575b9951@stefanie> >From Robert Frick: > Hi Stephanie. Interesting idea. I just worked with if changing my > insufficient bid. This is tough to do because Law 72B1 bars you from > making any bid better than the ones that were at your disposal. Not 72B1. But I would like to see if it is indeed against any law. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Mar 20 00:56:41 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:56:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?40B3=2C_etc=2E=B2?= References: <47E18A06.2060807@aol.com> Message-ID: <01a901c88a1c$e1129d30$575b9951@stefanie> From: "Jeff Easterson" > Perhaps I ought to clarify what was boggling the remnants of my mind. > It was: that a pair could discuss what new conventions and meanings > their bids would have after they themselves make an insufficient bid (or > possibly other violation). I couldn't imagine anyone actually doing > this but it seems to be the point of the discussion about changes of > meaning of bids after one's own insufficient (or other violation) bid. > Ciao, JE Obviously. Say the auction goes 1D by partner, 2C by RHO, 1S by you. Now you can play, eg, that double shows 4 spades and the lower end of a 1S response (let us assume that you do not want to pass and bar partner, so your bids will be as light as this. Another incidence of AI that ought to be UI, but anyway...) 2D can be either 10+ with 4 spades or 6-9 with 5+; 2H asks which. 2H can be 10+ with 5+ spades. 2S can be fit-showing. Higher bids, well, who knows? NT bids can be natural, showing different ranges with 4 spades. 3-level bids can be game-going with a second suit. Etc. These are all much more specific than a 1S response to an opening bid, so would, in theory, be permitted. Is 27D enough protection? When the director is not a strong player but the OS are? Besides, it is not clear that the result from this convention would Is there any law at all that protects players from opponents' having a penalty card and using it to clarify their carding agreements? A reference suit and rank can make your carding a lot more accurate. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 20 00:58:56 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:58:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] L26 or not [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006601c8882a$f3208da0$2dd0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Peter Eidt: >>But, should the phrase "the auction proceeds without >>further rectifications" in L27B1 not be read as "Law 26 >>will not apply" ?? Grattan Endicott: >+=+ That was part of the intention as I understood it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: But what to do if the wording of a Law is contrary to the intended meaning of a Law? (A problem which dogged the 1997 Law 25B.) As Ton Kooijman has implied, the Law 27B1 phrase under discussion does _not_ say "the auction **and play** proceeds without further rectification". And as for the quibble that Law 26 may apply to the opening lead, but the selection of the opening lead happens during the auction period, I counter-quibble that the auction and auction period have slightly different meanings. (See the Definitions and Law 22.) Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 8458 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Mar 20 01:02:53 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:02:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> <00a301c8895c$d33399f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <89E33294-E41A-44A6-8F2C-85569484D0E9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <01b301c88a1d$bf01ccb0$575b9951@stefanie> From: "Eric Landau" > The point, of course, is that even if you make no explicit agreements > about RCs after specific IBs, you may be forced by circumstance to > develop implicit agreements over time. The Law can't ban you from > doing something that you cannot avoid doing. And since the Law makes > it clear that implicit agreements are to be treated no differently > than explicit ones, if you can't ban the former in a particular > circumstance you can't ban the latter either. Indeed so. But it is not even implicit agreements developed over time, really. In the example you gave, the meanings of the various RCs were work-out-able at the table. Just by reflecting why partner chose one RC and not another, you will have at least some information not contained in the RC itself. This is a very very bad idea. I think that one legal RC, as in the past, is the only way to avoid this, and is the way, er, "forward". Stefanie Rohan London, England From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Mar 20 01:14:44 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:14:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?40B3=2C_etc=2E=B2?= In-Reply-To: <01a901c88a1c$e1129d30$575b9951@stefanie> References: <47E18A06.2060807@aol.com> <01a901c88a1c$e1129d30$575b9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <47E1AC74.4060801@aol.com> How often do you make insufficient bids? I estimate that I (and my partners) do it less than once every two years. I can't even remember the last time it happened. That is why I find it hard to believe that a pair will sit down and discuss how to change the meanings of their bids following their own insufficient bid. I don't mean logical (more or less) readings of bids, but really planned system changes. Does anyone really do that? Kojak seems to think it is possible. But, a purposely made insufficient bid (how to determine this?) would seem to me to be obviously illegal. And I think, as a TD, if I suspect that such a bid has been purposely made I'd question the perpetrator very closely. If I were to be convinced that the bid was purposely made I'd come down on him like a ton of bricks. I'm afraid I don't understand your problem with penalty cards; could you clarify it with concrete examples? Or do you mean that someone could possibly fabricate a penalty card intentionally in order to show count or whatever? If it is inadvertent (not paying close attention, pulling the wrong card, etc.) it is surely random and thus hard for me to imagine how it could be used to transmit info, except for obvious stuff. There are however rules regarding what is AI and UI for the partner of someone whon has a penalty card. Ciao, JE > From: "Jeff Easterson" > > >>Perhaps I ought to clarify what was boggling the remnants of my mind. >>It was: that a pair could discuss what new conventions and meanings >>their bids would have after they themselves make an insufficient bid (or >>possibly other violation). I couldn't imagine anyone actually doing >>this but it seems to be the point of the discussion about changes of >>meaning of bids after one's own insufficient (or other violation) bid. >>Ciao, JE > > > Obviously. Say the auction goes 1D by partner, 2C by RHO, 1S by you. Now you > can play, eg, that double shows 4 spades and the lower end of a 1S response > (let us assume that you do not want to pass and bar partner, so your bids > will be as light as this. Another incidence of AI that ought to be UI, but > anyway...) > > 2D can be either 10+ with 4 spades or 6-9 with 5+; 2H asks which. > > 2H can be 10+ with 5+ spades. > > 2S can be fit-showing. > > Higher bids, well, who knows? NT bids can be natural, showing different > ranges with 4 spades. 3-level bids can be game-going with a second suit. > Etc. > > These are all much more specific than a 1S response to an opening bid, so > would, in theory, be permitted. Is 27D enough protection? When the director > is not a strong player but the OS are? Besides, it is not clear that the > result from this convention would > > Is there any law at all that protects players from opponents' having a > penalty card and using it to clarify their carding agreements? A reference > suit and rank can make your carding a lot more accurate. > > > 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 Thu Mar 20 02:42:44 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:42:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Edgar Kaplan, Bridge World Editorial about the Rule of Coincidence: "There ain't no such animal." Imps (Butler pairs scored against a datum) Dlr: West Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 1NT(14-16) X 2S Pass Pass ? I, South, held: AK A7 AKQJ7 9753 1995 ACBL Appeals Committee: "The Rule of Coincidence is documented in the Active Ethics Manual which was first published in the mid 1980s. It deals with a situation like this when one player takes an overbid and the other partner an underbid. When the two actions work together to produce a good result, this Rule can be applied." I took an overbid to 3NT despite pard's bidding being consistent with pard holding a yerborough. My 1995 ACBL pard had underbid with: Qxx xxxx Tx xxxx so our two actions had worked together to produce a good result. Our 1995 ACBL opponents therefore summoned the 1995 ACBL Director to the table, and the 1995 ACBL Director therefore applied the Rule of Coincidence to adjust our score from 3NT +400 to Average Minus. But wait, there's more. This hand actually occurred this week in Canberra, so my 2008 Aussie opponents did not summon the 2008 Aussie Director. But wait, there's more. My 2008 Aussie pard had passed perfectly with: xxx Txxxx xxx xx so my overbid to 3NT produced a bad result of -50. This is the logical flaw in the Rule of Coincidence. Its basis is that a lucky overbid _must_ be the result of a conspiracy to infract the Laws, ignoring the many counter-examples when that same player's optimistic style is unlucky. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 20 04:10:08 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:10:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?40B3=2C_etc=2E=B2?= In-Reply-To: <01a901c88a1c$e1129d30$575b9951@stefanie> References: <47E18A06.2060807@aol.com> <01a901c88a1c$e1129d30$575b9951@stefanie> Message-ID: Law 27B1(b) seems to allow wickedly effective systems such as suggested by Stepanie. That needs to be explored. However, any system that makes the insufficient bid obviously desirable is decapitated by 72B1, which is that you can't have known at the time of the infraction that it might harm the opponents. My system -- "what I just said" -- sometimes allows you to show hands that you otherwise might not have been able to show. But I can't intentionally make an insufficient bid with the hopes of getting to a better contract than the other pairs playing in my direction, because then Law 27D will kick in. (Law 27D is, roughly, the opps cannot be hurt by the insufficient bid.) Even when I unintentionally make an insufficient bid, I am hoping just to get to the same contract as everyone else, not a better one. BTW. Suppose as a result of an insufficient bid, I make it sufficient by 27B1 and we end up in an inferior game that no one else is bidding. However, it happens to make. Is that rub of the green, or are the opps protected? Bob > > From: "Jeff Easterson" > >> Perhaps I ought to clarify what was boggling the remnants of my mind. >> It was: that a pair could discuss what new conventions and meanings >> their bids would have after they themselves make an insufficient bid (or >> possibly other violation). I couldn't imagine anyone actually doing >> this but it seems to be the point of the discussion about changes of >> meaning of bids after one's own insufficient (or other violation) bid. >> Ciao, JE > > Obviously. Say the auction goes 1D by partner, 2C by RHO, 1S by you. Now > you > can play, eg, that double shows 4 spades and the lower end of a 1S > response > (let us assume that you do not want to pass and bar partner, so your bids > will be as light as this. Another incidence of AI that ought to be UI, > but > anyway...) > > 2D can be either 10+ with 4 spades or 6-9 with 5+; 2H asks which. > > 2H can be 10+ with 5+ spades. > > 2S can be fit-showing. > > Higher bids, well, who knows? NT bids can be natural, showing different > ranges with 4 spades. 3-level bids can be game-going with a second suit. > Etc. > > These are all much more specific than a 1S response to an opening bid, so > would, in theory, be permitted. Is 27D enough protection? When the > director > is not a strong player but the OS are? Besides, it is not clear that the > result from this convention would > > Is there any law at all that protects players from opponents' having a > penalty card and using it to clarify their carding agreements? A > reference > suit and rank can make your carding a lot more accurate. > > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Mar 20 03:24:06 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:24:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47E1CAC6.2050802@NTLworld.com> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 1NT(14-16) X 2S Pass Pass ? I, South, held: S:AK H:A7 D:AKQJ7 C:9753 1995 ACBL Appeals Committee: "The Rule of Coincidence is documented in the Active Ethics Manual which was first published in the mid 1980s. It deals with a situation like this when one player takes an overbid and the other partner an underbid. When the two actions work together to produce a good result, this Rule can be applied." I took an overbid to 3NT despite pard's bidding being consistent with pard holding a yerborough. My 1995 ACBL pard had underbid with: S:Qxx H:xxxx D:Tx C:xxxx so our two actions had worked together to produce a good result. Our 1995 ACBL opponents therefore summoned the 1995 ACBL Director to the table, and the 1995 ACBL Director therefore applied the Rule of Coincidence to adjust our score from 3NT +400 to Average Minus. But wait, there's more. This hand actually occurred this week in Canberra, so my 2008 Aussie opponents did not summon the 2008 Aussie Director. But wait, there's more. My 2008 Aussie pard had passed perfectly with: S:xxx H:Txxxx D:xxx C:xx so my overbid to 3NT produced a bad result of -50. This is the logical flaw in the Rule of Coincidence. Its basis is that a lucky overbid _must_ be the result of a conspiracy to infract the Laws, ignoring the many counter-examples when that same player's optimistic style is unlucky. [Nige1] I don't know how regulations were applied by Americans in 1995; or by Australians today. I can't be *sure* what the ruling would be in the EBU. I would expect, however, that experienced opponents who called the director about this alleged "field" would get short shrift. As I understand it, the point about a *red* psych is that the psycher's partner deviates significantly from system, in a way that compensates for the psych. Here, I reckon that most players would pass on both weak hands. And 3N is by the strong hand is perfectly reasonable -- not a deviation. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Mar 20 22:50:11 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:50:11 -0700 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: <01b301c88a1d$bf01ccb0$575b9951@stefanie> References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> <00a301c8895c$d33399f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <89E33294-E41A-44A6-8F2C-85569484D0E9@starpower.net> <01b301c88a1d$bf01ccb0$575b9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080320144836.0d4e4138@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 05:02 PM 19/03/2008, you wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > The point, of course, is that even if you make no explicit agreements > > about RCs after specific IBs, you may be forced by circumstance to > > develop implicit agreements over time. The Law can't ban you from > > doing something that you cannot avoid doing. And since the Law makes > > it clear that implicit agreements are to be treated no differently > > than explicit ones, if you can't ban the former in a particular > > circumstance you can't ban the latter either. > >Indeed so. But it is not even implicit agreements developed over time, >really. In the example you gave, the meanings of the various RCs were >work-out-able at the table. Just by reflecting why partner chose one RC and >not another, you will have at least some information not contained in the RC >itself. > >This is a very very bad idea. I think that one legal RC, as in the past, is >the only way to avoid this, and is the way, er, "forward". > >Stefanie Rohan >London, England I think classically, if you double the IB with sufficient vigour, it is meant for penalties, whether or not you have discussed the situation before. Your double of the corrected bid may have been for take-out. Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Mar 20 05:39:04 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:39:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... Message-ID: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> As I understand the matter, the thinking behind the progressive watering down of many Laws is that as far as is practicable, "normal bridge results" should be obtainable even by those incapable of realising whose turn it is to bid, or that spades outrank hearts, or that there is a requirement to follow suit when able to do so. Suppose that you have: 3 AK10943 6 AKQ85 After mature consideration, you choose to open 1H (there is a case for 2C, but this is not a Richard Hills problem where you will later have to justify some stupid bid to a sceptical Director). An awkward silence supervenes, during which you observe two things fractionally before everyone else at the table points them out to you: (1) you are not the dealer; (2) your partner, who is, has opened 1H and your RHO has passed. Of course, had you been paying sufficient attention to the game, you would now bid Blackwood. But not under the new new Law 27 nor the old new Law 27 nor the old old Law 27 nor the Institutes of Justinian can you bid Blackwood, because partner will be barred and you will play there. What do you do? That was an easy question - naturally, you call the Director. Now for the more difficult question: what should he do? In particular, how should he respond to your plaintive query "Can I bid 2NT, game-forcing with heart support in our methods, and not have partner barred?" David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 20 06:36:31 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:36:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills (2008): >>>Originally posted in the "Insufficient rebid" thread, 26th >>>October 2006 -> >>> >>>You and your partner have agreed to play a weak notrump and the >>>lebensohl convention. >>> >>>Matchpoint pairs, South dealer, none vul. >>> >>>You, South, hold: >>> >>>Q63 >>>93 >>>KJ53 >>>AK87 >>> >>>The bidding has gone: >>> >>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>--- --- --- 1NT >>>1H 1S Pass ? >>> >>>What call do you make? >>>What other calls do you consider making? Harald Skj?ran (2008): >>Pass. (Even normally playing negative double of 1H as denying 4+S, >>I'd expect 1S to be natural here. Og course that's normally after a >>1m opening, not 1NT....) I'd expect partner to be too weak to bid >>2S over a sufficient 2H by LHO. >> >>I'd consider bidding 2C as a lead directing bid, as I'm able to >>rebid 2S over a penalty double. >> >>I'd not consider anything else. Matthias Berghaus (2006): >Hello Richard, > >if all these things happen to you... never a dull moment, eh? Richard Hills (2006): These things do not just happen to me; I create them, since I was the North who chose to accept West's insufficient bid. :-) Matthias Berghaus (2006): >It seems to me that I may be under different sets of UI restrictions >if > >a) partner bids 1S without a care in the world or > >b) the TD is summoned, the options and the consequences are explained >and partner now bids 1S. > >If partner seems to have missed (or misread, written bidding?) my 1NT, >I may have UI because of systemic information from 1 minor - 1H - 1S >showing 5+ (for example). Richard Hills (2006): Another example is that pard may have thought that West was dealer, so pard's 1S was intended as an overcall, thus showing higher minimum values than a mere response of 1S promises. Matthias Berghaus (2006): >If, on the other hand, partner knew what he was dealing with he may >well have only 4 spades (John's two-suiter is a different logical >explanation), since this is the hand type he cannot get across if no >negative double of 2H is available (if he has limited values, with a >stronger hand he has a cue available). Since partner will have a 4+ >card minor most of the time (if holding only 4 spades) a bid of 2C >seems suggested (certainly debatable whether 2C is a LA at >matchpoints). Is this AI or UI? I think it is AI, but I am not >completely sure. Richard Hills (2006): The fact that a player summoned the director is extraneous information, but if that player is a non-offending player does that necessarily mean that that summoning is authorised information to their partner? Indeed, is that summoning authorised information to the offending side? Matthias Berghaus (2006): >At matchpoints I would always bid 2S. Richard Hills (2006): As Eric Landau has noted, in the ACBL a pair is not allowed to change its methods after the acceptance of an insufficient bid. This rule does not apply in Australia, Richard Hills (2008): >>>This rule will partially apply in Australia from June/July when the >>>ABF will use the 2007 Law 40B3 to regulate that: >>> >>>(a) you may not vary your methods when an opponent accepts your >>>insufficient bid, but >>> >>>(b) you may vary your methods when you or pard accepts an opponent's >>>insufficient bid. Richard Hills (2006): but neither had my partner and I come to a specific agreement about this sequence, despite decades of system discussion. :-) Therefore my partner assumed that since we had a general agreement to use lebensohl after an overcall of 1NT, lebensohl also applied after an undercall of 1NT, so pard passed. The complete deal: AK97 Q62 AT92 J2 JT 8542 AKJ85 T74 876 Q4 QT3 9654 Q63 93 KJ53 AK87 Karapet the Free Armenian (who was sitting West) chose to follow the advice of the best experts, who opine that at matchpoints pairs it is compulsory to balance against low-level partscores. So, Karapet now sufficiently rebid 2H. I completed the description of my hand with a penalty double for +800 and a top. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 20 06:38:44 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:38:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47DF4149.5070707@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Thus, in most judgement cases, directors base their ruling on what they >assess to be the "balance of probability". [snip] Richard Hills: A slight misquote of the 2007 Law 85A1. The criterion of "balance of probabilities" may only be used by the Director when assessing facts which are in dispute. For those judgement cases in which the facts are not being disputed, then other criteria apply. For example, when both parties agree on the fact that a particular claim statement has been made, then in assessing the merits of that claim the Director does not use the 2007 Law 85A1 criterion "balance of probabilities", but rather the 2007 Law 70A criterion "any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer". Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 20 07:47:28 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:47:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> Message-ID: David Burn queries: [snip] >your plaintive query "Can I bid 2NT, game-forcing with >heart support in our methods, and not have partner barred?" Richard Hills counter-queries: Does a 2NT response include hands which would not open 1H? If so, 2NT has a _less_ precise meaning* than a 1H opening bid. (An incentive for Precision and other Strong Club players to eschew an insufficient bid of 1H.) 2007 Law 27 footnote: * the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Mar 20 09:21:16 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:21:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> Message-ID: ton: Good example. As we said before, if 2NT shows at least as many hearts as 1H it is allowed. (we assume that the strength of both calls is in the same category: strong/gameforcing, an approach to be discussed still). But I assume that 1H shows more hearts than the minimum of hearts in 2NT and then the TD might not have explained the procedure correctly, since you are allowed to bid 2H. And then the proof of the pudding, in your second turn you bid 4NT and reach the inevitable 6 or 7H, the normal bridge result. Let us use this example to illustrate the use of L27C2. Assume after 1H- 2H the opener bids 3C which makes it possible to reach 7NT. This might not be the obvious contract without your insufficient bid, answering 2NT. Reason to consider adjusting the score. Not just from now on, also with the '97 laws. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of David Burn Sent: donderdag 20 maart 2008 5:39 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... As I understand the matter, the thinking behind the progressive watering down of many Laws is that as far as is practicable, "normal bridge results" should be obtainable even by those incapable of realising whose turn it is to bid, or that spades outrank hearts, or that there is a requirement to follow suit when able to do so. Suppose that you have: 3 AK10943 6 AKQ85 After mature consideration, you choose to open 1H (there is a case for 2C, but this is not a Richard Hills problem where you will later have to justify some stupid bid to a sceptical Director). An awkward silence supervenes, during which you observe two things fractionally before everyone else at the table points them out to you: (1) you are not the dealer; (2) your partner, who is, has opened 1H and your RHO has passed. Of course, had you been paying sufficient attention to the game, you would now bid Blackwood. But not under the new new Law 27 nor the old new Law 27 nor the old old Law 27 nor the Institutes of Justinian can you bid Blackwood, because partner will be barred and you will play there. What do you do? That was an easy question - naturally, you call the Director. Now for the more difficult question: what should he do? In particular, how should he respond to your plaintive query "Can I bid 2NT, game-forcing with heart support in our methods, and not have partner barred?" David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 20 10:43:08 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:43:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47E231AC.5000906@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Edgar Kaplan, Bridge World Editorial about the Rule of Coincidence: > > "There ain't no such animal." > > > Imps (Butler pairs scored against a datum) > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 1NT(14-16) X > 2S Pass Pass ? > > I, South, held: > > AK > A7 > AKQJ7 > 9753 > > 1995 ACBL Appeals Committee: > > "The Rule of Coincidence is documented in the Active Ethics Manual > which was first published in the mid 1980s. It deals with a situation > like this when one player takes an overbid and the other partner an > underbid. When the two actions work together to produce a good result, > this Rule can be applied." > I'm afraid the AC didn't understand the Rule of Coincidence. In reality, it deals with a situation where a player takes a deep position which happens to work when partner deviated from his system (mainly through a psyche). Passing on a 2-count isn't deviating from the system, so this case isn't concerned by said rule (was it made up or genuine ?). BTW, there are partnerships where one player always overbids and the other always underbids. How would you deal with them ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 20 10:43:08 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:43:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47E231AC.5000906@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Edgar Kaplan, Bridge World Editorial about the Rule of Coincidence: > > "There ain't no such animal." > > > Imps (Butler pairs scored against a datum) > Dlr: West > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 1NT(14-16) X > 2S Pass Pass ? > > I, South, held: > > AK > A7 > AKQJ7 > 9753 > > 1995 ACBL Appeals Committee: > > "The Rule of Coincidence is documented in the Active Ethics Manual > which was first published in the mid 1980s. It deals with a situation > like this when one player takes an overbid and the other partner an > underbid. When the two actions work together to produce a good result, > this Rule can be applied." > I'm afraid the AC didn't understand the Rule of Coincidence. In reality, it deals with a situation where a player takes a deep position which happens to work when partner deviated from his system (mainly through a psyche). Passing on a 2-count isn't deviating from the system, so this case isn't concerned by said rule (was it made up or genuine ?). BTW, there are partnerships where one player always overbids and the other always underbids. How would you deal with them ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 20 10:52:51 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:52:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> Message-ID: <47E233F3.1060000@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > Suppose that you have: > > 3 AK10943 6 AKQ85 > > After mature consideration, you choose to open 1H (there is a case for 2C, > but this is not a Richard Hills problem where you will later have to justify > some stupid bid to a sceptical Director). > > An awkward silence supervenes, during which you observe two things > fractionally before everyone else at the table points them out to you: (1) > you are not the dealer; (2) your partner, who is, has opened 1H and your RHO > has passed. > > Of course, had you been paying sufficient attention to the game, you would > now bid Blackwood. But not under the new new Law 27 nor the old new Law 27 > nor the old old Law 27 nor the Institutes of Justinian can you bid > Blackwood, because partner will be barred and you will play there. What do > you do? > > That was an easy question - naturally, you call the Director. Now for the > more difficult question: what should he do? In particular, how should he > respond to your plaintive query "Can I bid 2NT, game-forcing with heart > support in our methods, and not have partner barred?" > > My answer would be : yes, provided it shows 4+ hearts and you don't play 5-card majors. Else, there would be UI from the opening. If you happen to have some bid to show a 5-card raise, then your problem is solved. I would be prone to accept the 2NT substitute, even if a 1H opening showed 5, telling the player that, if this small amount of UI happens to have any importance on the deal, their score would be adjusted. But that's probably not in L27. In general, I'd be content with 99% inclusion of the meaning of the IB into the SB. But perhaps, here, a 1-card discrepancy is too much. One good case of 99% inclusion which we discussed between friends is the case where you substitute your 1C opening (Precision, 16+) with a double of their Multi 2D (also meaning 16+, as some play it in Brussels). Partner has additional information that you don't hold a Precision 2NT opener, whatever range it shows. But that's too little IMOBO to disallow the conversion. Best regards Alain From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Mar 20 13:06:40 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:06:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> Message-ID: <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com> [TK] But I assume that 1H shows more hearts than the minimum of hearts in 2NT and then the TD might not have explained the procedure correctly, since you are allowed to bid 2H. [DALB] Are you serious? Having bid an insufficient 1H, I am now allowed to respond to partner's opening bid of 1H with a natural *and forcing* 2H? David Burn London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Mar 20 13:11:39 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:11:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> <00a301c8895c$d33399f0$0100a8c0@stefanie><89E33294-E41A-44A6-8F2C-85569484D0E9@starpower.net><01b301c88a1d$bf01ccb0$575b9951@stefanie> <6.1.0.6.2.20080320144836.0d4e4138@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <02cb01c88a83$8d4e31c0$575b9951@stefanie> From: "Tony Musgrove" > I think classically, if you double the IB with sufficient vigour, it is > meant > for penalties, whether or not you have discussed the situation before. > Your double of the corrected bid may have been for take-out. > Yes, but the matter under discussion is actions by the OS. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Thu Mar 20 13:56:12 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:56:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <47E233F3.1060000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <032501c88a89$c6827450$575b9951@stefanie> David Burn a ?crit : > That was an easy question - naturally, you call the Director. Now for the > more difficult question: what should he do? In particular, how should he > respond to your plaintive query "Can I bid 2NT, game-forcing with heart > support in our methods, and not have partner barred?" > > AG: My answer would be : yes, provided it shows 4+ hearts and you don't play 5-card majors. Else, there would be UI from the opening. If you happen to have some bid to show a 5-card raise, then your problem is solved. SR: This is an example of how some methods will be favoured by the new L27, particularly 4-card majors. Is this entirely fair? AG: I would be prone to accept the 2NT substitute, even if a 1H opening showed 5, telling the player that, if this small amount of UI happens to have any importance on the deal, their score would be adjusted. But that's probably not in L27. In general, I'd be content with 99% inclusion of the meaning of the IB into the SB. But perhaps, here, a 1-card discrepancy is too much. SR: I think that any discrepency *may* be too much. It is difficult to know before the auction has been completed (or the play, if the OS end up on defense). What happens if the OS appear to have had a better result due to the RC that the director had permitted? Will this bid be retroactively disallowed, or will the ruling be "director's error"? AG: One good case of 99% inclusion which we discussed between friends is the case where you substitute your 1C opening (Precision, 16+) with a double of their Multi 2D (also meaning 16+, as some play it in Brussels). Partner has additional information that you don't hold a Precision 2NT opener, whatever range it shows. But that's too little IMOBO to disallow the conversion. SR: Some, at least, of the problems of this silly law change would be alleviated by making the IB UI. Ah well. Stefanie Rohan London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 20 14:39:54 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:39:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <47E233F3.1060000@ulb.ac.be> References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <47E233F3.1060000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:52:51 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > David Burn a ?crit : >> Suppose that you have: >> >> 3 AK10943 6 AKQ85 >> >> After mature consideration, you choose to open 1H (there is a case for >> 2C, >> but this is not a Richard Hills problem where you will later have to >> justify >> some stupid bid to a sceptical Director). >> >> An awkward silence supervenes, during which you observe two things >> fractionally before everyone else at the table points them out to you: >> (1) >> you are not the dealer; (2) your partner, who is, has opened 1H and >> your RHO >> has passed. >> >> Of course, had you been paying sufficient attention to the game, you >> would >> now bid Blackwood. But not under the new new Law 27 nor the old new Law >> 27 >> nor the old old Law 27 nor the Institutes of Justinian can you bid >> Blackwood, because partner will be barred and you will play there. What >> do >> you do? >> >> That was an easy question - naturally, you call the Director. Now for >> the >> more difficult question: what should he do? In particular, how should he >> respond to your plaintive query "Can I bid 2NT, game-forcing with heart >> support in our methods, and not have partner barred?" >> >> > My answer would be : yes, provided it shows 4+ hearts and you don't play > 5-card majors. Else, there would be UI from the opening. If you happen > to have some bid to show a 5-card raise, then your problem is solved. > > I would be prone to accept the 2NT substitute, even if a 1H opening > showed 5, telling the player that, if this small amount of UI happens to > have any importance on the deal, their score would be adjusted. But > that's probably not in L27. > > In general, I'd be content with 99% inclusion of the meaning of the IB > into the SB. But perhaps, here, a 1-card discrepancy is too much. > One good case of 99% inclusion which we discussed between friends is the > case where you substitute your 1C opening (Precision, 16+) with a double > of their Multi 2D (also meaning 16+, as some play it in Brussels). > Partner has additional information that you don't hold a Precision 2NT > opener, whatever range it shows. But that's too little IMOBO to disallow > the conversion. > > Best regards > > Alain I think I found another 99%er. You open 1NT, your partner bids 2H transfer, and you bid 2S, discovering that RHO has inserted a bid and your bid is insufficient. 2S contains almost no information, so a pass does not bar partner and a bid of 3S ALMOST perfectly is within the meaning of 2S and probably no one would notice the discrepancy. But 2S usually denies extra values with a 4-card spade suit, yet my partner and I think many players will bid 3S with those same extra values. I'm with Alain, it would be nice to let this go. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 20 14:44:34 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:44:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: <01b301c88a1d$bf01ccb0$575b9951@stefanie> References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> <00a301c8895c$d33399f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <89E33294-E41A-44A6-8F2C-85569484D0E9@starpower.net> <01b301c88a1d$bf01ccb0$575b9951@stefanie> Message-ID: On Mar 19, 2008, at 8:02 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> The point, of course, is that even if you make no explicit agreements >> about RCs after specific IBs, you may be forced by circumstance to >> develop implicit agreements over time. The Law can't ban you from >> doing something that you cannot avoid doing. And since the Law makes >> it clear that implicit agreements are to be treated no differently >> than explicit ones, if you can't ban the former in a particular >> circumstance you can't ban the latter either. > > Indeed so. But it is not even implicit agreements developed over time, > really. In the example you gave, the meanings of the various RCs were > work-out-able at the table. Just by reflecting why partner chose > one RC and > not another, you will have at least some information not contained > in the RC > itself. Exactly. Although, unlike Stefanie, I don't see this as a problem per se. > This is a very very bad idea. I think that one legal RC, as in the > past, is > the only way to avoid this, and is the way, er, "forward". Problems arise only when (and because) a meaning which is "work-out- able out the table" transforms itself -- as it inevitably must, given time -- into one which is "worked out at the table", thus creating an "implicit agreement", which the Law insists on treating identically to any other partnership agreement. What is needed is a legal distinction between true agreements, which create meaning, and implicit pseudo-agreements, which are merely confirmations of "work- out-able at the table" meanings. The latter, albeit properly subject to the disclosure rules on the same basis as any other understanding, cannot be treated as "special partnership understandings" for the purpose of applying L40 without causing the sorts of problem we see here. In the paragraph following the one Stefanie cites above I wrote, 'This is one of several circumstances in which the Law would be well served if it recognized a clear distinction between meanings of calls that can be derived from a partnership's fundamental systemic principles and general "bridge logic" and meanings that depend on specific partnership agreement -- whether or not the former has been previously revealed at the table.' Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 20 15:12:19 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:12:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?40B3=2C_etc=2E=B2?= In-Reply-To: References: <47E18A06.2060807@aol.com> <01a901c88a1c$e1129d30$575b9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <5D55BD44-01C7-4610-B4D9-74B05E9DB57E@starpower.net> On Mar 19, 2008, at 11:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Law 27B1(b) seems to allow wickedly effective systems such as > suggested by > Stepanie. That needs to be explored. > > However, any system that makes the insufficient bid obviously > desirable is > decapitated by 72B1, which is that you can't have known at the time > of the > infraction that it might harm the opponents. It is a recognized principle of jurisprudence that if X is a crime, then conspiring to do X is also a crime. So I would have no problem with prohibiting such "wickedly effective systems" on the grounds that they constitute a de facto illegal "conspiracy to violate L72B1". But this isn't needed, as the use of any method that operates only after an IB constitutes "assistance gained through the infraction" perforce, guaranteeing that if it succeeds the resulting gain will be adjusted away. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 20 15:35:45 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:35:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> Message-ID: <983DFD1B-5173-4AEB-AA5A-0D85A992C3CC@starpower.net> On Mar 20, 2008, at 12:39 AM, David Burn wrote: > As I understand the matter, the thinking behind the progressive > watering > down of many Laws is that as far as is practicable, "normal bridge > results" > should be obtainable even by those incapable of realising whose > turn it is > to bid, or that spades outrank hearts, or that there is a > requirement to > follow suit when able to do so. > > Suppose that you have: > > 3 AK10943 6 AKQ85 > > After mature consideration, you choose to open 1H (there is a case > for 2C, > but this is not a Richard Hills problem where you will later have > to justify > some stupid bid to a sceptical Director). > > An awkward silence supervenes, during which you observe two things > fractionally before everyone else at the table points them out to > you: (1) > you are not the dealer; (2) your partner, who is, has opened 1H and > your RHO > has passed. > > Of course, had you been paying sufficient attention to the game, > you would > now bid Blackwood. But not under the new new Law 27 nor the old new > Law 27 > nor the old old Law 27 nor the Institutes of Justinian can you bid > Blackwood, because partner will be barred and you will play there. > What do > you do? > > That was an easy question - naturally, you call the Director. Now > for the > more difficult question: what should he do? In particular, how > should he > respond to your plaintive query "Can I bid 2NT, game-forcing with > heart > support in our methods, and not have partner barred?" By ascertaining what your intended 1H opening bid would have shown and what your prospective 2NT call would show, and applying the criterion specified in L27B1(b), which will produce either a clear yes or a clear no. WTP? But why bother with 2NT? Under either the 1997 or the (new) 2008 law (but not the withdrawn one), you can just bid 2H. It is "incontrovertably not artificial", and it is effectively forcing, since it is AI to partner that you have an opening bid. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From tsvecfob at iol.ie Thu Mar 20 15:45:36 2008 From: tsvecfob at iol.ie (Fearghal O'Boyle) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:45:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <983DFD1B-5173-4AEB-AA5A-0D85A992C3CC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001901c88a99$0f69cb00$5d0a0a0a@FOBDELL6000> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... > On Mar 20, 2008, at 12:39 AM, David Burn wrote: > >> As I understand the matter, the thinking behind the progressive >> watering >> down of many Laws is that as far as is practicable, "normal bridge >> results" >> should be obtainable even by those incapable of realising whose >> turn it is >> to bid, or that spades outrank hearts, or that there is a >> requirement to >> follow suit when able to do so. >> >> Suppose that you have: >> >> 3 AK10943 6 AKQ85 >> >> After mature consideration, you choose to open 1H (there is a case >> for 2C, >> but this is not a Richard Hills problem where you will later have >> to justify >> some stupid bid to a sceptical Director). >> >> An awkward silence supervenes, during which you observe two things >> fractionally before everyone else at the table points them out to >> you: (1) >> you are not the dealer; (2) your partner, who is, has opened 1H and >> your RHO >> has passed. >> >> Of course, had you been paying sufficient attention to the game, >> you would >> now bid Blackwood. But not under the new new Law 27 nor the old new >> Law 27 >> nor the old old Law 27 nor the Institutes of Justinian can you bid >> Blackwood, because partner will be barred and you will play there. >> What do >> you do? >> >> That was an easy question - naturally, you call the Director. Now >> for the >> more difficult question: what should he do? In particular, how >> should he >> respond to your plaintive query "Can I bid 2NT, game-forcing with >> heart >> support in our methods, and not have partner barred?" > > By ascertaining what your intended 1H opening bid would have shown > and what your prospective 2NT call would show, and applying the > criterion specified in L27B1(b), which will produce either a clear > yes or a clear no. WTP? > > But why bother with 2NT? Under either the 1997 or the (new) 2008 law > (but not the withdrawn one), you can just bid 2H. It is > "incontrovertably not artificial", and it is effectively forcing, > since it is AI to partner that you have an opening bid. > ###FOB: Might not your insufficient 1H have been an attempt to respond 1H? ### > 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 20 15:47:02 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:47:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> <00a301c8895c$d33399f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <89E33294-E41A-44A6-8F2C-85569484D0E9@starpower.net> <01b301c88a1d$bf01ccb0$575b9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <47E278E6.3090205@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Mar 19, 2008, at 8:02 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > >> From: "Eric Landau" >> >> >>> The point, of course, is that even if you make no explicit agreements >>> about RCs after specific IBs, you may be forced by circumstance to >>> develop implicit agreements over time. IBTD. The probability that a honest pair will do the same IB in the same context twice in a row is pretty low. If a pair IBids too often, apart from using L74B, we could surely monitor them to see whether they seem to do them in "interesting cases". In my experience, most IBs will be "normal" if one takes away the last bid (i.e. 1H 2D 1S will be a genuine 1S response). If something else happens, surely it could be registered, in the same way that insufficient psychic bids are. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 20 16:02:52 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:02:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet In-Reply-To: <47E231AC.5000906@ulb.ac.be> References: <47E231AC.5000906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mar 20, 2008, at 5:43 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >> Edgar Kaplan, Bridge World Editorial about the Rule of Coincidence: >> >> "There ain't no such animal." >> >> Imps (Butler pairs scored against a datum) >> Dlr: West >> Vul: East-West >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Pass Pass 1NT(14-16) X >> 2S Pass Pass ? >> >> I, South, held: >> >> AK >> A7 >> AKQJ7 >> 9753 >> >> 1995 ACBL Appeals Committee: >> >> "The Rule of Coincidence is documented in the Active Ethics Manual >> which was first published in the mid 1980s. It deals with a >> situation >> like this when one player takes an overbid and the other partner an >> underbid. When the two actions work together to produce a good >> result, >> this Rule can be applied." > > I'm afraid the AC didn't understand the Rule of Coincidence. What's to understand? Edgar Kaplan understood all that was necessary. > In reality, > it deals with a situation where a player takes a deep position which > happens to work when partner deviated from his system (mainly > through a > psyche). In reality, it doesn't deal with anything; it doesn't exist. The so-called "Rule of Coincidence" was one person's suggestion for a new principle of jurisprudence based on an idiosyncratic interpretation of law. It was never accepted or adopted as regulation by any official body. For the most part, it was not even taken seriously by TPTB. It did indeed appear in the original version of the Active Ethics manual, but guess what? That manual was written by that very same person! What's more, that manual purported to be a set of guidelines instructing players as to what constituted ethical actions beyond the requirements of the laws and regulations; it explicitly lacked any force of law. For an AC to have used or cited it as the basis for a ruling was an outright error. > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 20 16:22:03 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:22:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com> References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com> Message-ID: <52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net> On Mar 20, 2008, at 8:06 AM, David Burn wrote: > [TK] > > But I assume that 1H shows more hearts than the minimum of hearts > in 2NT and > then the TD might not have explained the procedure correctly, since > you are > allowed to bid 2H. > > [DALB] > > Are you serious? Having bid an insufficient 1H, I am now allowed to > respond > to partner's opening bid of 1H with a natural *and forcing* 2H? Of course you are. Your attempt to open 1H is AI to partner. "Law 16D does not apply" could hardly be more explicit, could it? Nor would 2H be subject to a L27D adjustment, as your result will be no better than it would have after an unconstrained 4NT response "had the IB not occurred". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 20 18:33:44 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:33:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <032501c88a89$c6827450$575b9951@stefanie> References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <47E233F3.1060000@ulb.ac.be> <032501c88a89$c6827450$575b9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <12806298-BB88-4AAA-884E-EBBC5EBBB833@starpower.net> On Mar 20, 2008, at 8:56 AM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > David Burn a ?crit : > >> That was an easy question - naturally, you call the Director. Now >> for the >> more difficult question: what should he do? In particular, how >> should he >> respond to your plaintive query "Can I bid 2NT, game-forcing with >> heart >> support in our methods, and not have partner barred?" > > AG: > > My answer would be : yes, provided it shows 4+ hearts and you don't > play > 5-card majors. Else, there would be UI from the opening. If you happen > to have some bid to show a 5-card raise, then your problem is solved. > > SR: > > This is an example of how some methods will be favoured by the new > L27, > particularly 4-card majors. Is this entirely fair? The methods that will be "favored" in a given situation by the new (L27B1(b)) test are those which do not result in the infracting player giving UI to his partner, over those that do, which seems entirely reasonable. It is at least somewhat analogous to the law's "favoring" extraneous remarks that don't result in UI over those that do; in both cases, if you give UI you are likely to wind up worse off than if you hadn't. It is surely at least as fair as the old (now L27B1(a)) test, which arbitrarily favors natural bids over artificial ones regardless of their information content. > AG: > > I would be prone to accept the 2NT substitute, even if a 1H opening > showed 5, telling the player that, if this small amount of UI > happens to > have any importance on the deal, their score would be adjusted. But > that's probably not in L27. > > In general, I'd be content with 99% inclusion of the meaning of the IB > into the SB. But perhaps, here, a 1-card discrepancy is too much. > > SR: > > I think that any discrepency *may* be too much. It is difficult to > know > before the auction has been completed (or the play, if the OS end > up on > defense). What happens if the OS appear to have had a better result > due to > the RC that the director had permitted? Will this bid be retroactively > disallowed, or will the ruling be "director's error"? There can be no quantitative criterion here, as there is no prospective distinction between "not enough" and "just enough". Alain's "99% inclusion" is as meaningless as "99% pregnant". Given the "meanings" of the IB and RC, either the former is included in the latter or it isn't. We can, however, meaningfully address "meaning", by asking whether it includes negative inferences. > AG: > > One good case of 99% inclusion which we discussed between friends > is the > case where you substitute your 1C opening (Precision, 16+) with a > double > of their Multi 2D (also meaning 16+, as some play it in Brussels). > Partner has additional information that you don't hold a Precision 2NT > opener, whatever range it shows. But that's too little IMOBO to > disallow > the conversion. I'd have asked not whether "16+ but not a balanced 22-24 HCP" is "more or less than 99% of" "16+", but rather which of "16+" or "16+ but not a balanced 22-24 HCP" is meant by the "meaning" of 1C. Admittedly, there is some subjectivity in the distinction between a direct inference and a negative inference, but it is a meaningful one that can be discussed and ultimately precedented. > SR: > > Some, at least, of the problems of this silly law change would be > alleviated > by making the IB UI. Ah well. That would be meaningless for IBs corrected under L27B1(b), as to be eligible they must contain no additional "I" to be made "U". It would be meaningful for IBs corrected under L27B1(a), but would presumably defeat the purpose; in any case, it would have to have been in reaction to a "silly law non-change", as L27B1(a) simply "grandfathers" the old L27B1(a) test. Which is not to suggest that it necessarily wouldn't solve some of the new problems Stefanie is concerned about, although the actual consequences would not, I suspect, be much different from just eliminating that test altogether (i.e. reverting in substance to the rejected initial version of the new L27). If we want to address these problems, we need to understand that they arise from neither the old test nor the new test per se, but rather from the interaction between them. We wouldn't (and didn't) want to make the IB UI under the 1997 law, and needn't (and wouldn't have) under the original 2008 law, but mashing them together into an "either-or" combination of both (the revised 2008 law) has had unintended consequences, potentially problematic when they both allow penalty-free actions, but different ones. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 20 11:32:48 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:32:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> Message-ID: <002001c88ab3$a1648e40$2bd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:19 PM Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. > Hola Blnlers! The idea that a pair, in advance, will plan to make > illegal bids (insufficient for example) and then discuss what to do > (what conventions, etc.) after these bids boggles what is left of my > mind. JE > +=+ Jeff, you should also say something about what is right of your mind. These orientations are significant. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 20 19:14:14 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:14:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: <47E278E6.3090205@ulb.ac.be> References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> <00a301c8895c$d33399f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <89E33294-E41A-44A6-8F2C-85569484D0E9@starpower.net> <01b301c88a1d$bf01ccb0$575b9951@stefanie> <47E278E6.3090205@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mar 20, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >>> >>>> The point, of course, is that even if you make no explicit >>>> agreements >>>> about RCs after specific IBs, you may be forced by circumstance to >>>> develop implicit agreements over time. >>>> > IBTD. The probability that a honest pair will do the same IB in the > same > context twice in a row is pretty low. But if it is illegal to have an agreement, then you break the law just by having an agreement, regardless of how low the probability of your actually exercising it (and, critically, regardless of whether you could have avoided it). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Mar 20 19:14:55 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:14:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net> References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com> <52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com> [DALB] Having bid an insufficient 1H, am I now allowed to respond to partner's opening bid of 1H with a natural and forcing 2H? [EL] Of course you are. Your attempt to open 1H is AI to partner. "Law 16D does not apply" could hardly be more explicit, could it? [DALB] But partner does not know that I was attempting to open 1H. All he knows is that he has opened 1H and I have responded 1H. I might have intended to raise to 2H, but mistakenly raised to 1H instead. Is the notion that I have to explain why I bid 1H, so that on some hands I can bid a non-forcing 2H and on others I can bid a forcing 2H? If so, either the world has gone mad or I have. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 20 19:49:58 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:49:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com> References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com> <52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net> <000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com> Message-ID: <37546F6C-16B8-4BAC-9ADD-FCFF61CF9896@starpower.net> On Mar 20, 2008, at 2:14 PM, David Burn wrote: > [DALB] > > Having bid an insufficient 1H, am I now allowed to respond to > partner's > opening bid of 1H with a natural and forcing 2H? > > [EL] > > Of course you are. Your attempt to open 1H is AI to partner. "Law > 16D does > not apply" could hardly be more explicit, could it? > > [DALB] > > But partner does not know that I was attempting to open 1H. All he > knows is > that he has opened 1H and I have responded 1H. I might have > intended to > raise to 2H, but mistakenly raised to 1H instead. Is the notion > that I have > to explain why I bid 1H, so that on some hands I can bid a non- > forcing 2H > and on others I can bid a forcing 2H? If so, either the world has > gone mad > or I have. Which it is depends on whether you believe that the "meaning of" an IB ["what it shows and what it excludes": L27fn] is itself a meaningful concept. If it isn't, then it is the "world" [b.f.] that "has gone mad", by making the outcome of L27 rulings dependent on it. Else it is David who "has gone mad", by imagining that a TD could offer such a dependent ruling (as he is required to by L10C1) without revealing it to the table. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 20 20:54:00 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:54:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47E231AC.5000906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <005d01c88ac4$75cd6fc0$2bd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > 1995 ACBL Appeals Committee: > > "The Rule of Coincidence is documented in the Active Ethics Manual > which was first published in the mid 1980s. It deals with a situation > like this when one player takes an overbid and the other partner an > underbid. When the two actions work together to produce a good result, > this Rule can be applied." > I'm afraid the AC didn't understand the Rule of Coincidence. In reality, it deals with a situation where a player takes a deep position which happens to work when partner deviated from his system (mainly through a psyche). Passing on a 2-count isn't deviating from the system, so this case isn't concerned by said rule (was it made up or genuine ?). +=+ A title like 'Rule of Coincidence' is fog obscuring the reality. What is always the case is that the Director may look for actions which have the appearance of collusion. If the Director diagnoses collusion in execution of an unannounced partnership understanding. he may apply the law. There are two areas of the law that he should consider. The basic law is found in 2007 Law 40A1, with violations subject to Laws 84D and 40C3(b). Aggravated instances of such occurrences may be adjudged violations of Law 73B2. The standard of proof required in these circumstances is, to my mind, at least "highly probable". In the case of an aggravated offence I suggest a Director could not be faulted if he were to espouse the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". We should not invoke some seemingly covert process cloaked with a label. The standards of evidence are wholly transparent and well recognized . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 20 19:31:04 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:31:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <47E233F3.1060000@ulb.ac.be><032501c88a89$c6827450$575b9951@stefanie> <12806298-BB88-4AAA-884E-EBBC5EBBB833@starpower.net> Message-ID: <005c01c88ac4$74120420$2bd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott AG: > > My answer would be : yes, provided it shows 4+ hearts > and you don't play 5-card majors. Else, there would be > UI from the opening. If you happen to have some bid to > show a 5-card raise, then your problem is solved. > +=+ There is always some possibility that the 1H bid may have an upper limit to the number of hearts in the hand. In that event the limits of the 2NT would need to exclude a greater number, otherwise it would be less precise. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 20 20:54:00 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:54:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47E231AC.5000906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <005d01c88ac4$75cd6fc0$2bd5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > 1995 ACBL Appeals Committee: > > "The Rule of Coincidence is documented in the Active Ethics Manual > which was first published in the mid 1980s. It deals with a situation > like this when one player takes an overbid and the other partner an > underbid. When the two actions work together to produce a good result, > this Rule can be applied." > I'm afraid the AC didn't understand the Rule of Coincidence. In reality, it deals with a situation where a player takes a deep position which happens to work when partner deviated from his system (mainly through a psyche). Passing on a 2-count isn't deviating from the system, so this case isn't concerned by said rule (was it made up or genuine ?). +=+ A title like 'Rule of Coincidence' is fog obscuring the reality. What is always the case is that the Director may look for actions which have the appearance of collusion. If the Director diagnoses collusion in execution of an unannounced partnership understanding. he may apply the law. There are two areas of the law that he should consider. The basic law is found in 2007 Law 40A1, with violations subject to Laws 84D and 40C3(b). Aggravated instances of such occurrences may be adjudged violations of Law 73B2. The standard of proof required in these circumstances is, to my mind, at least "highly probable". In the case of an aggravated offence I suggest a Director could not be faulted if he were to espouse the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". We should not invoke some seemingly covert process cloaked with a label. The standards of evidence are wholly transparent and well recognized . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Mar 20 21:43:47 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:43:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Situation_normal=2C_all=2E=2E=2E?= In-Reply-To: <000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com> References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com> <52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net> <000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com> Message-ID: <1JcRc3-1F8DY00@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> > [DALB] > > Having bid an insufficient 1H, am I now allowed to respond to > partner's opening bid of 1H with a natural and forcing 2H? > > [EL] > > Of course you are. ?Your attempt to open 1H is AI to partner. ?"Law > 16D does not apply" could hardly be more explicit, could it? > > [DALB] > > But partner does not know that I was attempting to open 1H. All he > knows is that he has opened 1H and I have responded 1H. I might have > intended to raise to 2H, but mistakenly raised to 1H instead. Is the > notion that I have to explain why I bid 1H, so that on some hands I > can bid a non-forcing 2H and on others I can bid a forcing 2H? If so, > either the world has gone mad or I have. [PE] For the possibility of having a rectification-free substitution of 2H (in our scenario) there must not be UI in any form of a statement to the effect of revealing, what the IBder meant with his IB. If the offender states "oops, I thought, I was dealer" or the like, and offender substitutes his IB with 2H, 16D does not apply, but 16B does. In absence of such UI partner may guess the basis of the IB correctly and he may treat 2H as forcing. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Fri Mar 21 00:20:57 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:20:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com><52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net><000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com> <1JcRc3-1F8DY00@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <04d601c88ae1$0d8fed30$575b9951@stefanie> [PE] For the possibility of having a rectification-free substitution of 2H (in our scenario) there must not be UI in any form of a statement to the effect of revealing, what the IBder meant with his IB. If the offender states "oops, I thought, I was dealer" or the like, and offender substitutes his IB with 2H, 16D does not apply, but 16B does. In absence of such UI partner may guess the basis of the IB correctly and he may treat 2H as forcing. SR: I guess this is what is meant by varying your partnership agreements following an irregularity. It appears to be entirely legal. Yukk. Stefanie Rohan London, England From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Mar 21 09:14:08 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:14:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <04d601c88ae1$0d8fed30$575b9951@stefanie> Message-ID: SR: I guess this is what is meant by varying your partnership agreements following an irregularity. It appears to be entirely legal. Yukk. Stefanie Rohan London, England ton: You should be aware of the essential difference between a partnership agreement and anticipating at the table. I do not need an agreement to find out that after 1H - 1H where I guess that my partner did not see my opening it might be better to continue. No 'Yukk'. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Mar 21 09:06:07 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:06:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com> Message-ID: [TK] But I assume that 1H shows more hearts than the minimum of hearts in 2NT and then the TD might not have explained the procedure correctly, since you are allowed to bid 2H. [DALB] Are you serious? Having bid an insufficient 1H, I am now allowed to respond to partner's opening bid of 1H with a natural *and forcing* 2H? David Burn London, England ton: Yes you are, now, in the past and in the near (coming 10 years) future. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 21 10:42:09 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:42:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: <002001c88ab3$a1648e40$2bd5403e@Mildred> References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> <002001c88ab3$a1648e40$2bd5403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <47E382F1.10503@ulb.ac.be> gesta at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************** > "The only lesson we ever learn > is that we never learn." > {Robert Fisk] > =================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Easterson" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:19 PM > Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. > > > >> Hola Blnlers! The idea that a pair, in advance, will plan to make >> illegal bids (insufficient for example) and then discuss what to do >> (what conventions, etc.) after these bids boggles what is left of my >> mind. JE >> >> > +=+ Jeff, you should also say something about what is > right of your mind. These orientations are significant. > ~ G ~ +=+ > You may laugh. In a paper I submitted recently, I used the phrase "they are left invariant by such-and-such transformation", and one referee asked whether this was significantly different from being "right invariant" :-D Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 21 10:48:42 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:48:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet In-Reply-To: References: <47E231AC.5000906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47E3847A.9080306@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > In reality, it doesn't deal with anything; it doesn't exist. > > The so-called "Rule of Coincidence" was one person's suggestion for a > new principle of jurisprudence based on an idiosyncratic > interpretation of law. It was never accepted or adopted as > regulation by any official body. For the most part, it was not even > taken seriously by TPTB. > > It did indeed appear in the original version of the Active Ethics > manual, but guess what? That manual was written by that very same > person! What's more, that manual purported to be a set of guidelines > instructing players as to what constituted ethical actions beyond the > requirements of the laws and regulations; it explicitly lacked any > force of law. For an AC to have used or cited it as the basis for a > ruling was an outright error. > I'm happy to read this. Anyway, call it the Great Wotsit Principle if you wish, the idea that, when a strange decision from one player happens to work perfectly well facing partner's psyche, there might be something fishy, seems right. And we seem to agree that ACs shouldn't be more parano?d than that. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 21 10:51:57 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:51:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <12806298-BB88-4AAA-884E-EBBC5EBBB833@starpower.net> References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <47E233F3.1060000@ulb.ac.be> <032501c88a89$c6827450$575b9951@stefanie> <12806298-BB88-4AAA-884E-EBBC5EBBB833@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47E3853D.7050604@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > There can be no quantitative criterion here, as there is no > prospective distinction between "not enough" and "just enough". > Alain's "99% inclusion" is as meaningless as "99% pregnant". I don't understand that. Both probability theory and fuzzy set logic define this perfectly well. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 21 10:57:25 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:57:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> <00a301c8895c$d33399f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <89E33294-E41A-44A6-8F2C-85569484D0E9@starpower.net> <01b301c88a1d$bf01ccb0$575b9951@stefanie> <47E278E6.3090205@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47E38685.3000506@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Mar 20, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >>>>> The point, of course, is that even if you make no explicit >>>>> agreements >>>>> about RCs after specific IBs, you may be forced by circumstance to >>>>> develop implicit agreements over time. >>>>> >>>>> >> IBTD. The probability that a honest pair will do the same IB in the >> same >> context twice in a row is pretty low. >> > > But if it is illegal to have an agreement, then you break the law > just by having an agreement, regardless of how low the probability of > your actually exercising it (and, critically, regardless of whether > you could have avoided it). > IBTD. Very low probabilities should be discarded IRL, or you wouldn't dare open a can. Before we had an implicit agreement, the same situation must happen at least twice. Before we could use it, a third time. I claim that this is extremely improbable in the case of IBs, to the point that it probably didn't happen to any honest pair in the history of bridge. YMMV as to the assessment of this probabitlity, but if you admit that this probability is as low a I think it is, then we should address more imoprtant problems. Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 21 12:14:41 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:14:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... References: <47C6898B0D0AF325@mail-12-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-12.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <003201c88b44$c849b5d0$31d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 8:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... > SR: > > I guess this is what is meant by varying your partnership agreements > following an irregularity. It appears to be entirely legal. Yukk. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > ton: > > You should be aware of the essential difference > between a partnership agreement and anticipating > at the table. I do not need an agreement to find > out that after 1H - 1H where I guess that my > partner did not see my opening it might be better > to continue. No 'Yukk'. > +=+ Did we establish that he was not responding to an opening bid of one in a minor? ~ G ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Mar 21 12:33:31 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:33:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... References: <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com> Message-ID: <000001c88b47$648fbe60$2daf3b20$@com> [DALB] Are you serious? Having bid an insufficient 1H, I am now allowed to respond to partner's opening bid of 1H with a natural *and forcing* 2H? [TK] Yes you are, now, in the past and in the near (coming 10 years) future. [DALB] Sorry to labour the point, but I really do not understand what is being said here. Eric Landau said earlier that: Your attempt to open 1H is AI to partner. But Peter Eidt said: For the possibility of having a rectification-free substitution of 2H (in our scenario) there must not be UI in any form of a statement to the effect of revealing, what the IBder meant with his IB. If the offender states "oops, I thought, I was dealer" or the like, and offender substitutes his IB with 2H, 16D does not apply, but 16B does. In absence of such UI partner may guess the basis of the IB correctly and he may treat 2H as forcing. And Ton later said: I do not need an agreement to find out that after 1H - 1H where I guess that my partner did not see my opening it might be better to continue. Now, if you *guess* that your partner did not see your opening 1H, of course you are free to continue the auction. But if you *know* that your partner did not see your opening 1H, you are not guessing. The question then becomes: are you entitled to this knowledge? As Peter says, L16B suggests that you are not; "sorry, I thought I was the dealer" is a remark that makes available extraneous information, on which you may not act. However, L16D says: For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents'. and it may be held that "I thought I was the dealer" is "information arising from a withdrawn action", although I find it difficult to believe that this is what was intended. I have spoken with several bridge players about this. None of them believes that you are allowed under the current Laws to correct 1H to 2H and have partner know that it is forcing, and I don't believe it either. All of them have said that if it is so, it is ridiculous. Of course, that is not a legal argument, but it is a powerful argument for Mr Bumble's famous opinion. David Burn London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 21 12:57:21 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:57:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com><52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net><000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com> <1JcRc3-1F8DY00@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <005701c88b4c$745f7f10$31d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 8:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... For the possibility of having a rectification-free substitution of 2H (in our scenario) there must not be UI in any form of a statement to the effect of revealing, what the IBder meant with his IB. If the offender states "oops, I thought, I was dealer" or the like, and offender substitutes his IB with 2H, 16D does not apply, but 16B does. In absence of such UI partner may guess the basis of the IB correctly and he may treat 2H as forcing. >< +=+ I have anxieties about this last statement. The law says that the auction proceeds. I find it difficult to believe that it should not continue on the basis of the information conveyed by the calls, including the withdrawn call. Here the meaning of the withdrawn call is unclear - we do not know whether partner thought he had opened the bidding, responded to an opening by partner, or made an overcall. To 'guess' at the information does not appear to be authorized. It seems more probable that the substiuted call should be taken at face value in these circumstances. Otherwise the process creates plain opportunities for exploratory bidding sequences not available in a normal auction and Law 27D could well apply. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 21 15:06:01 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:06:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <1JcRc3-1F8DY00@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com> <52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net> <000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com> <1JcRc3-1F8DY00@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Mar 20, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Peter Eidt wrote: >> [DALB] >> >> Having bid an insufficient 1H, am I now allowed to respond to >> partner's opening bid of 1H with a natural and forcing 2H? >> >> [EL] >> >> Of course you are. Your attempt to open 1H is AI to partner. "Law >> 16D does not apply" could hardly be more explicit, could it? >> >> [DALB] >> >> But partner does not know that I was attempting to open 1H. All he >> knows is that he has opened 1H and I have responded 1H. I might have >> intended to raise to 2H, but mistakenly raised to 1H instead. Is the >> notion that I have to explain why I bid 1H, so that on some hands I >> can bid a non-forcing 2H and on others I can bid a forcing 2H? If so, >> either the world has gone mad or I have. > > [PE] > > For the possibility of having a rectification-free substitution > of 2H (in our scenario) there must not be UI in any form of > a statement to the effect of revealing, what the IBder meant with > his IB. > If the offender states "oops, I thought, I was dealer" or the like, > and offender substitutes his IB with 2H, 16D does not apply, > but 16B does. > In absence of such UI partner may guess the basis of the IB > correctly and he may treat 2H as forcing. There's nothing in L27B1(a) that requires that there "not be UI [sic] in any form... to the effect of revealing[] what the IB[]er meant with his IB". Indeed, such a requirement would be impossible to fulfill, as what Peter calls "UI" here is information which, in the general case, must be revealed by the director. Although this will rarely be necessary to apply L27B1(a) (but see below for an example where it would), it will almost always be necessary to apply L27B1 (b). The set of replacement calls the IBer can make without penalty depends directly on the TD's finding as to the "meaning" of the IB (L27B), and must be communicated to the IBer by the TD (L10C1). There will be cases where the ambiguity over possible meanings is resolved by the mere fact that the IBer was allowed to make a particular replacement call without barring his partner. It makes no sense at all to have situations where a director is required by law to reveal information to a player and then constrain that player to treat that information as unauthorized! Consider the following: W opens 2S and N undercalls 2D. N may have thought W passed, or may have thought that W opened 1S, but does not reveal which. Case 1: A 2D opening bid would show a very different hand than would a 2D overcall, but both are "incontrovertably not artificial" (L27B1 (a)), as is a 3D overcall of 2S. N substitutes a 3D call. S is free to bid as he likes, but, if we accept Peter's view, must do so without the knowledge of whether N intended to open or overcall (and with concomitant UI constraints if the information has been inadvertantly revealed). Case 2: N-S are playing transfer overcalls of regular opening bids (but not of weak 2-bids). P-2D would be an ordinary weak 2-bid, but 1S-2D would show hearts. N substitutes a 3D call, and the TD informs S that he is free to bid as he likes. From that alone, S knows with 100% certainty that N thought he was opening, not overcalling, and is explicitly allowed to use this information in choosing his further calls ("Law 16D does not apply" (L27B1(a)), nor does L16B, which applies only to information "made available" by his partner). Why should S in case 2 be permitted to have and use information that S in case 1 may not? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 21 15:19:50 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:19:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <04d601c88ae1$0d8fed30$575b9951@stefanie> References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com><52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net><000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com> <1JcRc3-1F8DY00@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <04d601c88ae1$0d8fed30$575b9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <3DD47CA7-F16A-4489-B5D6-697B8A57B6AD@starpower.net> On Mar 20, 2008, at 7:20 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > [PE] > > For the possibility of having a rectification-free substitution > of 2H (in our scenario) there must not be UI in any form of > a statement to the effect of revealing, what the IBder meant with > his IB. > If the offender states "oops, I thought, I was dealer" or the like, > and offender substitutes his IB with 2H, 16D does not apply, > but 16B does. > In absence of such UI partner may guess the basis of the IB > correctly and he may treat 2H as forcing. > > SR: > > I guess this is what is meant by varying your partnership agreements > following an irregularity. It appears to be entirely legal. Yukk. No, this is what is meant by "Law 16D does not apply". Whatever partner meant by his IB derives from whatever your original, unaltered partnership agreements are -- nothing is being "varied" -- and your entitlement to "guess" (or, in the opinion of some, be informed of) it derives directly from the reference to L16D in L27B1 (a). It is entirely legal, and remains so even if varying one's partnership agreements following an irregularity is prohibited. None of this is any different from what it was under the 1997 laws. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Mar 21 15:25:18 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:25:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com> <52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net> <000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com> <1JcRc3-1F8DY00@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000801c88b5f$63f95de0$2bec19a0$@com> [EL] Case 2: [West has opened 2S and North has undercalled 2D] N-S are playing transfer overcalls of regular opening bids (but not of weak 2-bids). P-2D would be an ordinary weak 2-bid, but 1S-2D would show hearts. N substitutes a 3D call, and the TD informs S that he is free to bid as he likes. From that alone, S knows with 100% certainty that N thought he was opening, not overcalling, and is explicitly allowed to use this information in choosing his further calls ("Law 16D does not apply" (L27B1(a)), nor does L16B, which applies only to information "made available" by his partner). Why should S in case 2 be permitted to have and use information that S in case 1 may not? [DALB] In the normal run of events, a 3D overcall of a weak 2S bid would show rather more in the way of values than a weak 2D opening would show. Does Eric (and does Ton) suggest that North is allowed, in effect, to make a weak 3D overcall by "opening" 2D first and apologising for thinking that it was his deal, while if he has a real 3D overcall, he simply bids 3D? No wonder Grattan has anxieties about "plain opportunities for exploratory bidding sequences not available in a normal auction". David Burn London, England From schoderb at msn.com Fri Mar 21 15:26:30 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:26:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com><52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net><000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com><1JcRc3-1F8DY00@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: At the considerable risk of offending someone I suggest to all participants in this thread to carefully read Law 27D. It tells you what to do subsequent to a 27B1(a) sequence. Please pay particular attention to the words ".....In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board HAD THE INSUFFICIENT BID NOT OCCURRED....." (capitals mine). Kojak From schoderb at msn.com Fri Mar 21 15:40:14 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:40:14 -0400 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com> <52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net> <000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com> <1JcRc3-1F8DY00@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <000801c88b5f$63f95de0$2bec19a0$@com> Message-ID: I agree with Grattan, but with more than anxiety. IMHO the higher the sophistication of the players the more likely it becomes a new "weapon" in the arsenal of bidding since it is not prohibited, and it is therefore more important to remain aware of Law 27D. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... > [EL] > > Case 2: [West has opened 2S and North has undercalled 2D] N-S are playing > transfer overcalls of regular opening bids (but not of weak 2-bids). P-2D > would be an ordinary weak 2-bid, but 1S-2D would show hearts. N > substitutes > a 3D call, and the TD informs S that he is free to bid as he likes. From > that alone, S knows with 100% certainty that N thought he was opening, not > overcalling, and is explicitly allowed to use this information in choosing > his further calls ("Law 16D does not apply" (L27B1(a)), nor does L16B, > which > applies only to information "made available" by his partner). > > Why should S in case 2 be permitted to have and use information that S in > case 1 may not? > > [DALB] > > In the normal run of events, a 3D overcall of a weak 2S bid would show > rather more in the way of values than a weak 2D opening would show. Does > Eric (and does Ton) suggest that North is allowed, in effect, to make a > weak > 3D overcall by "opening" 2D first and apologising for thinking that it was > his deal, while if he has a real 3D overcall, he simply bids 3D? No wonder > Grattan has anxieties about "plain opportunities for exploratory bidding > sequences not available in a normal auction". > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Mar 21 15:42:15 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:42:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com><52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net><000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com><1JcRc3-1F8DY00@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000901c88b61$c1c4fc20$454ef460$@com> [WS] At the considerable risk of offending someone I suggest to all participants in this thread to carefully read Law 27D. It tells you what to do subsequent to a 27B1(a) sequence. Please pay particular attention to the words ".....In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board HAD THE INSUFFICIENT BID NOT OCCURRED....." (capitals mine). [DALB] Oh, I'm not offended in the least. In the example that I gave [North responds 1H to 1H with x AK10xxx x AKQxx and is allowed to correct to 2H, natural and game-forcing] there won't be a problem - North will bid Blackwood at his next turn and get the same result as if he had bid Blackwood at his first turn. So far so good, and many people would consider this a "better" or "more bridge-like" outcome than if North had been forced to guess how many hearts to bid because any call other than 2H (non-forcing) would bar South. But suppose that North has a rather less clear-cut decision to make - say he has xx KJ10xx Axxx Ax and responds 1H to 1H. With North permitted to bid a natural and game-forcing 2H, a call that would not normally form part of his bidding methods unless he is the ghost of Alvin Roth, his partnership reaches a slam on minimum values. Now the Director must: ask them how they would have bid the hand if North had realised that his partner had opened; and decide whether or not to believe the answer. This is not good, nor is it "bridge-like". David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 21 16:25:10 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:25:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: <47E38685.3000506@ulb.ac.be> References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> <00a301c8895c$d33399f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <89E33294-E41A-44A6-8F2C-85569484D0E9@starpower.net> <01b301c88a1d$bf01ccb0$575b9951@stefanie> <47E278E6.3090205@ulb.ac.be> <47E38685.3000506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <0820C0CB-17E0-443E-905E-35D0B0483DBE@starpower.net> On Mar 21, 2008, at 5:57 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> On Mar 20, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> Eric Landau a ?crit : >>> >>>>>> The point, of course, is that even if you make no explicit >>>>>> agreements >>>>>> about RCs after specific IBs, you may be forced by >>>>>> circumstance to >>>>>> develop implicit agreements over time. >>>>>> >>>>>> IBTD. The probability that a honest pair will do the same IB >>>>>> in the >>> same >>> context twice in a row is pretty low. >>> >> But if it is illegal to have an agreement, then you break the law >> just by having an agreement, regardless of how low the probability of >> your actually exercising it (and, critically, regardless of whether >> you could have avoided it). >> > IBTD. Very low probabilities should be discarded IRL, or you wouldn't > dare open a can. But as a matter of morality we are expected not to break the law even when there is a very low probability of being caught. > Before we had an implicit agreement, the same situation must happen at > least twice. Before we could use it, a third time. In sensible RAs, I suppose. But in the ACBL, a second occurence can be deemed prima facie evidence that the first occurence established an implicit agreement (as in the infamous "one psych per partnership per lifetime" rule). > I claim that this is extremely improbable in the case of IBs, to the > point that it probably didn't happen to any honest pair in the history > of bridge. YMMV as to the assessment of this probabitlity, but if you > admit that this probability is as low a I think it is, then we should > address more imoprtant problems. That is quite true in the current context, where we are talking about a partnership's actions subsequent to its own IB. But the same principles, and the same law (L40B3), apply equally to a partnership's actions subsequent to an opponent's IB. For the latter to recur is closer to inevitable than to "extremely improbable", and we cannot afford to ignore the questions it raises, or, for many of us, fail to address the dilemma foisted on us by our RA's promulgation of a nonsensical regulation that cannot logically be followed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 21 17:43:04 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:43:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: <0820C0CB-17E0-443E-905E-35D0B0483DBE@starpower.net> References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> <00a301c8895c$d33399f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <89E33294-E41A-44A6-8F2C-85569484D0E9@starpower.net> <01b301c88a1d$bf01ccb0$575b9951@stefanie> <47E278E6.3090205@ulb.ac.be> <47E38685.3000506@ulb.ac.be> <0820C0CB-17E0-443E-905E-35D0B0483DBE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47E3E598.6020001@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > But as a matter of morality we are expected not to break the law even > when there is a very low probability of being caught. > > I'm afraid you didn't understand my point. The extra-low probability doesn't apply to the fact of being caught, but to the fact of having an opportunity to err. > >> I claim that this is extremely improbable in the case of IBs, to the >> point that it probably didn't happen to any honest pair in the history >> of bridge. YMMV as to the assessment of this probabitlity, but if you >> admit that this probability is as low a I think it is, then we should >> address more imoprtant problems. >> > > That is quite true in the current context, where we are talking about > a partnership's actions subsequent to its own IB. But the same > principles, and the same law (L40B3), apply equally to a > partnership's actions subsequent to an opponent's IB. For the latter > to recur is closer to inevitable than to "extremely improbable", and > we cannot afford to ignore the questions it raises Well, apparently, our experience differs. My opponents make IBs in the absence of screens about 5 times a year, never in the same situation, and although I'm known as a systems freak and a guy who loves to be prepared, I never discussed with any partner what we'd do in the case of an IB - although in two partnerships we implicitly know that "all meta-agreements remain", because that's what "meta-agreement" means : agreements which transcend specificities of the bidding sequence. No precedent, no discussion, hence no new agreement. WTP ? Of course, bridge logic does count. Allowing the 2H bid in the sequence 2S - 1H, only to bid 2S, would most probably mean we have a low ODR. Else why not disallow 1H, and bid 3S over 3H ? (live case) But you can't call this an agreement. My partner, a clever player but of little experience, did find this at the table. This was the second time we played together. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 21 17:45:54 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:45:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <000801c88b5f$63f95de0$2bec19a0$@com> References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com> <52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net> <000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com> <1JcRc3-1F8DY00@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <000801c88b5f$63f95de0$2bec19a0$@com> Message-ID: <8AECC15F-50C4-4236-9CFD-0912CA1019B4@starpower.net> On Mar 21, 2008, at 10:25 AM, David Burn wrote: > [EL] > > Case 2: [West has opened 2S and North has undercalled 2D] N-S are > playing > transfer overcalls of regular opening bids (but not of weak 2- > bids). P-2D > would be an ordinary weak 2-bid, but 1S-2D would show hearts. N > substitutes > a 3D call, and the TD informs S that he is free to bid as he > likes. From > that alone, S knows with 100% certainty that N thought he was > opening, not > overcalling, and is explicitly allowed to use this information in > choosing > his further calls ("Law 16D does not apply" (L27B1(a)), nor does > L16B, which > applies only to information "made available" by his partner). > > Why should S in case 2 be permitted to have and use information > that S in > case 1 may not? > > [DALB] > > In the normal run of events, a 3D overcall of a weak 2S bid would show > rather more in the way of values than a weak 2D opening would show. > Does > Eric (and does Ton) suggest that North is allowed, in effect, to > make a weak > 3D overcall by "opening" 2D first and apologising for thinking that > it was > his deal, while if he has a real 3D overcall, he simply bids 3D? No > wonder > Grattan has anxieties about "plain opportunities for exploratory > bidding > sequences not available in a normal auction". Of course he is not "allowed" to do that; he would be in flagrant violation of L72B1. L27 wasn't designed as a remedy for *deliberate* insufficient bids, and should not be perverted that purpose. It is absolutely illegal for me to jump off of a subway platform onto the tracks; if I do that, I will be arrested and fined something like $5,000. But it doesn't follow that I am not "allowed" to slip and fall off of the platform onto the tracks by accident, or that I will be subject to a similar fine if that happens. And then there is L27D, which exists for the sole purpose of ensuring that when such a situation as David envisions does occur by accident the IBer will not be permitted to realize any consequent advantage. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 21 17:59:11 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:59:11 -0400 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <000901c88b61$c1c4fc20$454ef460$@com> References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com><52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net><000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com><1JcRc3-1F8DY00@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <000901c88b61$c1c4fc20$454ef460$@com> Message-ID: On Mar 21, 2008, at 10:42 AM, David Burn wrote: > [WS] > > At the considerable risk of offending someone I suggest to all > participants > in this thread to carefully read Law 27D. It tells you what to do > subsequent to a 27B1(a) sequence. Please pay particular attention > to the > words ".....In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as > possible the probable outcome of the board HAD THE INSUFFICIENT BID > NOT > OCCURRED....." (capitals mine). > > [DALB] > > Oh, I'm not offended in the least. In the example that I gave [North > responds 1H to 1H with x AK10xxx x AKQxx and is allowed to correct > to 2H, > natural and game-forcing] there won't be a problem - North will bid > Blackwood at his next turn and get the same result as if he had bid > Blackwood at his first turn. So far so good, and many people would > consider > this a "better" or "more bridge-like" outcome than if North had > been forced > to guess how many hearts to bid because any call other than 2H (non- > forcing) > would bar South. > > But suppose that North has a rather less clear-cut decision to make > - say he > has xx KJ10xx Axxx Ax and responds 1H to 1H. With North permitted > to bid a > natural and game-forcing 2H, a call that would not normally form > part of his > bidding methods unless he is the ghost of Alvin Roth, his partnership > reaches a slam on minimum values. Now the Director must: > > ask them how they would have bid the hand if North had realised > that his > partner had opened; and > > decide whether or not to believe the answer. > > This is not good, nor is it "bridge-like". What, one wonders, makes it less "good", or less "'bridge-like'", than any other routine potential L12 adjustment for which the director must make a judgment as to what would have happened "had the infraction not occurred"? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 21 19:06:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:06:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: <47E3E598.6020001@ulb.ac.be> References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> <00a301c8895c$d33399f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <89E33294-E41A-44A6-8F2C-85569484D0E9@starpower.net> <01b301c88a1d$bf01ccb0$575b9951@stefanie> <47E278E6.3090205@ulb.ac.be> <47E38685.3000506@ulb.ac.be> <0820C0CB-17E0-443E-905E-35D0B0483DBE@starpower.net> <47E3E598.6020001@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mar 21, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> That is quite true in the current context, where we are talking about >> a partnership's actions subsequent to its own IB. But the same >> principles, and the same law (L40B3), apply equally to a >> partnership's actions subsequent to an opponent's IB. For the latter >> to recur is closer to inevitable than to "extremely improbable", and >> we cannot afford to ignore the questions it raises > > Well, apparently, our experience differs. My opponents make IBs in the > absence of screens about 5 times a year, never in the same situation, > and although I'm known as a systems freak and a guy who loves to be > prepared, I never discussed with any partner what we'd do in the > case of > an IB - although in two partnerships we implicitly know that "all > meta-agreements remain", because that's what "meta-agreement" means : > agreements which transcend specificities of the bidding sequence. > > No precedent, no discussion, hence no new agreement. WTP ? > > Of course, bridge logic does count. Allowing the 2H bid in the > sequence > 2S - 1H, only to bid 2S, would most probably mean we have a low ODR. > Else why not disallow 1H, and bid 3S over 3H ? (live case) > But you can't call this an agreement. My partner, a clever player > but of > little experience, did find this at the table. This was the second > time > we played together. Perhaps a real-life example (full disclosure: slightly modified to suit) from a bit ago will help. Partner opened 2S. RHO undercalled 2H. When I brought this to her attention she immediately (and predictably, in this environment) attempted to correct her IB to 3H (old law); I was having none of that, and called the director. Over weak 2-bids, we play that free raises are constructive but not forcing, game bids are to play, and all non-game-level jump bids are game-forcing slam tries. Relying on that last meta-agreement, I accepted the 2H undercall and jumped to 3S, hoping partner would read this as a game-forcing slam try. He did, and we reached a slam that we would not have found without the extra help from the IB. The routine post-mortem of this board during our post-session review made it clear (as if it wasn't already) that my intended message had been received and understood. The next time we open a weak 2-bid and the opponent comes in with an IB (surely not "extremely improbable"), we will know with absolute certainty -- which we did not this first time -- that if we accept the IB and raise partner's opening we will hold a slam try in partner's suit. Now Alain and I may want to believe that "bridge logic does count", at least for something, but there is absolutely no doubt that in the eyes of the ACBL this is a partnership agreement. I find it hard to argue; it sure does sound like a partnership agreement to me, notwithstanding that it was derived from our general bidding principles and ordinary "bridge logic" rather than being developed whole by explicit discussion. But that doesn't wash, because the ACBL does not permit partnership agreements of any kind with respect to actions taken subsequent to an opponent's irregularity, which this is (absent the IB, the same call would be a game try rather than a game-forcing slam try). So I now have not just an agreement, but an *illegal* agreement. O, woe is me! Here I am, brought low, revealing myself to all the world as a dirty law-breaker with a nasty illegal agreement in my cheater's arsenal of ethically tainted methods! But what could I have done to avoid falling to this awful state? What can I do to get out of it? Is there no pity? Who can help me now? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Mar 22 01:36:11 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:36:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com><52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net><000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com><1JcRc3-1F8DY00@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <000901c88b61$c1c4fc20$454ef460$@com> Message-ID: <000001c88bb4$ba8ac590$2fa050b0$@com> [DALB] But suppose that North has a rather less clear-cut decision to make - say he has xx KJ10xx Axxx Ax and responds 1H to 1H. With North permitted to bid a natural and game-forcing 2H, a call that would not normally form part of his bidding methods unless he is the ghost of Alvin Roth, his partnership reaches a slam on minimum values. Now the Director must: ask them how they would have bid the hand if North had realised that his partner had opened; and decide whether or not to believe the answer. This is not good, nor is it "bridge-like". [EL] What, one wonders, makes it less "good", or less "'bridge-like'", than any other routine potential L12 adjustment for which the director must make a judgment as to what would have happened "had the infraction not occurred"? [DALB] Even were I to answer "nothing" to this question, it would not imply that I consider it other than abominable for: directors and appeals committees to have to spend their time listening to players who have broken the rules saying "we would have got the same result anyway"; players who break the rules to be in a position where they either gain or do not lose. That is, I consider what Eric calls "routine L12 adjustments" to be almost as bad and as un-bridge-like as it is possible to be. They are without precedent in any kind of game or sport; to my way of thinking, they are repugnant to the nature of a game or sport. But I am aware that this is a minority opinion, and I am aware that the Lawmakers have long since taken the staggeringly foolish view that (in effect) players who break the rules by accident should be in a position where they do not lose thereby. There are measures to ensure as far as possible that they do not gain (L12 and L27D, for example), and those measures might very well be successful in environments populated entirely by (a) scrupulously ethical players and (b) wholly competent umpires. Vast quantities of table salt having recently been discovered on Mars, perhaps such bridge-playing environments will soon be discovered there also, but one thing is certain: they do not exist on Earth. Even though "routine L12 adjustments" are not good and are not "bridge-like", the kind of adjustments that are supposed to be made under L27 are less good and less "bridge-like" simply because they allow an offending side a freedom of action that would not be available to them but for their infraction; moreover, it is a freedom of action from which they may very well profit. This does not happen in the case of any other kind of infraction at bridge, nor any kind of infraction at all at any other game. David Burn London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Mar 22 01:58:57 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:58:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com><52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net><000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com><1JcRc3-1F8DY00@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <005c01c88bb9$82658100$81ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... > At the considerable risk of offending someone I suggest to all > participants in this thread to carefully read Law 27D. It tells you what > to do subsequent to a 27B1(a) sequence. Please pay particular attention > to the words > ".....In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible > the > probable outcome of the board HAD THE INSUFFICIENT BID NOT > OCCURRED....." (capitals mine). > > Kojak > +=+ In a paper I have submitted to the Laws Drafting Subcommittee the following appears: ..................................................................................................... <<< 3.(c) (i) When considering a Law 16B offence the infraction to which Law 12B refers is the use of unauthorized information after it has been made available. (ii) It follows that the point at which the assigned adjusted score is to be assessed is after the unauthorized information was made available by partner and before the player made use of the information. It follows in these conditions that the adjustment will not take into account auctions that proceed via a choice of call that the law disallows. (iii) If creation of unauthorized information by partner is inadvertent or a by-product of compliance with law, this is not an offence. In other circumstances refer to Law 73B1. [Max Bavin: "Accidentally giving UI is not an infraction. Bridge is a thinking game; when we think it is often possible to diagnose what it was we were thinking about. The infraction is when this unauthorized information is used."] >>> ....................................................................................................... Max was particularly keen to ensure that the words quoted above by Kojak were set in the Law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Mar 22 03:50:50 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 02:50:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] There they're Message-ID: <000101c88bc7$8a36d060$9ea47120$@com> This has nothing to do with the Laws of bridge at all. But I would be grateful for any response, though you do not have to bother. In a report of an international basketball game between the newly-founded People's Republic of Myunklstan and the strongly-fancied Allovia, the following sentences appear: Myunklstan played superbly. [blank1] defended particularly well, and all of [blank2] players contributed to the victory. Would you, if you were writing the report, replace [blank1] by "It" or by "They"? Would you replace [blank2] by "its" or by "their"? Having made your choice, would you consider the alternative: (a) perfectly acceptable; (b) wrong but not objectionably so; (c) illiterate? David Burn London, England From cibor at poczta.fm Sat Mar 22 11:19:37 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:19:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com><52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net><000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com><1JcRc3-1F8DY00@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <000901c88b61$c1c4fc20$454ef460$@com> <000001c88bb4$ba8ac590$2fa050b0$@com> Message-ID: <01a901c88c06$3bfdcb80$9da80453@k247d1879834a4> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 1:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... > This does not happen in the case of any other kind of > infraction at bridge, nor any kind of infraction at all at any other game. > Unfortunately this is not true. In football it is common to stop a dangerous attack by a foul on the other team's half because a free kick from the midfield is essentially not a penalty but an opportunity for the defenders to return to their own penalty box. In basketball it is a standard practice to commit fouls in the last seconds of the game when the opponents are in the lead. and have possession. Bridge is not the only game that has ridiculous.rules. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- WYGRAJ bilety na mecze Polska-Niemcy ! kliknij >> http://link.interia.pl/f1d6b From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Mar 22 12:03:15 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:03:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] There they're In-Reply-To: <000101c88bc7$8a36d060$9ea47120$@com> References: <000101c88bc7$8a36d060$9ea47120$@com> Message-ID: <47E4E773.6000701@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > This has nothing to do with the Laws of bridge at all. But I would be > grateful for any response, though you do not have to bother. > > In a report of an international basketball game between the newly-founded > People's Republic of Myunklstan and the strongly-fancied Allovia, the > following sentences appear: > > Myunklstan played superbly. [blank1] defended particularly well, and all of > [blank2] players contributed to the victory. > > Would you, if you were writing the report, replace [blank1] by "It" or by > "They"? Would you replace [blank2] by "its" or by "their"? Having made your > choice, would you consider the alternative: (a) perfectly acceptable; (b) > wrong but not objectionably so; (c) illiterate? > I would use "they" and "their". I consider the other odd, but acceptable. I would propose no answer to (c) as I have no formal training whatsoever in English grammar. > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Mar 22 12:14:00 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:14:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <000801c88b5f$63f95de0$2bec19a0$@com> Message-ID: [DALB] In the normal run of events, a 3D overcall of a weak 2S bid would show rather more in the way of values than a weak 2D opening would show. Does Eric (and does Ton) suggest that North is allowed, in effect, to make a weak 3D overcall by "opening" 2D first and apologising for thinking that it was his deal, while if he has a real 3D overcall, he simply bids 3D? No wonder Grattan has anxieties about "plain opportunities for exploratory bidding sequences not available in a normal auction". David Burn London, England ton: I am not aware of any suggestion from my side (intentional I mean) to allow cheating. And once again: this kind of problem could occur in the previous century also. We seem able to handle it, since I don't know of reports describing this behavior. May be more emphasis, like this discussion, makes players aware of this possibility. We need good TD-courses anyway. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Mar 22 12:32:36 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:32:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <005701c88b4c$745f7f10$31d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ I have anxieties about this last statement. The law says that the auction proceeds. I find it difficult to believe that it should not continue on the basis of the information conveyed by the calls, including the withdrawn call. Here the meaning of the withdrawn call is unclear - we do not know whether partner thought he had opened the bidding, responded to an opening by partner, or made an overcall. To 'guess' at the information does not appear to be authorized. It seems more probable that the substiuted call should be taken at face value in these circumstances. Otherwise the process creates plain opportunities for exploratory bidding sequences not available in a normal auction and Law 27D could well apply. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ton: Goodness, new theories. 'to guess at the information does not appear to be authorized.' I am wondering how many thousends of unauthorized calls as reaction on a call by my partner I have made since I am playing bridge. ton From schoderb at msn.com Sat Mar 22 13:09:17 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:09:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... References: Message-ID: Ton, It is exactly this moving words from their context and then commenting on them that so very much endears me to many of the BLML postings. I'm sad to see you doing that. The 'information' in Grattan's message relates only to UNAUTHORIZED information from correction of insufficient bids. The words apply to the subject at hand, LAW 27. They do not apply to what you have posted as a apparently ridiculous assertion that you have made thousands of unauthorized of calls based on your partner's 'reaction' in legal auctions. I truly find it hared to believe that you play with partner's who have made thousands of insufficient bids. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 7:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... > > > +=+ I have anxieties about this last statement. The law says > that the auction proceeds. I find it difficult to believe that it > should not continue on the basis of the information conveyed > by the calls, including the withdrawn call. Here the meaning > of the withdrawn call is unclear - we do not know whether > partner thought he had opened the bidding, responded to an > opening by partner, or made an overcall. To 'guess' at the > information does not appear to be authorized. It seems more > probable that the substiuted call should be taken at face value > in these circumstances. Otherwise the process creates plain > opportunities for exploratory bidding sequences not available > in a normal auction and Law 27D could well apply. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > ton: > > Goodness, new theories. > 'to guess at the information does not appear to be authorized.' > > I am wondering how many thousends of unauthorized calls as reaction on a > call by my partner I have made since I am playing bridge. > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Mar 22 13:19:29 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:19:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] There they're References: <000101c88bc7$8a36d060$9ea47120$@com> Message-ID: <078b01c88c16$fa4f9db0$575b9951@stefanie> I would use the plural pronouns. As for the singular pronouns, I would find them a bit grating, but expect them to be standard, and perfectly acceptable, usage in America. Stefanie Rohan London, England ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 2:50 AM Subject: [blml] There they're > This has nothing to do with the Laws of bridge at all. But I would be > grateful for any response, though you do not have to bother. > > In a report of an international basketball game between the newly-founded > People's Republic of Myunklstan and the strongly-fancied Allovia, the > following sentences appear: > > Myunklstan played superbly. [blank1] defended particularly well, and all > of > [blank2] players contributed to the victory. > > Would you, if you were writing the report, replace [blank1] by "It" or by > "They"? Would you replace [blank2] by "its" or by "their"? Having made > your > choice, would you consider the alternative: (a) perfectly acceptable; (b) > wrong but not objectionably so; (c) illiterate? > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Mar 22 13:53:56 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:53:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com><52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net><000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com><1JcRc3-1F8DY00@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <000901c88b61$c1c4fc20$454ef460$@com> <000001c88bb4$ba8ac590$2fa050b0$@com> Message-ID: <000801c88c1b$cdb7a770$69d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... > > > Even though "routine L12 adjustments" are not good and are not > "bridge-like", the kind of adjustments that are supposed to be made under > L27 are less good and less "bridge-like" simply because they allow an > offending side a freedom of action that would not be available to them but > for their infraction; moreover, it is a freedom of action from which they > may very well profit. This does not happen in the case of any other kind > of > infraction at bridge, nor any kind of infraction at all at any other game. > +=+ It is a little early to judge how successful the change of Law 27 will prove in practice. We were persuaded by Ton Kooijman that it would be desirable to relax this law if we could. The travail of finding a compromise between what Ton would have wished and the more restrictive opinions of some other members of the drafting body led to a difficult birth - and eventually we had to pop the baby back into the womb and try again. The child reborn is now the law. It is not the exact child any one of us would have shaped on his own - and at least one of us did not want a new baby at all - but we have announced the birth and the child should be allowed its place in society. Then we will see what happens to it. The Director has ample resources if he judges the offender has gained through his offence. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Mar 22 14:04:13 2008 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:04:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] There they're References: <000101c88bc7$8a36d060$9ea47120$@com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 21:50 Subject: [blml] There they're > This has nothing to do with the Laws of bridge at all. But I would be > grateful for any response, though you do not have to bother. > > In a report of an international basketball game between the newly-founded > People's Republic of Myunklstan and the strongly-fancied Allovia, the > following sentences appear: > > Myunklstan played superbly. [blank1] defended particularly well, and all > of > [blank2] players contributed to the victory. > > Would you, if you were writing the report, replace [blank1] by "It" or by > "They"? Would you replace [blank2] by "its" or by "their"? Having made > your > choice, would you consider the alternative: (a) perfectly acceptable; (b) > wrong but not objectionably so; (c) illiterate? > > David Burn > London, England Defending particularly well, Myunklstan played superbly with all of the players contributing to the victory. The same idea might be expressed Myunklstan played superbly. The team defended particularly well and all of the players contributed to the victory. regards roger pewick From mustikka at charter.net Sat Mar 22 14:21:56 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 06:21:56 -0700 Subject: [blml] There they're References: <000101c88bc7$8a36d060$9ea47120$@com> Message-ID: <000801c88c1f$b4161500$81155e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:50 PM Subject: [blml] There they're > This has nothing to do with the Laws of bridge at all. But I would be > grateful for any response, though you do not have to bother. > > In a report of an international basketball game between the newly-founded > People's Republic of Myunklstan and the strongly-fancied Allovia, the > following sentences appear: > > Myunklstan played superbly. [blank1] defended particularly well, and all > of > [blank2] players contributed to the victory. > > Would you, if you were writing the report, replace [blank1] by "It" or by > "They"? Would you replace [blank2] by "its" or by "their"? Having made > your > choice, would you consider the alternative: (a) perfectly acceptable; (b) > wrong but not objectionably so; (c) illiterate? > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mustikka at charter.net Sat Mar 22 14:24:37 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 06:24:37 -0700 Subject: [blml] There they're References: <000101c88bc7$8a36d060$9ea47120$@com> Message-ID: <000c01c88c20$142bb530$81155e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:50 PM Subject: [blml] There they're > This has nothing to do with the Laws of bridge at all. But I would be > grateful for any response, though you do not have to bother. > > In a report of an international basketball game between the newly-founded > People's Republic of Myunklstan and the strongly-fancied Allovia, the > following sentences appear: > > Myunklstan played superbly. [blank1] defended particularly well, and all > of > [blank2] players contributed to the victory. > > Would you, if you were writing the report, replace [blank1] by "It" or by > "They"? Would you replace [blank2] by "its" or by "their"? Having made > your > choice, would you consider the alternative: (a) perfectly acceptable; (b) > wrong but not objectionably so; (c) illiterate? > > David Burn > London, England The sentence seems like it was written by a non-native English speaker [I am one...btw], regardless of which pronoun was used. See Roger Pewick's suggestion for edit to avoid the clumsiness of using any pronoun there. From geller at nifty.com Sat Mar 22 15:15:15 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 23:15:15 +0900 Subject: [blml] There they're In-Reply-To: <000c01c88c20$142bb530$81155e47@DFYXB361> References: <000c01c88c20$142bb530$81155e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <200803221415.AA12918@geller204.nifty.com> I suppose the real question being asked is whether sports teams are plural or singular. In the case of the UK (AFIK) plural is the answer. Example (from a popular song): "[Manchester] United are the greatest football team." OTH, in the US..... The New York Giants are the current champion of the NFL (National football league). Americans will say, "the Giants are the champions" but will also say "New York is the champion." (I.e. verb is singular or plural depending on how the team is specified ("New York" or "Giants"). Even though I'm American the UK usage makes a little more sense to me, but the bottom line is that (as Churchill, who had a British father but an American mother said), the US and UK are two countries divided by a common language. -Bob raija ????????: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Burn" >To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" >Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:50 PM >Subject: [blml] There they're > > >> This has nothing to do with the Laws of bridge at all. But I would be >> grateful for any response, though you do not have to bother. >> >> In a report of an international basketball game between the newly-founded >> People's Republic of Myunklstan and the strongly-fancied Allovia, the >> following sentences appear: >> >> Myunklstan played superbly. [blank1] defended particularly well, and all >> of >> [blank2] players contributed to the victory. >> >> Would you, if you were writing the report, replace [blank1] by "It" or by >> "They"? Would you replace [blank2] by "its" or by "their"? Having made >> your >> choice, would you consider the alternative: (a) perfectly acceptable; (b) >> wrong but not objectionably so; (c) illiterate? >> >> David Burn >> London, England > >The sentence seems like it was written by a non-native English speaker [I am >one...btw], regardless of which pronoun was used. See Roger Pewick's >suggestion for edit to avoid the clumsiness of using any pronoun there. > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From john at asimere.com Sat Mar 22 22:48:42 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 21:48:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com> <52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net> <000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com> <1JcRc3-1F8DY00@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <000801c88b5f$63f95de0$2bec19a0$@com> Message-ID: <004701c88c66$7f29d560$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 2:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... > [EL] > > Case 2: [West has opened 2S and North has undercalled 2D] N-S are playing > transfer overcalls of regular opening bids (but not of weak 2-bids). P-2D > would be an ordinary weak 2-bid, but 1S-2D would show hearts. N > substitutes > a 3D call, and the TD informs S that he is free to bid as he likes. From > that alone, S knows with 100% certainty that N thought he was opening, not > overcalling, and is explicitly allowed to use this information in choosing > his further calls ("Law 16D does not apply" (L27B1(a)), nor does L16B, > which > applies only to information "made available" by his partner). > > Why should S in case 2 be permitted to have and use information that S in > case 1 may not? > > [DALB] > > In the normal run of events, a 3D overcall of a weak 2S bid would show > rather more in the way of values than a weak 2D opening would show. Does > Eric (and does Ton) suggest that North is allowed, in effect, to make a > weak > 3D overcall by "opening" 2D first and apologising for thinking that it was > his deal, while if he has a real 3D overcall, he simply bids 3D? No wonder > Grattan has anxieties about "plain opportunities for exploratory bidding > sequences not available in a normal auction". I have never had any problem explaining that "since no irregularity occured", you never saw an alternative call and use of any call you may believe you might have thought you could possibly have seen will get me to 72B1 in about a millisecond. This is how bridge players think bridge *should* be played, Bumble has a lot of support here. As usual, I'm going to get shot at, but it's how the players want this Law to be interpreted. John > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sat Mar 22 22:59:10 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 21:59:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] There they're References: <000101c88bc7$8a36d060$9ea47120$@com> Message-ID: <006001c88c67$f53aca10$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 2:50 AM Subject: [blml] There they're > This has nothing to do with the Laws of bridge at all. But I would be > grateful for any response, though you do not have to bother. > > In a report of an international basketball game between the newly-founded > People's Republic of Myunklstan and the strongly-fancied Allovia, the > following sentences appear: > > Myunklstan played superbly. [blank1] defended particularly well, and all > of > [blank2] players contributed to the victory. > > Would you, if you were writing the report, replace [blank1] by "It" or by > "They"? Would you replace [blank2] by "its" or by "their"? Having made > your > choice, would you consider the alternative: (a) perfectly acceptable; (b) > wrong but not objectionably so; (c) illiterate? It, Its, c) John > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rbusch at ozemail.com.au Sun Mar 23 04:15:30 2008 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (Reg Busch) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:15:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 Message-ID: <47E5CB52.70104@ozemail.com.au> I'm still busy trying to master some bread and butter issues with the new Law 27. My apologies if they have already been discussed and I've missed them. (a) Under 27B1(a) the IB is exempt from Law 16D and is AI. Under 27B1(b) this exemption does not apply. So I presume that in allowing a change under 27B1(b), the TD should warn the side that the IB is UI, and that I may adjust under either Law 16D or Law 27D. (b) The bidding goes West 1C P East 1C. East wants to change his bid under 27B1(b). He says 'Our 1C bid shows an opening hand with at least three clubs.. I have a 4 card club suit and 13 HCP. This is consistent even if more specific. I take a different view. The issue here is that a 1C opening shows a hand that may have as FEW as 3 clubs. For most partnerships, a 1C - 3NT sequence would be made where the responding hand has at least 4 clubs. I would disallow the change under 27B1(b) unless East can convince me that they would bid this way with ANY 4-3-3-3 distribution. Right or wrong? (c) The bidding goes 2NT P 2C. If 1NT - 2C simply asks 'Do you have a major?' and 2NT - 3C asks the same, I see no problem. I allow the correction to 3C under 27B1(b). But if 2NT - 3C says show our 4 card suits up the line, then I must disallow the replacement under this Law. If 1NT - 2C asks 'Do you have a major and what is your range?' and 2NT - 3C merely asks 'Do you have a major) then (tough) I must disallow 3C under this Law. Right or wrong? Reg Busch From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Mar 23 06:42:13 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 18:42:13 +1300 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560803222240o8244a6fyb6e02422b487e244@mail.gmail.com> References: <47E5CB52.70104@ozemail.com.au> <2a1c3a560803222240o8244a6fyb6e02422b487e244@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560803222242s7d86756aodf08f2b0ad796765@mail.gmail.com> On 23/03/2008, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > On 23/03/2008, Reg Busch wrote: > > I'm still busy trying to master some bread and butter issues with the > > new Law 27. My apologies if they have already been discussed and I've > > missed them. > > > > (a) Under 27B1(a) the IB is exempt from Law 16D and is AI. Under > > 27B1(b) this exemption does not apply. So I presume that in allowing a > > change under 27B1(b), the TD should warn the side that the IB is UI, and > > that I may adjust under either Law 16D or Law 27D. > > > > (b) The bidding goes West 1C P East 1C. East wants to change his > > bid under 27B1(b). He says 'Our 1C bid shows an opening hand with at > > least three clubs.. I have a 4 card club suit and 13 HCP. This is > > consistent even if more specific. I take a different view. The issue > > here is that a 1C opening shows a hand that may have as FEW as 3 clubs. > > For most partnerships, a 1C - 3NT sequence would be made where the > > responding hand has at least 4 clubs. I would disallow the change under > > 27B1(b) unless East can convince me that they would bid this way with > > ANY 4-3-3-3 distribution. Right or wrong? > > > > (c) The bidding goes 2NT P 2C. If 1NT - 2C simply asks 'Do you have a > > major?' and 2NT - 3C asks the same, I see no problem. I allow the > > correction to 3C under 27B1(b). But if 2NT - 3C says show our 4 card > > suits up the line, then I must disallow the replacement under this Law. > > If 1NT - 2C asks 'Do you have a major and what is your range?' and 2NT - > > 3C merely asks 'Do you have a major) then (tough) I must disallow 3C > > under this Law. Right or wrong? > > > > Reg Busch > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml at amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > b/ wrong. Four clubs is more specific than three or more clubs so the new bid is allowed. > > Wayne > From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Mar 24 04:43:02 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:43:02 -0700 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <47E5CB52.70104@ozemail.com.au> References: <47E5CB52.70104@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080323203754.0cdff620@mail.optusnet.com.au> Reg Busch cut some >(c) The bidding goes 2NT P 2C. If 1NT - 2C simply asks 'Do you have a >major?' and 2NT - 3C asks the same, I see no problem. I allow the >correction to 3C under 27B1(b). But if 2NT - 3C says show our 4 card >suits up the line, then I must disallow the replacement under this Law. >If 1NT - 2C asks 'Do you have a major and what is your range?' and 2NT - >3C merely asks 'Do you have a major) then (tough) I must disallow 3C >under this Law. Right or wrong? My theory, for what its worth, is that TPTB wanted to fix a law that was not broken. I think they wanted to allow a change to 3C in this situation. So I accommodate them, I rule under a generous L25A (which I never used in these cases before), and justify it to myself under the new new L27 by saying that there is no meaning to a bid of 2C over 2NT. The change to 3C is therefore more specific. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Mar 24 04:49:30 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:49:30 -0700 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <47E5CB52.70104@ozemail.com.au> References: <47E5CB52.70104@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080323204326.01d92968@mail.optusnet.com.au> Reg Busch: At 08:15 PM 22/03/2008, you wrote: >I'm still busy trying to master some bread and butter issues with the >new Law 27. My apologies if they have already been discussed and I've >missed them. I think Grattan's last post took my breath away. How could they drop a non-unanimous law change into the pool to see how directors would manage it. Today I had: 1C (1H) 1H. I explained to the IBer that there was probably no rectification that would allow her partner to remain in the bidding, but if she would like to consider some, she could take me away from the table with her system card and a Venn diagram and I would be happy to listen to any arguments she may have. The IBer was 91 in the shade, bid 2H, the only making contract, and I suddenly realised I should take her lucky score away under L27D. Didnt, so second director mistake this month. Tony (Sydney) From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sun Mar 23 03:39:45 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 02:39:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... Message-ID: <002a01c88ccc$e655aa50$0100a8c0@stefanie> > SR: > > I guess this is what is meant by varying your partnership agreements > following an irregularity. It appears to be entirely legal. Yukk. > > Stefanie Rohan > London, England > > > ton: > > You should be aware of the essential difference between a partnership > agreement and anticipating at the table. I do not need an agreement to > find > out that after 1H - 1H where I guess that my partner did not see my > opening > it might be better to continue. No 'Yukk'. SR: Being permitted to guess this is yucky indeed. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 23 13:12:25 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:12:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... References: Message-ID: <009501c88cdf$5ea13d00$e5cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... > Ton, > > It is exactly this moving words from their context and then commenting on > them that so very much endears me to many of the BLML postings. I'm sad to > see you doing that. > > The 'information' in Grattan's message relates only to UNAUTHORIZED > information from correction of insufficient bids. The words apply to the > subject at hand, LAW 27. They do not apply to what you have posted as a > apparently ridiculous assertion that you have made thousands of > unauthorized of calls based on your partner's 'reaction' in legal > auctions. I truly find it hared to believe that you play with partner's > who have made thousands of insufficient bids. > > Kojak > From schoderb at msn.com Sun Mar 23 14:48:46 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:48:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... References: <009501c88cdf$5ea13d00$e5cf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: It seems to me that when two educated native speakers agree the meaning of a written structure that a non-native speaker with far less competence in that language might accede to it. If in translation to other than English the translator finds the need for additional or different words to accurately translate then so be it, but it doesn't change the English nor the Law. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************** > "The only lesson we ever learn > is that we never learn." > {Robert Fisk] > =================== > +=+ It seems to me, Kojak, that the (all too frequent) differences > of opinion on the laws between Ton and myself stem mainly from > the difference between the ways in which respectively we read the > language, both in the law book and in our e-mails. Occasionally > perhaps, we increase the problem by careless attention to exactly > what is written. Fortunately it is only what is agreed corporately > that truly counts. It occurs to me that differences of understanding > were almost certainly not always revealed in the course of writing > the laws and in this it matters what others of us understand. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ........................................................................................... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:09 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... > > > > Ton, > > > > It is exactly this moving words from their context and then commenting > > on > > them that so very much endears me to many of the BLML postings. I'm sad > > to > > see you doing that. > > > > The 'information' in Grattan's message relates only to UNAUTHORIZED > > information from correction of insufficient bids. The words apply to > > the > > subject at hand, LAW 27. They do not apply to what you have posted as a > > apparently ridiculous assertion that you have made thousands of > > unauthorized of calls based on your partner's 'reaction' in legal > > auctions. I truly find it hared to believe that you play with partner's > > who have made thousands of insufficient bids. > > > > Kojak > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Mar 23 19:00:46 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:00:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <01a901c88c06$3bfdcb80$9da80453@k247d1879834a4> References: <000001c88a44$54418b50$fcc4a1f0$@com> <000c01c88a82$dc0a1910$941e4b30$@com><52CEDE13-E50E-427D-AEB5-52697E4041DA@starpower.net><000001c88ab6$4d6254f0$e826fed0$@com><1JcRc3-1F8DY00@fwd26.aul.t-online.de> <000901c88b61$c1c4fc20$454ef460$@com><000001c88bb4$ba8ac590$2fa050b0$@com> <01a901c88c06$3bfdcb80$9da80453@k247d1879834a4> Message-ID: "Konrad Ciborowski" writes: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 1:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... >> This does not happen in the case of any other kind of >> infraction at bridge, nor any kind of infraction at all at any other game. >> >Unfortunately this is not true. In football it is common to >stop a dangerous attack by a foul on the other team's half >because a free kick from the midfield is essentially not a penalty >but an opportunity for the defenders to return >to their own penalty box. >In basketball it is a standard practice to commit fouls in the >last seconds of the game when the opponents >are in the lead. and have possession. >Bridge is not the only game that has ridiculous.rules. But in bridge, there is the difference that there is a specific rule which forbids deliberate infringement of the rules. Recent Laws have added "could have known" rules so that it is not necessary to accuse a player of cheating in order to prevent him from benefiting directly from the infraction. In most sports, deliberate infractions are allowed, and even when the penalty is not to the offender's advantage, it is common to commit them (or, since you do not have complete control of the situation, do something which might be an infraction) and take the risk that the penalty will not be imposed. For example, in bridge, a player who pulls a slow penalty double when he believes passing is an LA may be acting in his own best interests; the opponents may not notice that the double was slow, or may not call the TD, or the TD may rule that passing was not an LA, or the TD may rule that passing was an LA but adjust to average-minus rather than the bottom he would have had for passing. But we all agree that this is unethical behavior. In basketball, a player who believes he has spent more than three seconds in the free-throw lane while waiting for a shot may be acting in his own best interests; he might have misestimated the time, or the referee might not notice the violation, and if he makes the shot, it counts. (And if the referee does call the violation, the player accepts the penalty, loss of the ball.) Basketball players do not consider this unethical behavior. The only sports analogy to the bridge rules I can think of is in American football; the NOS may decline a penalty and accept the play on the field. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 23 20:21:39 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 19:21:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 References: <47E5CB52.70104@ozemail.com.au> <6.1.0.6.2.20080323204326.01d92968@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <003f01c88d1b$963c0b50$61ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] More queries on Law 27 > Reg Busch: > > At 08:15 PM 22/03/2008, you wrote: >>I'm still busy trying to master some bread and >> butter issues with the new Law 27. My apologies >> if they have already been discussed and I've >>missed them. > I think Grattan's last post took my breath away. > How could they drop a non-unanimous law change > into the pool to see how directors would manage it. > +=+ Misrepresents what I said. Consensus there was. What I said was that unknowingly we might have had differing ideas as to the meaning of the words given assent to. If a problem develops it is for our colleagues to settle a corporate resolution of it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Mar 24 08:27:30 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:27:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080323204326.01d92968@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: ton: To be honest I do not read all of Grattan's mails. If he told the world that we agreed on non-unanimous law changes I can't concur. As far as I know we never pushed anything through when one of us couldn't live with it. So no excuses (for Grattan) if things went wrong. But if this refers to L27 I have to confess that I start liking what we have done. (one must be insane to admit such a thing) For Stefanie: The laws are full of guessing moments. I any case were partner is obliged to pass a player needs to guess what to do. This is true for decades. For Tony: You must have made dozens of similar mistakes applying law 27 since we did not change this part of this law. ton I think Grattan's last post took my breath away. How could they drop a non-unanimous law change into the pool to see how directors would manage it. Today I had: 1C (1H) 1H. I explained to the IBer that there was probably no rectification that would allow her partner to remain in the bidding, but if she would like to consider some, she could take me away from the table with her system card and a Venn diagram and I would be happy to listen to any arguments she may have. The IBer was 91 in the shade, bid 2H, the only making contract, and I suddenly realised I should take her lucky score away under L27D. Didnt, so second director mistake this month. Tony (Sydney) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Mar 24 08:47:14 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:47:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] English quiz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ton: It seems that two members of the drafting committee have chosen to 'publish' an internal discussion within this committee. Rather strange but not uncommon from a behavioural point of view. Since blml is involved now, I better ask you this question. You read the following sentence: 'If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the director's opinion both the insuffiient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification.' What do the last 6 words mean? A) 'without further rectification' is related to the auction, nothing said about the play following, B) 'without further rectification' applies to the auction and play C) no clue, it can go both ways. To make things easy, try to restrict yourself to just the A, B or C. Tell me also whether you are an educated native speaker in the commomn wealth area and neighbours, or a savage (I know, some neighbours are savages too), One other remark: I am not asking what you would like it to mean, but what it says. ton Kojak: It seems to me that when two educated native speakers agree the meaning of a written structure that a non-native speaker with far less competence in that language might accede to it. If in translation to other than English the translator finds the need for additional or different words to accurately translate then so be it, but it doesn't change the English nor the Law. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************** > "The only lesson we ever learn > is that we never learn." > {Robert Fisk] > =================== > +=+ It seems to me, Kojak, that the (all too frequent) differences > of opinion on the laws between Ton and myself stem mainly from > the difference between the ways in which respectively we read the > language, both in the law book and in our e-mails. Occasionally > perhaps, we increase the problem by careless attention to exactly > what is written. Fortunately it is only what is agreed corporately > that truly counts. It occurs to me that differences of understanding > were almost certainly not always revealed in the course of writing > the laws and in this it matters what others of us understand. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ............................................................................ ............... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:09 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... > > > > Ton, > > > > It is exactly this moving words from their context and then commenting > > on > > them that so very much endears me to many of the BLML postings. I'm sad > > to > > see you doing that. > > > > The 'information' in Grattan's message relates only to UNAUTHORIZED > > information from correction of insufficient bids. The words apply to > > the > > subject at hand, LAW 27. They do not apply to what you have posted as a > > apparently ridiculous assertion that you have made thousands of > > unauthorized of calls based on your partner's 'reaction' in legal > > auctions. I truly find it hared to believe that you play with partner's > > who have made thousands of insufficient bids. > > > > Kojak > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Mar 24 09:51:24 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:51:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?English_quiz?= Message-ID: <1JdiOq-1v5HA80@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> As a savage and following the written words only, it's A for me ... but ... [not asked to continue] Peter > ton: > > You read the following sentence: > > 'If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in > the same denomination and in the director's opinion both the > insuffiient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not > artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification.' > > What do the last 6 words mean? > > A) 'without further rectification' is related to the auction, nothing > said about the play following, > B) 'without further rectification' applies to the auction and play > C) no clue, it can go both ways. > > To make things easy, try to restrict yourself to just the A, B or C. > Tell me also whether you are an educated native speaker in the commomn > wealth area and neighbours, or a savage (I know, some neighbours are > savages too), > One other remark: I am not asking what you would like it to mean, but > what it says. > > ton From geller at nifty.com Mon Mar 24 09:55:49 2008 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:55:49 +0900 Subject: [blml] English_quiz In-Reply-To: <1JdiOq-1v5HA80@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> References: <1JdiOq-1v5HA80@fwd29.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <200803240855.AA12948@geller204.nifty.com> A I'm a native speaker of English (but American English, not British). -Bob Peter Eidt ????????: >As a savage and following the written words only, >it's A for me ... but ... [not asked to continue] > >Peter > >> ton: >> >> You read the following sentence: >> >> 'If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in >> the same denomination and in the director's opinion both the >> insuffiient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not >> artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification.' >> >> What do the last 6 words mean? >> >> A) 'without further rectification' is related to the auction, nothing >> said about the play following, >> B) 'without further rectification' applies to the auction and play >> C) no clue, it can go both ways. >> >> To make things easy, try to restrict yourself to just the A, B or C. >> Tell me also whether you are an educated native speaker in the commomn >> wealth area and neighbours, or a savage (I know, some neighbours are >> savages too), >> One other remark: I am not asking what you would like it to mean, but >> what it says. >> >> ton > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 24 10:15:27 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:15:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] English quiz References: <47C5781D1AB58E55@mail-7-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-7.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <005401c88d8f$9e2c1cf0$01d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 7:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] English quiz > ton: > > It seems that two members of the drafting committee have chosen to > 'publish' > an internal discussion within this committee. Rather strange but not > uncommon from a behavioural point of view. > > Since blml is involved now, I better ask you this question. > > You read the following sentence: > > 'If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the > same denomination and in the director's opinion both the insufficient bid > and > the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction > proceeds > without further rectification.' > > What do the last 6 words mean? > > A) 'without further rectification' is related to the auction, nothing said > about the play following, > > B) 'without further rectification' applies to the auction and play > > C) no clue, it can go both ways. > > To make things easy, try to restrict yourself to just the A, B or C. Tell > me > also whether you are an educated native speaker in the common wealth area > and neighbours, or a savage (I know, some neighbours are savages too), > > One other remark: I am not asking what you would like it to mean, but what > it says. > > > ton > > > Kojak: > It seems to me that when two educated native speakers agree the meaning of > a > written structure that a non-native speaker with far less competence in > that > language might accede to it. If in translation to other than English the > translator finds the need for additional or different words to accurately > translate then so be it, but it doesn't change the English nor the Law. > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 8:12 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... > > >> >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> *********************** >> "The only lesson we ever learn >> is that we never learn." >> {Robert Fisk] >> =================== >> +=+ It seems to me, Kojak, that the (all too frequent) differences >> of opinion on the laws between Ton and myself stem mainly from >> the difference between the ways in which respectively we read the >> language, both in the law book and in our e-mails. Occasionally >> perhaps, we increase the problem by careless attention to exactly >> what is written. Fortunately it is only what is agreed corporately >> that truly counts. It occurs to me that differences of understanding >> were almost certainly not always revealed in the course of writing >> the laws and in this it matters what others of us understand. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > ............................................................................ > ............... >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:09 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... >> >> >> > Ton, >> > >> > It is exactly this moving words from their context and then commenting >> > on >> > them that so very much endears me to many of the BLML postings. I'm sad >> > to >> > see you doing that. >> > >> > The 'information' in Grattan's message relates only to UNAUTHORIZED >> > information from correction of insufficient bids. The words apply to >> > the >> > subject at hand, LAW 27. They do not apply to what you have posted as a >> > apparently ridiculous assertion that you have made thousands of >> > unauthorized of calls based on your partner's 'reaction' in legal >> > auctions. I truly find it hared to believe that you play with partner's >> > who have made thousands of insufficient bids. >> > >> > Kojak >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 24 11:34:05 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:34:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: English quiz Message-ID: <00a301c88d9a$98db7ba0$01d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 9:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] English quiz > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************** > "The only lesson we ever learn > is that we never learn." > {Robert Fisk] > =================== > +=+ But where did the discussion begin and who > started it? > My first remark to the drafting committee was: > ....................................................................................... > +=+ I am intrigued by a remark by Ton on blml > that suggests he does not see the lead restrictions > in Law 26 as included among the 'rectifications' > to which Law 27B1 refers. > The question is whether 'restrictions' are > 'rectifications'. I had thought they are. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Later to the drafting committee I contributed this: > > (Bill Schoder wrote) > I have no trouble agreeing with the concept that when > the substituted call does NOT meet the requirements > of sameness or more precise meaning {Law 27B1 > a. and b.) then a lead restriction may be applied. And > that is exactly what we do in 27 B 2 and 3. I see there > a reference to LAW 26. Not having such a reference > in B 1 is to me intention and sufficient evidence that > such a restriction does not apply. > < > (Grattan) > +=+ First of all, I consider that a Law 26 restriction > when it is required under the laws is a rectification. It > is a remedial provision matching to the definition of > 'rectification' in the laws. > Second, I consider Bill has the law right above. > Third, I consider that exclusion of a remedial > provision during the auction is a permanent exclusion > and extends through the auction and play unless there > is a statement to the contrary. > Fourth, we may each of us have our own thoughts > as to what we believed we were doing as we wrote the > 2007 laws. All I am concerned with is what the laws > now actually say. A wish that the law might be this or > that has no import against the cold words written. > > ..................................................... > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ===================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ton" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 7:47 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] English quiz > > >> ton: >> >> It seems that two members of the drafting committee have chosen to >> 'publish' >> an internal discussion within this committee. Rather strange but not >> uncommon from a behavioural point of view. >> >> Since blml is involved now, I better ask you this question. >> >> You read the following sentence: >> >> 'If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the >> same denomination and in the director's opinion both the insufficient bid >> and >> the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction >> proceeds >> without further rectification.' >> >> What do the last 6 words mean? >> >> A) 'without further rectification' is related to the auction, nothing >> said >> about the play following, >> >> B) 'without further rectification' applies to the auction and play >> >> C) no clue, it can go both ways. >> >> To make things easy, try to restrict yourself to just the A, B or C. Tell >> me >> also whether you are an educated native speaker in the common wealth area >> and neighbours, or a savage (I know, some neighbours are savages too), >> >> One other remark: I am not asking what you would like it to mean, but >> what >> it says. >> >> >> ton >> >> >> Kojak: >> It seems to me that when two educated native speakers agree the meaning >> of >> a >> written structure that a non-native speaker with far less competence in >> that >> language might accede to it. If in translation to other than English the >> translator finds the need for additional or different words to accurately >> translate then so be it, but it doesn't change the English nor the Law. >> >> Kojak >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 8:12 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... >> >> >>> >>> Grattan Endicott>> [following address discontinued: >>> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >>> *********************** >>> "The only lesson we ever learn >>> is that we never learn." >>> {Robert Fisk] >>> =================== >>> +=+ It seems to me, Kojak, that the (all too frequent) differences >>> of opinion on the laws between Ton and myself stem mainly from >>> the difference between the ways in which respectively we read the >>> language, both in the law book and in our e-mails. Occasionally >>> perhaps, we increase the problem by careless attention to exactly >>> what is written. Fortunately it is only what is agreed corporately >>> that truly counts. It occurs to me that differences of understanding >>> were almost certainly not always revealed in the course of writing >>> the laws and in this it matters what others of us understand. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> ............................................................................ >> ............... >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:09 PM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... >>> >>> >>> > Ton, >>> > >>> > It is exactly this moving words from their context and then commenting >>> > on >>> > them that so very much endears me to many of the BLML postings. I'm >>> > sad >>> > to >>> > see you doing that. >>> > >>> > The 'information' in Grattan's message relates only to UNAUTHORIZED >>> > information from correction of insufficient bids. The words apply to >>> > the >>> > subject at hand, LAW 27. They do not apply to what you have posted as >>> > a >>> > apparently ridiculous assertion that you have made thousands of >>> > unauthorized of calls based on your partner's 'reaction' in legal >>> > auctions. I truly find it hared to believe that you play with >>> > partner's >>> > who have made thousands of insufficient bids. >>> > >>> > Kojak >>> > >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blml mailing list >>> blml at amsterdamned.org >>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 24 11:34:05 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:34:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: English quiz Message-ID: <00a301c88d9a$98db7ba0$01d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 9:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] English quiz > > Grattan Endicott [following address discontinued: > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > *********************** > "The only lesson we ever learn > is that we never learn." > {Robert Fisk] > =================== > +=+ But where did the discussion begin and who > started it? > My first remark to the drafting committee was: > ....................................................................................... > +=+ I am intrigued by a remark by Ton on blml > that suggests he does not see the lead restrictions > in Law 26 as included among the 'rectifications' > to which Law 27B1 refers. > The question is whether 'restrictions' are > 'rectifications'. I had thought they are. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Later to the drafting committee I contributed this: > > (Bill Schoder wrote) > I have no trouble agreeing with the concept that when > the substituted call does NOT meet the requirements > of sameness or more precise meaning {Law 27B1 > a. and b.) then a lead restriction may be applied. And > that is exactly what we do in 27 B 2 and 3. I see there > a reference to LAW 26. Not having such a reference > in B 1 is to me intention and sufficient evidence that > such a restriction does not apply. > < > (Grattan) > +=+ First of all, I consider that a Law 26 restriction > when it is required under the laws is a rectification. It > is a remedial provision matching to the definition of > 'rectification' in the laws. > Second, I consider Bill has the law right above. > Third, I consider that exclusion of a remedial > provision during the auction is a permanent exclusion > and extends through the auction and play unless there > is a statement to the contrary. > Fourth, we may each of us have our own thoughts > as to what we believed we were doing as we wrote the > 2007 laws. All I am concerned with is what the laws > now actually say. A wish that the law might be this or > that has no import against the cold words written. > > ..................................................... > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ===================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ton" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 7:47 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] English quiz > > >> ton: >> >> It seems that two members of the drafting committee have chosen to >> 'publish' >> an internal discussion within this committee. Rather strange but not >> uncommon from a behavioural point of view. >> >> Since blml is involved now, I better ask you this question. >> >> You read the following sentence: >> >> 'If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the >> same denomination and in the director's opinion both the insufficient bid >> and >> the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction >> proceeds >> without further rectification.' >> >> What do the last 6 words mean? >> >> A) 'without further rectification' is related to the auction, nothing >> said >> about the play following, >> >> B) 'without further rectification' applies to the auction and play >> >> C) no clue, it can go both ways. >> >> To make things easy, try to restrict yourself to just the A, B or C. Tell >> me >> also whether you are an educated native speaker in the common wealth area >> and neighbours, or a savage (I know, some neighbours are savages too), >> >> One other remark: I am not asking what you would like it to mean, but >> what >> it says. >> >> >> ton >> >> >> Kojak: >> It seems to me that when two educated native speakers agree the meaning >> of >> a >> written structure that a non-native speaker with far less competence in >> that >> language might accede to it. If in translation to other than English the >> translator finds the need for additional or different words to accurately >> translate then so be it, but it doesn't change the English nor the Law. >> >> Kojak >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 8:12 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... >> >> >>> >>> Grattan Endicott>> [following address discontinued: >>> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >>> *********************** >>> "The only lesson we ever learn >>> is that we never learn." >>> {Robert Fisk] >>> =================== >>> +=+ It seems to me, Kojak, that the (all too frequent) differences >>> of opinion on the laws between Ton and myself stem mainly from >>> the difference between the ways in which respectively we read the >>> language, both in the law book and in our e-mails. Occasionally >>> perhaps, we increase the problem by careless attention to exactly >>> what is written. Fortunately it is only what is agreed corporately >>> that truly counts. It occurs to me that differences of understanding >>> were almost certainly not always revealed in the course of writing >>> the laws and in this it matters what others of us understand. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> ............................................................................ >> ............... >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:09 PM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... >>> >>> >>> > Ton, >>> > >>> > It is exactly this moving words from their context and then commenting >>> > on >>> > them that so very much endears me to many of the BLML postings. I'm >>> > sad >>> > to >>> > see you doing that. >>> > >>> > The 'information' in Grattan's message relates only to UNAUTHORIZED >>> > information from correction of insufficient bids. The words apply to >>> > the >>> > subject at hand, LAW 27. They do not apply to what you have posted as >>> > a >>> > apparently ridiculous assertion that you have made thousands of >>> > unauthorized of calls based on your partner's 'reaction' in legal >>> > auctions. I truly find it hared to believe that you play with >>> > partner's >>> > who have made thousands of insufficient bids. >>> > >>> > Kojak >>> > >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blml mailing list >>> blml at amsterdamned.org >>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Mar 24 11:50:55 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:50:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] English quiz References: Message-ID: <001601c88d9c$f021a310$d064e930$@com> [TK] You read the following sentence: 'If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the director's opinion both the insuffiient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification.' What do the last 6 words mean? A) 'without further rectification' is related to the auction, nothing said about the play following, B) 'without further rectification' applies to the auction and play C) no clue, it can go both ways. To make things easy, try to restrict yourself to just the A, B or C. Tell me also whether you are an educated native speaker in the commomn wealth area and neighbours, or a savage (I know, some neighbours are savages too). One other remark: I am not asking what you would like it to mean, but what it says. [DALB] I am a savage English speaker. Technically, what the words mean is this: West opens 1H, North passes and East bids 1H (natural). East corrects to 2H (also natural). No rectification is applied in respect of East's bids of 1H and 2H. Moreover, if South now bids 1S, no rectification is applied to that either, and West is free to bid 1H again without rectification. The DSC has succeeded in creating the possibility of an auction that can go on forever, thus repealing not only the previous Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge but the Second Law of Thermodynamics. To prevent this, it should be stipulated that in such an auction each call is made in half the time taken to make the previous call. The auction will then end in finite time, and lead penalties may apply when it does so. Unfortunately, it is well known to mathematicians that the final contract cannot be determined in such a case. But this does not matter, since in the present climate it is considered undesirable following an irregularity for the result of a deal to be determined by the players. That is the Director's job. David Burn London, England From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 24 11:50:55 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:50:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 References: <47C678350D3A0C90@mail-11-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-11.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <00d601c88d9d$1d9cb410$01d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 7:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] More queries on Law 27 > ton: > > To be honest I do not read all of Grattan's mails. If he told the world > that > we agreed on non-unanimous law changes I can't concur. As far as I know we > never pushed anything through when one of us couldn't live with it. So no > excuses (for Grattan) if things went wrong. But if this refers to L27 I > have > to confess that I start liking what we have done. (one must be insane to > admit such a thing) > > For Stefanie: > The laws are full of guessing moments. I any case were partner is obliged > to > pass a player needs to guess what to do. This is true for decades. > > For Tony: > You must have made dozens of similar mistakes applying law 27 since we did > not change this part of this law. > > ton > > > > > > > > I think Grattan's last post took my breath away. How could they drop a > non-unanimous law change into the pool to see how directors would manage > it. > > Today I had: 1C (1H) 1H. I explained to the IBer that there was > probably > no rectification that would allow her partner to remain in the bidding, > but > if she would like to consider some, she could take me away from the table > with her system card and a Venn diagram and I would be happy to listen to > any arguments she may have. The IBer was 91 in the shade, bid 2H, the > only > making contract, and I suddenly realised I should take her lucky score > away > under L27D. Didnt, so second director mistake this month. > > Tony (Sydney) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 24 11:50:55 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:50:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 References: <47C678350D3A0C90@mail-11-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-11.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <00d601c88d9d$1d9cb410$01d2403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 7:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] More queries on Law 27 > ton: > > To be honest I do not read all of Grattan's mails. If he told the world > that > we agreed on non-unanimous law changes I can't concur. As far as I know we > never pushed anything through when one of us couldn't live with it. So no > excuses (for Grattan) if things went wrong. But if this refers to L27 I > have > to confess that I start liking what we have done. (one must be insane to > admit such a thing) > > For Stefanie: > The laws are full of guessing moments. I any case were partner is obliged > to > pass a player needs to guess what to do. This is true for decades. > > For Tony: > You must have made dozens of similar mistakes applying law 27 since we did > not change this part of this law. > > ton > > > > > > > > I think Grattan's last post took my breath away. How could they drop a > non-unanimous law change into the pool to see how directors would manage > it. > > Today I had: 1C (1H) 1H. I explained to the IBer that there was > probably > no rectification that would allow her partner to remain in the bidding, > but > if she would like to consider some, she could take me away from the table > with her system card and a Venn diagram and I would be happy to listen to > any arguments she may have. The IBer was 91 in the shade, bid 2H, the > only > making contract, and I suddenly realised I should take her lucky score > away > under L27D. Didnt, so second director mistake this month. > > Tony (Sydney) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 24 12:04:43 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:04:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] English quiz In-Reply-To: <20080324102200.2AD92598008@maildelivery011.isp.belgacom.be> References: <20080324102200.2AD92598008@maildelivery011.isp.belgacom.be> Message-ID: <47E78ACB.1090104@skynet.be> A. You can class my Native-Englishness as you please. ton wrote: > ton: > > It seems that two members of the drafting committee have chosen to 'publish' > an internal discussion within this committee. Rather strange but not > uncommon from a behavioural point of view. > > Since blml is involved now, I better ask you this question. > > You read the following sentence: > > 'If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the > same denomination and in the director's opinion both the insuffiient bid and > the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds > without further rectification.' > > What do the last 6 words mean? > > A) 'without further rectification' is related to the auction, nothing said > about the play following, > > B) 'without further rectification' applies to the auction and play > > C) no clue, it can go both ways. > > To make things easy, try to restrict yourself to just the A, B or C. Tell me > also whether you are an educated native speaker in the commomn wealth area > and neighbours, or a savage (I know, some neighbours are savages too), > > One other remark: I am not asking what you would like it to mean, but what > it says. > > > ton > > > Kojak: > It seems to me that when two educated native speakers agree the meaning of a > written structure that a non-native speaker with far less competence in that > language might accede to it. If in translation to other than English the > translator finds the need for additional or different words to accurately > translate then so be it, but it doesn't change the English nor the Law. > > Kojak > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 8:12 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... > > >> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued: >> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk] >> *********************** >> "The only lesson we ever learn >> is that we never learn." >> {Robert Fisk] >> =================== >> +=+ It seems to me, Kojak, that the (all too frequent) differences >> of opinion on the laws between Ton and myself stem mainly from >> the difference between the ways in which respectively we read the >> language, both in the law book and in our e-mails. Occasionally >> perhaps, we increase the problem by careless attention to exactly >> what is written. Fortunately it is only what is agreed corporately >> that truly counts. It occurs to me that differences of understanding >> were almost certainly not always revealed in the course of writing >> the laws and in this it matters what others of us understand. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > ............................................................................ > ............... >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:09 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Situation normal, all... >> >> >>> Ton, >>> >>> It is exactly this moving words from their context and then commenting >>> on >>> them that so very much endears me to many of the BLML postings. I'm sad >>> to >>> see you doing that. >>> >>> The 'information' in Grattan's message relates only to UNAUTHORIZED >>> information from correction of insufficient bids. The words apply to >>> the >>> subject at hand, LAW 27. They do not apply to what you have posted as a >>> apparently ridiculous assertion that you have made thousands of >>> unauthorized of calls based on your partner's 'reaction' in legal >>> auctions. I truly find it hared to believe that you play with partner's >>> who have made thousands of insufficient bids. >>> >>> Kojak >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Mar 24 12:20:46 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:20:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] English quiz In-Reply-To: <47e7607a.07eb300a.168f.ffffc32eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <47e7607a.07eb300a.168f.ffffc32eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On 24/03/2008, ton wrote: > ton: > > It seems that two members of the drafting committee have chosen to 'publish' > an internal discussion within this committee. Rather strange but not > uncommon from a behavioural point of view. > > Since blml is involved now, I better ask you this question. > > You read the following sentence: > > 'If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the > same denomination and in the director's opinion both the insuffiient bid and > the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds > without further rectification.' > > What do the last 6 words mean? > > A) 'without further rectification' is related to the auction, nothing said > about the play following, > > B) 'without further rectification' applies to the auction and play > > C) no clue, it can go both ways. > > To make things easy, try to restrict yourself to just the A, B or C. Tell me > also whether you are an educated native speaker in the commomn wealth area > and neighbours, or a savage (I know, some neighbours are savages too), > > One other remark: I am not asking what you would like it to mean, but what > it says. As a norwegian I can't say I'm a native speaker og the english language. But I would claim to be pretty fluent as a reader. I'd say the cited law is pretty unambigous, and that it says A. The meaning of "the auction proceeds without further rectification" should be pretty clear IMO. It only relates to the auction - how this could be understood in any other way is beyond me. If "without further rectification" should relate to the play period too, "auction" should have been replaced by "board" or "auction and play" or something similar. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > ton From wjburrows at gmail.com Sun Mar 23 06:40:05 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 18:40:05 +1300 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <47E5CB52.70104@ozemail.com.au> References: <47E5CB52.70104@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560803222240o8244a6fyb6e02422b487e244@mail.gmail.com> On 23/03/2008, Reg Busch wrote: > > I'm still busy trying to master some bread and butter issues with the > new Law 27. My apologies if they have already been discussed and I've > missed them. > > (a) Under 27B1(a) the IB is exempt from Law 16D and is AI. Under > 27B1(b) this exemption does not apply. So I presume that in allowing a > change under 27B1(b), the TD should warn the side that the IB is UI, and > that I may adjust under either Law 16D or Law 27D. > > (b) The bidding goes West 1C P East 1C. East wants to change his > bid under 27B1(b). He says 'Our 1C bid shows an opening hand with at > least three clubs.. I have a 4 card club suit and 13 HCP. This is > consistent even if more specific. I take a different view. The issue > here is that a 1C opening shows a hand that may have as FEW as 3 clubs. > For most partnerships, a 1C - 3NT sequence would be made where the > responding hand has at least 4 clubs. I would disallow the change under > 27B1(b) unless East can convince me that they would bid this way with > ANY 4-3-3-3 distribution. Right or wrong? > > (c) The bidding goes 2NT P 2C. If 1NT - 2C simply asks 'Do you have a > major?' and 2NT - 3C asks the same, I see no problem. I allow the > correction to 3C under 27B1(b). But if 2NT - 3C says show our 4 card > suits up the line, then I must disallow the replacement under this Law. > If 1NT - 2C asks 'Do you have a major and what is your range?' and 2NT - > 3C merely asks 'Do you have a major) then (tough) I must disallow 3C > under this Law. Right or wrong? > > Reg Busch > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > b/ wrong. Four clubs is more specific than three or more clubs so the new bid is allowed. Wayne -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080323/c7068b51/attachment.htm From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon Mar 24 13:45:26 2008 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:45:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] English quiz In-Reply-To: <20080324112634.B29EAB40FD@s4.mein-host.de> References: <20080324112634.B29EAB40FD@s4.mein-host.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:47:14 +0100, ton wrote: > ton: > > It seems that two members of the drafting committee have chosen to > 'publish' > an internal discussion within this committee. Rather strange but not > uncommon from a behavioural point of view. > > Since blml is involved now, I better ask you this question. > > You read the following sentence: > > 'If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the > same denomination and in the director's opinion both the insuffiient bid > and > the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction > proceeds > without further rectification.' > > What do the last 6 words mean? > > A) 'without further rectification' is related to the auction, nothing > said > about the play following, > > B) 'without further rectification' applies to the auction and play > > C) no clue, it can go both ways. > A, as a barbarian. Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Mar 24 13:26:57 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:26:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... References: <47C6898B0D0AF325@mail-12-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added bypostmaster@mail-12.uk.tiscali.com) <003201c88b44$c849b5d0$31d0403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <023701c88daa$5a20e0c0$0100a8c0@stefanie> > >> SR: >> >> I guess this is what is meant by varying your partnership agreements >> following an irregularity. It appears to be entirely legal. Yukk. >> >> ton: >> >> You should be aware of the essential difference >> between a partnership agreement and anticipating >> at the table. I do not need an agreement to find >> out that after 1H - 1H where I guess that my >> partner did not see my opening it might be better >> to continue. No 'Yukk'. No, make that "wholly repugnant". You had a meaning in your system for 2H, but now you are permitted, because of partner's irregularity, to allow for the possibility that the meaning of *this* 2H bid might be entirely different. I think that if the WBFLC wanted to try this Law, it should first of all have been provisional (I do not think that it will last 10 years in any case) and the IB should have been made UI to the offending side. Then you might be able to conduct a "normal" auction. Why the DSC wanted this is another matter. What is the reason for the apparent opposition to (possibly) being damaged by not following the basic mechanics of the game? And as to "having none"... here in the UK everyone understands why it is improper, and no one that I can think of would have wanted a change. It was a regional option. Why was it changed? It seems to me that it could have been a NBO option if there were differences of opinion. >> GE: > +=+ Did we establish that he was not responding > to an opening bid of one in a minor? > ~ G ~ +=+ No, but how could we possibly do so? All the information we have is partner's 1H bid. Anything else is extraneous and irrelevant. As to partner's mental state at the time he made the bid, we are wholly ignorant. And also not interested, as long as we have established that the bid was not inadvertent. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 24 14:03:05 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:03:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] There they're In-Reply-To: <000101c88bc7$8a36d060$9ea47120$@com> References: <000101c88bc7$8a36d060$9ea47120$@com> Message-ID: <161C773A-6AB3-42ED-B424-EE2CC1FD7FA9@starpower.net> On Mar 21, 2008, at 10:50 PM, David Burn wrote: > This has nothing to do with the Laws of bridge at all. But I would be > grateful for any response, though you do not have to bother. > > In a report of an international basketball game between the newly- > founded > People's Republic of Myunklstan and the strongly-fancied Allovia, the > following sentences appear: > > Myunklstan played superbly. [blank1] defended particularly well, > and all of > [blank2] players contributed to the victory. > > Would you, if you were writing the report, replace [blank1] by "It" > or by > "They"? Would you replace [blank2] by "its" or by "their"? Having > made your > choice, would you consider the alternative: (a) perfectly > acceptable; (b) > wrong but not objectionably so; (c) illiterate? I would use "it" and "its" for an American-English audience, "they" and "their" for a British-English one. So (a). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 24 14:55:25 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:55:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <47E5CB52.70104@ozemail.com.au> References: <47E5CB52.70104@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: On Mar 22, 2008, at 11:15 PM, Reg Busch wrote: > I'm still busy trying to master some bread and butter issues with the > new Law 27. My apologies if they have already been discussed and I've > missed them. > > (a) Under 27B1(a) the IB is exempt from Law 16D and is AI. Under > 27B1(b) this exemption does not apply. So I presume that in allowing a > change under 27B1(b), the TD should warn the side that the IB is > UI, and > that I may adjust under either Law 16D or Law 27D. No, there is no UI and no potential for a L16 adjustment. There may be a potential adjustment under L27D, but that has nothing to do with UI. In order for the replacement call (RC) to qualify as penalty- free under L27B1(b), it must be the case that the IB provides no additional information (beyond that available from the RC, which is AI), so there can be nothing there for the TD to "unauthorize". There is no mention of L16D in L27B1(b) because it would be meaningless. > (b) The bidding goes West 1C P East 1C. East wants to change his > bid under 27B1(b). He says 'Our 1C bid shows an opening hand with at > least three clubs.. I have a 4 card club suit and 13 HCP. This is > consistent even if more specific. I take a different view. The issue > here is that a 1C opening shows a hand that may have as FEW as 3 > clubs. > For most partnerships, a 1C - 3NT sequence would be made where the > responding hand has at least 4 clubs. I would disallow the change > under > 27B1(b) unless East can convince me that they would bid this way with > ANY 4-3-3-3 distribution. Right or wrong? Wrong. The RC (whatever it is; it is not specified above) is AI, and, as explained above, the IB contains no additional information that one could "unauthorize". If it is AI that you have four or more clubs, it can't be UI that you don't have exactly three. That you might have chosen a different call had you not made the IB (presumably one that, given the IB, would now bar your partner) matters a lot when it comes to applying L27D, but has no effect at all on what is allowed under L27B1. The criteria of L27B1 pertain only to the meanings of calls (IB and RC), without concern for what the IBer actually holds. > (c) The bidding goes 2NT P 2C. If 1NT - 2C simply asks 'Do you > have a > major?' and 2NT - 3C asks the same, I see no problem. I allow the > correction to 3C under 27B1(b). But if 2NT - 3C says show our 4 card > suits up the line, then I must disallow the replacement under this > Law. > If 1NT - 2C asks 'Do you have a major and what is your range?' and > 2NT - > 3C merely asks 'Do you have a major) then (tough) I must disallow 3C > under this Law. Right or wrong? Wrong. That is, wrong if we can assume that in any of those auctions the 2C/3C bid mentioned is the only mechanism available for asking about four-card majors (so there is no information conveyed by the choice of one over the other). Once again, the relevant question is, What information about the bidder's hand can be derived from the 2C IB that is not available from the 3C RC?, and if the answer is none, the RC is allowed under L27B1(b). Note that a 3C which carries the information "I am interested in your four-card majors" has "a more precise meaning than" [L27B1(b)] "I am interest in your four-card majors, or your range, or both". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 24 15:11:58 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:11:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: <009501c88cdf$5ea13d00$e5cf403e@Mildred> References: <009501c88cdf$5ea13d00$e5cf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: On Mar 23, 2008, at 8:12 AM, wrote: > +=+ It seems to me, Kojak, that the (all too frequent) differences > of opinion on the laws between Ton and myself stem mainly from > the difference between the ways in which respectively we read the > language, both in the law book and in our e-mails. Occasionally > perhaps, we increase the problem by careless attention to exactly > what is written. Fortunately it is only what is agreed corporately > that truly counts. It occurs to me that differences of understanding > were almost certainly not always revealed in the course of writing > the laws and in this it matters what others of us understand. Will the WBF never learn that that is what inevitably happens when a group of writers working on a single product refuse to subject their work to independent outside review before they declare it final and untouchable? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 24 15:34:07 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:34:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 Message-ID: <7B378B4C-40BB-4659-9262-A6699BB8EA0F@starpower.net> In trying to imagine how the new L27 will actually work at the table (and in the committee room), I find myself projecting two vastly different sets of scenarios. It is critical that we determine which is correct before we begin using the new law. The key question is this: A player makes an IB. The TD is called. He arrives at the table and reads out L27. The IBer responds with, "I didn't understand all that; could you please just tell me what calls I'm allowed to make now without barring my partner from the bidding?" Is he entitled to an answer from the TD? Or must he work it out on his own? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From schoderb at msn.com Mon Mar 24 16:27:03 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:27:03 -0400 Subject: [blml] English quiz References: Message-ID: I'm surprised at the reaction to my posting about English. I apologize to those who apparently feel offended. I would apply the same thought to myself were the language other than English. There I would be the savage, non-savage, barbarian, etc. Personally I'm getting sorely tired of this 'tempest in a teapot'. The many other BLML postings about 27B1(b) are much more enlightening and need answers. Ton may need to read his previous postings before deciding that we revealed something of DSC discussions in our responses to HIS BLML posting. Both Grattan and I were acting as BLML members. His comment on behavior is misdirected. Ton has taken "the last 6 words" out of the "written structure" I carefully referred to, and giving 3 options, only one of which could possibly be correct when examined in isolation. As a stand-alone problem with all the restrictions he specifies there can be only one answer -- "A" Nice clever trick to troll for agreement, but not at all relative to the subject. I would have hoped that more responders had come to the same conclusion. Please consider the following: An insufficient bid occurs. The bidding cannot continue without a ruling. Law27 provides specific options on how to continue. In B1 it provides opportunities to continue "without further rectification". It provides that Law 16D does NOT apply in this instance. We can now proceed with the auction having fixed the immediate problem and obtain a bridge result not affected by any penalty. Applying a lead penalty might well defeat the desired outcome of a non-adjusted result. We hopefully solved the problem without penalty. THEN, using Law 27D, we look at that outcome to make sure that without assistance from the infraction it could well have been different and therefore consequently damaged the non-offending side. This is particularly important when we used B1(b) where there is newly permitted information and where suspicious leads and plays might more easily occur than in (a). If so, we adjust the score. I find it hard to read the ENTIRE LAW in any different way. I strongly suggest that TDs read the COMPLETE LAW to be sure they understand what it says. And, now I stop looking under the bed for ghosts. Y'all Have a nice day, Kojak > ton: > > It seems that two members of the drafting committee have chosen to > 'publish' > an internal discussion within this committee. Rather strange but not > uncommon from a behavioural point of view. > > Since blml is involved now, I better ask you this question. > > You read the following sentence: > > 'If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the > same denomination and in the director's opinion both the insuffiient bid > and > the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction > proceeds > without further rectification.' > > What do the last 6 words mean? > > A) 'without further rectification' is related to the auction, nothing said > about the play following, > > B) 'without further rectification' applies to the auction and play > > C) no clue, it can go both ways. > > To make things easy, try to restrict yourself to just the A, B or C. Tell > me > also whether you are an educated native speaker in the commomn wealth area > and neighbours, or a savage (I know, some neighbours are savages too), > > One other remark: I am not asking what you would like it to mean, but what > it says. > > > ton > > > Kojak: > It seems to me that when two educated native speakers agree the meaning of > a > written structure that a non-native speaker with far less competence in > that > language might accede to it. If in translation to other than English the > translator finds the need for additional or different words to accurately > translate then so be it, but it doesn't change the English nor the Law. > From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 24 17:16:12 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:16:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] English quiz In-Reply-To: <001601c88d9c$f021a310$d064e930$@com> References: <001601c88d9c$f021a310$d064e930$@com> Message-ID: <000001c88dca$60e54ed0$22afec70$@no> [TK] You read the following sentence: 'If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the director's opinion both the insuffiient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification.' What do the last 6 words mean? A) 'without further rectification' is related to the auction, nothing said about the play following, B) 'without further rectification' applies to the auction and play C) no clue, it can go both ways. To make things easy, try to restrict yourself to just the A, B or C. Tell me also whether you are an educated native speaker in the commomn wealth area and neighbours, or a savage (I know, some neighbours are savages too). One other remark: I am not asking what you would like it to mean, but what it says. [DALB] I am a savage English speaker. Technically, what the words mean is this: West opens 1H, North passes and East bids 1H (natural). East corrects to 2H (also natural). No rectification is applied in respect of East's bids of 1H and 2H. Moreover, if South now bids 1S, no rectification is applied to that either, and West is free to bid 1H again without rectification. The DSC has succeeded in creating the possibility of an auction that can go on forever, thus repealing not only the previous Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge but the Second Law of Thermodynamics. To prevent this, it should be stipulated that in such an auction each call is made in half the time taken to make the previous call. The auction will then end in finite time, and lead penalties may apply when it does so. Unfortunately, it is well known to mathematicians that the final contract cannot be determined in such a case. But this does not matter, since in the present climate it is considered undesirable following an irregularity for the result of a deal to be determined by the players. That is the Director's job. I don't understand you guys!!! First of all, have you all overlooked the references "but see D following" in this law? Apparently there will be further rectification if the Director finds that the condition in L27D for such rectification exists. And if anybody came to me claiming that "without further rectification" opened the door for any further violation of laws I would just laugh at him. So my comment to Tony is that I (for one) understand the clause "without further rectification" to apply only to the insufficient bid itself (including the call that in case replaces this), not even to the rest of the auction and certainly not to the play. Furthermore the Director must still try L27D. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 24 17:25:05 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:25:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] There they're In-Reply-To: <161C773A-6AB3-42ED-B424-EE2CC1FD7FA9@starpower.net> References: <000101c88bc7$8a36d060$9ea47120$@com> <161C773A-6AB3-42ED-B424-EE2CC1FD7FA9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000101c88dcb$9e73b600$db5b2200$@no> On Mar 21, 2008, at 10:50 PM, David Burn wrote: > This has nothing to do with the Laws of bridge at all. But I would be > grateful for any response, though you do not have to bother. > > In a report of an international basketball game between the newly- > founded > People's Republic of Myunklstan and the strongly-fancied Allovia, the > following sentences appear: > > Myunklstan played superbly. [blank1] defended particularly well, > and all of > [blank2] players contributed to the victory. > > Would you, if you were writing the report, replace [blank1] by "It" > or by > "They"? Would you replace [blank2] by "its" or by "their"? Having > made your > choice, would you consider the alternative: (a) perfectly > acceptable; (b) > wrong but not objectionably so; (c) illiterate? I would use "it" and "its" for an American-English audience, "they" and "their" for a British-English one. So (a). Eric Landau _______________________________________________ I could use either: If Myunklstan is the actual name of the team I would use "it" and "its", but if Myunklstan denotes the country (or something similar like an organization or establishment) that the players represented in the match I would use "they" and "their".. I don't know if this makes me American or British? Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 24 22:33:03 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:33:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47E5CB52.70104@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: Reg Busch: >I'm still busy trying to master some bread and butter issues with the >new Law 27. My apologies if they have already been discussed and I've >missed them. > >(a) Under 27B1(a) the IB is exempt from Law 16D and is AI. Under >27B1(b) this exemption does not apply. So I presume that in allowing a >change under 27B1(b), the TD should warn the side that the IB is UI, >and that I may adjust under either Law 16D or Law 27D. Richard Hills: No. Because a replacement call valid under 27B1(b) either has the same meaning as the insufficient bid or a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid, zero unauthorised information has been created. Law 27D in this case is relevant only if the Director later determines that their initial Law 27B1(b) ruling of validity was erroneous. Reg Busch: >(b) The bidding goes West 1C P East 1C. East wants to change his >bid under 27B1(b). He says 'Our 1C bid shows an opening hand with at >least three clubs.. I have a 4 card club suit and 13 HCP. This is >consistent even if more specific. I take a different view. The issue >here is that a 1C opening shows a hand that may have as FEW as 3 clubs. >For most partnerships, a 1C - 3NT sequence would be made where the >responding hand has at least 4 clubs. I would disallow the change under >27B1(b) unless East can convince me that they would bid this way with >ANY 4-3-3-3 distribution. Right or wrong? Richard Hills: Wrong. A meaning of "at least four clubs" is more precise than a meaning of "at least three clubs". The replacement bid may have a narrower meaning than the insufficient bid. On the other hand, the the insufficient bid MAY NOT have a narrower meaning than the replacement bid. For example, if on your example above a 3NT response showed 13-15 hcp and a balanced hand with four clubs and the partnership played a 16-18 hcp 1NT, I would allow a 3NT replacement bid. But if the partnership played a 15-18 hcp 1NT, I would not allow a 3NT replacement bid, since then the possibility of four clubs balanced with 15 hcp is a _wider_ meaning than encompassed in an insufficient 1C opening bid. Reg Busch: >(c) The bidding goes 2NT P 2C. If 1NT - 2C simply asks 'Do you have >a major?' and 2NT - 3C asks the same, I see no problem. I allow the >correction to 3C under 27B1(b). But if 2NT - 3C says show our 4 card >suits up the line, then I must disallow the replacement under this Law. Richard Hills: Correct. Reg Busch: >If 1NT - 2C asks 'Do you have a major and what is your range?' and 2NT - >3C merely asks 'Do you have a major) then (tough) I must disallow 3C >under this Law. Right or wrong? Richard Hills: Wrong. The 3C replacement call has a more precise meaning (enquiring about majors) than the 2C insufficient bid (which enquires about majors and/or range). But if there is a partnership agreement that the 3C bidder guarantees holding a major, and at the end of play the 3C bidder is found to lack a major (choosing to bid 3C merely to prevent partner being barred), then Law 23 may apply. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 25 01:25:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:25:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080321153155.27539DC2C8B@mailgw2.sgs.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: David Burn: >>Are you serious? Having bid an insufficient 1H, I am now allowed to >>respond to partner's opening bid of 1H with a natural *and forcing* 2H? Ton Kooijman: >Yes you are, now, in the past and in the near (coming 10 years) future. Richard Hills: Ton's answer is incorrect, due to a hermanic error of taking the 2008 Law 27B1(a) out of context of the full Lawbook. In the past treating partner's non-forcing 2H raise as forcing was an infraction of the 1997 Law 27B1(b). In the future treating partner's non-forcing 2H raise as forcing will be an infraction of the 2008 Law 27D. In both cases partner has infracted Law 23, since partner "could have been aware" that an insufficient bid of 1H, when holding opening values, followed by a sufficient raise to a theoretically non-forcing 2H might gain bidding space by providing a cheaper game raise with heart support than would otherwise be available in the partnership system. So, if I was the insufficient bidder of 1H (when holding opening values) in this example, and if the 2008 Law 27B1(b) did not apply in my methods, I would guess between a partner-barring 4H and a partner-barring 6H. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 25 01:38:59 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:38:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] English quiz References: <001601c88d9c$f021a310$d064e930$@com> Message-ID: <004e01c88e10$9dd2fbd0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] English quiz > [TK] > > You read the following sentence: > > 'If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the > same denomination and in the director's opinion both the insuffiient bid > and > the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction > proceeds > without further rectification.' It means what my mother meant in the 1950's when, over tea and cucumber sandwiches, she would say "Make it good dearie". The table would also agree that if someone didn't treat the made good bid as the only bid which had been made by this player in this auction at this point then it would be reasonable to assign an agreed score. Mother was right then; she'd be right today too. Mother and her cucumber crunching cronies had a b****y good idea of UI, and she taught me about it even then. There is NO QUESTION IMO that the withdrawn call is UI. Nothing in this Law says it isn't and there's plenty of other laws which say it is. The law tells us to get on with the auction once the bid has been made good. Nothing else. My answer is A) btw. John > > What do the last 6 words mean? > > A) 'without further rectification' is related to the auction, nothing said > about the play following, From john at asimere.com Tue Mar 25 01:48:49 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:48:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] English quiz References: Message-ID: <007a01c88e11$fd660910$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM SCHODER" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] English quiz > I'm surprised at the reaction to my posting about English. I apologize to > those who apparently feel offended. I would apply the same thought to > myself > were the language other than English. There I would be the savage, > non-savage, barbarian, etc. > > Personally I'm getting sorely tired of this 'tempest in a teapot'. The > many > other BLML postings about 27B1(b) are much more enlightening and need > answers. > > Ton may need to read his previous postings before deciding that we > revealed something of DSC discussions in our responses to HIS BLML > posting. > Both Grattan and I were acting as BLML members. His comment on behavior is > misdirected. > > Ton has taken "the last 6 words" out of the "written structure" I > carefully > referred to, and giving 3 options, only one of which could possibly be > correct when examined in isolation. As a stand-alone problem with all the > restrictions he specifies there can be only one answer -- "A" Nice clever > trick to troll for agreement, but not at all relative to the subject. I > would > have hoped that more responders had come to the same conclusion. > > Please consider the following: > > An insufficient bid occurs. The bidding cannot continue without a ruling. > Law27 provides specific options on how to continue. In B1 it provides > opportunities to continue "without further rectification". It provides > that > Law 16D does NOT apply in this instance. We can now proceed with the > auction > having fixed the immediate problem and obtain a bridge result not affected > by any penalty. Applying a lead penalty might well defeat the desired > outcome of > a non-adjusted result. We hopefully solved the problem without penalty. > > THEN, using Law 27D, we look at that outcome to make sure that without > assistance from the infraction it could well have been different and > therefore > consequently damaged the non-offending side. This is particularly > important > when we used B1(b) where there is newly permitted information and where > suspicious leads and plays might more easily occur than in (a). If so, we > adjust the score. > > I find it hard to read the ENTIRE LAW in any different way. I strongly > suggest that TDs read the COMPLETE LAW to be sure they understand what it > says. > > And, now I stop looking under the bed for ghosts. Kojak, for a non-native speaker of English, you have a remarkable perception of what the law says, as well as "how do we play bridge?". > > Y'all Have a nice day, Look after yourself, as an Englishman might say. "Be lucky" in my local argot. John > > Kojak > From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Mar 25 03:11:44 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:11:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <200803051816.m25IGFkV024245@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200803051816.m25IGFkV024245@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47E85F60.80101@nhcc.net> > From: "David Burn" > If North says "I thought it was my deal", or "I thought South opened 1C", > then this gives UI (Unincorporated Information) to South, I think it's not clear how to treat this. The obvious, literal way is UI under L16, but I'm afraid that will be too complicated. A simpler way is, as I think David is suggesting, to treat "information conveyed by the IB" as including the additional information about why the IB was made. > This is why I think it may be better not to ask North why he made the > IB; just ask him what the RC means, and whether it is consistent with some > hand that would have made the IB if sufficient in some auctions. This seems exactly right to me. Absent some indication from North, there is no way to know why he made the IB except from the logic of the auction. Most likely an insufficient 1C was intended as an opening bid, but 1C-1S-1H could have been intended either as an opening bid or a response to 1C. Perhaps other things as well. In my view, the TD should avoid revealing which is the actual case unless North has already blurted it out. From: Herman De Wael > Now, the original intent > becomes important every time, and the TD needs to know it before he > can rule which, if any, calls will be allowed "unpunished". No; the TD only needs to know the _union_ of all possible original intents. From: Eric Landau > I don't see anything that requires the TD to limit his ruling to only > one possibility, but nor do I see anything that says that the TD must > determine "the possible meanings of the IB" without any prior > investigation either. The law leaves the determination of "the > possible meanings" to the TD; presumably that determination is > subject to the same investigation of the facts as any other. Of course. All I'm claiming is that the investigation should be limited to facts such as system in use and remarks made or not made. There's no need to judge the IBer's state of mind. > The > bidder's stated intention will presumably be relevant to that > determination Only if the bidder has revealed what that intent was. > But if you allow the "possible meanings" to be > limited (potentially to the IBer's advantage) if and when the IBer > prematurely exposes his intentions prior to the director's arrival, > you must offer the same opportunity to the IBer who has properly kept > quiet until the director arrives, lest he be disadvantaged by having > followed correct procedure. In general, the more possible meanings there are, the wider the range of possible replacement calls will be. So it should normally be to IBer's advantage not to reveal his intention. I can't immediately construct a case where it would be advantageous to the IBer to reveal his intention unless he intends to silence partner, but that's dealt with under L23. > Nothing in L27 stops you from asking, and IMO you should. Why? I can't see any possible advantage in asking. From: > For the Director > it does matter what the player thought he was doing when he made the IB. Again, why? This seems contrary to the plain language, and I can't see any advantage of adopting such an interpretation (though no doubt doing so is within the authority of RAs). Of course the NOS should be asked whether IBer has revealed his intention, whether explicitly or by any hint. If so, the TD will need to take that into account. But I don't see any reason the TD should investigate the actual intention if it's otherwise unknown. > +=+ Failure to mention Law 26 in B1 may possibly mean > that it was considered to be included in the statement > "without further rectification". It all depends whether a > 'restriction' is a 'rectification' (defined as 'the remedial > provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come > to the Director's attention'). I can't see how what we used to call "lead penalties" could be considered other than rectification. The question is whether such a rectification applies. It seems logically it should not. In 27B1a, the denomination was "specified in the legal auction," so there's no problem there. In 27B1b, the IB conveys no information not conveyed by the RC, so there's no logical reason for lead penalties. Despite that, the language is sufficiently ambiguous that it could be interpreted either way. I suggest the DSC issue the sensible interpretation. In contrast, in L27B2 and B3, there is some information conveyed and therefore a logical justification for lead penalties. (Pardon me. I need to get used to writing "rectification.") > From: "David Burn" > ...a pair playing > four-card majors may bid 1H-2NT (Jacoby) having previously bid 1H-1H, > because both the second 1H call and the replacement 2NT show opening values > with 4+ hearts. OK. > But a pair playing five-card majors may not make this > replacement, because the second 1H call shows at least five hearts while the > replacement 2NT shows at least four (and is therefore less precise - there > are more hands with at least four hearts than with at least five). > > That seems a bit silly. But... Why does it seem silly? If you know the 1H IB _was intended as an opening_, then this seems completely straightforward. The fifth heart was revealed by the IB, not the RC. In general, though, you will know nothing of the sort. Why couldn't 1H have been intended as a response to a 1m (probably 1D) opening? In that case, it shows (typically) 4+ hearts and 6+ points, and 2NT will be allowed. This illustrates the advantage to IBer of not making his intention known. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Mar 25 03:25:04 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:25:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Swiss scoring In-Reply-To: <200803191348.m2JDmF14000416@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200803191348.m2JDmF14000416@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47E86280.1000205@nhcc.net> > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > It seems to me that a larger scale will produce larger differences in score > between those teams who dealt board-sets that had swings available, and > those who dealt board-sets that didn't. You don't seem to be thinking clearly. "Larger differences" are relative to the scale in use. Look at it this way: if one team blitzes another, most likely they are much better _and_ they had a swingy board set. Reducing the result to win-loss throws this information away. Throwing away information has to increase randomness. Quantitatively, a 7-board IMP result measures the difference between teams with an uncertainty of around 2 IMPs/board. Nothing will reduce that uncertainty, but you don't want to make it worse by making your measurement of the result too granular. From: "Wayne Burrows" > Since the penalty imposed from a loss is a likely easier draw in the > next round. Likewise the reward from winning is a likely tougher draw > in the next round. We had a thread a year or so ago on "Strength of Schedule" corrections. It's a real effect but not as large as I expected. It would be straightforward to compensate for it. From john at asimere.com Tue Mar 25 04:19:23 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 03:19:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] multiple infractions in the auction Message-ID: <001901c88e27$05df7b20$0901a8c0@JOHN> So I arrive at the table today and I can see 1C [3rd seat] (P) 1D and am about to be mildly dismissive, but the table is in hysterics so I diligently apply my Spanish Inquisition techniques. The auction has actually proceeded: S W N E (South dealer) . . . . P . . . 1C 1D Pass in 4th; followed by 1C in 3rd followed by 1D in 1st. The calls are not remotely simultaneous 4th seat volunteers that the Pass card was left over from the previous hand. 3rd seat (a blmler) asks does her 1C condone the POOT (if indeed it was a POOT). 1st seat volunteers he looked up from having sorted his hand to see 1C (P) and responded 1D. The table is creased up laughing (they do it just to annoy, I think) I know all of them well and they assure me this _really really_ has happened. It won't be a wind up. Your go :) John From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 25 06:02:33 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:02:33 +1100 Subject: [blml] L26 or not [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6268944.1487541205797412818.JavaMail.www@wwinf1b09> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman: >...Let me anticipate another reaction. In 27B2 and 27B3 a reference >to L26 is made. Does that not imply that in B1 it doesn't?... 2007 Introduction: >>...Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any >>law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference... >>... >>...For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the >>Definitions that follow form part of the Laws... Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 25 06:28:43 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:28:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <01a801c88a1a$aa9ae5c0$575b9951@stefanie> Message-ID: Robert Frick: >>Hi Stephanie. Interesting idea. I just worked with if changing my >>insufficient bid. This is tough to do because Law 72B1 bars you from >>making any bid better than the ones that were at your disposal. Stefanie Rohan: >Not 72B1. But I would like to see if it is indeed against any law. Richard Hills: The 1997 Law 72B1 has been amended and shifted to be the 2007 Law 23: "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the nonoffending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*. * as, for example, by partner's enforced pass." Richard Hills: However, Law 23 does not bar better bids that you discover after the fact, known as "rub of the green". For example, if you make an insufficient bid which cannot be untangled, so partner must call an enforced pass, and you choose a rational guess of punting 3NT, you keep your top if the field has had a scientific auction to 6NT failing by one trick due to a 5-0 break. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 25 06:44:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:44:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?40B3=2C_etc=2E_=B2____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=5D?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick asked: [snip] >an inferior game that no one else is bidding. >However, it happens to make. Is that rub of the >green, or are the opps protected? Richard Hills: In 1990s ACBL casebooks it was argued that the non- offending side should keep their bad score after the offending side used Hesitation Blackwood to bid a very inferior but very lucky slam. This idea has been revoked by the 2007 Law 12B1: "...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..." Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 25 07:10:56 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:10:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47E231AC.5000906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >BTW, there are partnerships where one player always overbids and >the other always underbids. How would you deal with them ? Law 40B2(a): "...the general requirement that the meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made..." Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Mar 25 08:38:34 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:38:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] English quiz In-Reply-To: <001601c88d9c$f021a310$d064e930$@com> Message-ID: <20080325073828.951063A@rhubarb.custard.org> ton: I start to understand the problem. As far as I understood my request you were invited to answer with just A or B or C. Two of the very native speakers (David and John) come up with extensive though agreeable answers. The savage answers are following my request (to make this true I consider Sven native English, the theory is more important than facts). Conclusion: English people read sentences not in the same way as savages. This makes common interpretations impossible. I could have known that, apologies to Grattan and Kojak. We have to live with this problem. ton [DALB] I am a savage English speaker. Technically, what the words mean is this: West opens 1H, North passes and East bids 1H (natural). East corrects to 2H (also natural). No rectification is applied in respect of East's bids of 1H and 2H. Moreover, if South now bids 1S, no rectification is applied to that either, and West is free to bid 1H again without rectification. The DSC has succeeded in creating the possibility of an auction that can go on forever, thus repealing not only the previous Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge but the Second Law of Thermodynamics. To prevent this, it should be stipulated that in such an auction each call is made in half the time taken to make the previous call. The auction will then end in finite time, and lead penalties may apply when it does so. Unfortunately, it is well known to mathematicians that the final contract cannot be determined in such a case. But this does not matter, since in the present climate it is considered undesirable following an irregularity for the result of a deal to be determined by the players. That is the Director's job. David Burn London, England From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Mar 25 09:02:01 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:02:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <00d601c88d9d$1d9cb410$01d2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <20080325080215.0ED583A@rhubarb.custard.org> For the time being Ton is pushing his personal opinion of what Law 27B1 means, not an authorized position of consensus. It is this that Kojak and I are resisting. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ton: This really is plain nonsense. It is my daily job to try to understand what the laws mean (goodness, this comes dangerously close to religious behavior). When reading L27B1 once more and discussing it in my country I found out that it seems to say that the lead penalties apply. You made that my personal opinion and told me that I am wrong and Kojak explained to the world that my underdstanding of English is too poor to understand this law. May I after my quiz draw the conclusion that we need to do something to explain to the savages that in all cases were 27B1 allows the auction to be continued without further rectifications, L26 does not apply (if we agree on that)? ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Mar 25 09:02:01 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:02:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <00d601c88d9d$1d9cb410$01d2403e@Mildred> Message-ID: For the time being Ton is pushing his personal opinion of what Law 27B1 means, not an authorized position of consensus. It is this that Kojak and I are resisting. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ton: This really is plain nonsense. It is my daily job to try to understand what the laws mean (goodness, this comes dangerously close to religious behavior). When reading L27B1 once more and discussing it in my country I found out that it seems to say that the lead penalties apply. You made that my personal opinion and told me that I am wrong and Kojak explained to the world that my underdstanding of English is too poor to understand this law. May I after my quiz draw the conclusion that we need to do something to explain to the savages that in all cases were 27B1 allows the auction to be continued without further rectifications, L26 does not apply (if we agree on that)? ton From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 25 09:37:13 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:37:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <47E03FF2.9050609@aol.com> <00a301c8895c$d33399f0$0100a8c0@stefanie> <89E33294-E41A-44A6-8F2C-85569484D0E9@starpower.net> <01b301c88a1d$bf01ccb0$575b9951@stefanie> <47E278E6.3090205@ulb.ac.be> <47E38685.3000506@ulb.ac.be> <0820C0CB-17E0-443E-905E-35D0B0483DBE@starpower.net> <47E3E598.6020001@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47E8B9B9.2060803@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > Perhaps a real-life example (full disclosure: slightly modified to > suit) from a bit ago will help. Partner opened 2S. RHO undercalled > 2H. When I brought this to her attention she immediately (and > predictably, in this environment) attempted to correct her IB to 3H > (old law); I was having none of that, and called the director. Over > weak 2-bids, we play that free raises are constructive but not > forcing, game bids are to play, and all non-game-level jump bids are > game-forcing slam tries. Relying on that last meta-agreement, I > accepted the 2H undercall and jumped to 3S, hoping partner would read > this as a game-forcing slam try. He did, and we reached a slam that > we would not have found without the extra help from the IB. The > routine post-mortem of this board during our post-session review made > it clear (as if it wasn't already) that my intended message had been > received and understood. > > Good example. And you could also have jumped to 4C/D. > The next time we open a weak 2-bid and the opponent comes in with an > IB (surely not "extremely improbable"), we will know with absolute > certainty -- which we did not this first time -- that if we accept > the IB and raise partner's opening we will hold a slam try in > partner's suit. But that doesn't wash,because the ACBL does not permit partnership agreements of any kindwith respect to actions taken subsequent to an opponent's irregularity, > This seems specific to ACBL, because elsewhere, the rule is "no new agreement", not "no agreement", and you would be allowed to know what you know.. Best regards Alain (note that my point, that it is very improbable that the same sequence happen again to you remains valid) From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 25 09:44:58 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:44:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] There they're In-Reply-To: <000101c88bc7$8a36d060$9ea47120$@com> References: <000101c88bc7$8a36d060$9ea47120$@com> Message-ID: <47E8BB8A.1070809@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > This has nothing to do with the Laws of bridge at all. But I would be > grateful for any response, though you do not have to bother. > > In a report of an international basketball game between the newly-founded > People's Republic of Myunklstan and the strongly-fancied Allovia, the > following sentences appear: > > Myunklstan played superbly. [blank1] defended particularly well, and all of > [blank2] players contributed to the victory. > > Would you, if you were writing the report, replace [blank1] by "It" or by > "They"? Would you replace [blank2] by "its" or by "their"? Having made your > choice, would you consider the alternative: (a) perfectly acceptable; (b) > wrong but not objectionably so; (c) illiterate? > As a purist, I claim that (b) doesn't exist. When I had courses on English stylistics (of which I forgot a huge part, as you might notice), there was a strong insistance on the fact that, in such occirrences, English uses the plural form, contrary to French (especially in the second example). In general, in many such cases, French sticks to grammaticality (singular subject), while. English puts more emphasis on sense (the players are plural, aren't they ?) ; that's called a syllepsis. Best tegards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 25 10:11:39 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:11:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47E8C1CB.10008@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner: > > [snip] > > >> BTW, there are partnerships where one player always overbids and >> the other always underbids. How would you deal with them ? >> > > Law 40B2(a): > > "...the general requirement that the meaning of a call or play > shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by > whom it is made..." > > > The meaning does not alter if someone over/underbids. A 2C response by Alfred is game forcing as is one by Barnabas, but Alfred does it on less than Barnabas does. Same meaning, different set of hands. If you open 1NT on "good 14 to 17", what constitutes a good 14 isn't told in TFLB. The fact that Albert would consider K10xx - xx - AJx - AQ98 as "a good 14" while Barnabas wouldn't is rather covered by matters of style (which are explicitly allowed) than by matters of meaning. Take any bidding quiz and see the responses of long-standing partnerships. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 25 11:40:11 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:40:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] multiple infractions in the auction In-Reply-To: <001901c88e27$05df7b20$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <001901c88e27$05df7b20$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <47E8D68B.7030300@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > So I arrive at the table today and I can see 1C [3rd seat] (P) 1D and am > about to be mildly dismissive, but the table is in hysterics so I diligently > apply my Spanish Inquisition techniques. The auction has actually proceeded: > > S W N E (South dealer) > . . . . P > . . . 1C > 1D > > Pass in 4th; followed by 1C in 3rd followed by 1D in 1st. The calls are not > remotely simultaneous > If I read your text as basically correct, you had a few too many dots in the diagram. This should be it: > S W N E (South dealer) > . . . P > . . 1C > 1D So, East did nothing wrong, apart from leaving a green piece of cardboard on the table. He has not bid. North did do something wrong, a bid out of turn. The South did something wrong, another bid out of turn. Since this is not a bid by the next player, that does not condone the BOOT from North. OTOH, since South did see a perfectly formed table, he can be excused, although I would not know by which law that should be. So we deal with North's infraction - and that should settle it, I think. > 4th seat volunteers that the Pass card was left over from the previous hand. > 3rd seat (a blmler) asks does her 1C condone the POOT (if indeed it was a > POOT). 1st seat volunteers he looked up from having sorted his hand to see > 1C (P) and responded 1D. The table is creased up laughing (they do it just > to annoy, I think) I know all of them well and they assure me this _really > really_ has happened. It won't be a wind up. > > Your go :) John > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 sater at xs4all.nl Tue Mar 25 10:55:40 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:55:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? Message-ID: <014401c88e5e$62b22050$281660f0$@nl> West opens 2H on T5 KJT42 AJ53 92 Alerted and explained as weak with both majors. Auction continues, with NS bidding 4S, making 12 tricks. NS now claim that had they known they could have bid 6. TD investigates, and finds convention card of EW also stating weak with both majors. According to EW they play together for 5 years with this system, and West was temporarily confused. Is there anything the TD needs to investigate, or is this the end with table result standing? Hans From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 25 10:06:31 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:06:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] multiple infractions in the auction In-Reply-To: <001901c88e27$05df7b20$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <001901c88e27$05df7b20$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <47E8C097.90606@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > So I arrive at the table today and I can see 1C [3rd seat] (P) 1D and am > about to be mildly dismissive, but the table is in hysterics so I diligently > apply my Spanish Inquisition techniques. The auction has actually proceeded: > > S W N E (South dealer) > . . . . P > . . . 1C > 1D > > Pass in 4th; followed by 1C in 3rd followed by 1D in 1st. The calls are not > remotely simultaneous > > 4th seat volunteers that the Pass card was left over from the previous hand. > 3rd seat (a blmler) asks does her 1C condone the POOT (if indeed it was a > POOT). 1st seat volunteers he looked up from having sorted his hand to see > 1C (P) and responded 1D. The table is creased up laughing (they do it just > to annoy, I think) I know all of them well and they assure me this _really > really_ has happened. It won't be a wind up. > There seems to be a 5th hand, but let's stick to your text. The left-over pass isn't a call on the current deal, therefore not a POOT. When a player bids over a left-over pass, one has a reasonable claim that one has been misled by an opponent's negligence, and I would allow the call without penalty if OOT (as would be if 3rd hand had left one's pass and 4th hand had "opened"). Here, if there hadn't been another OOOT, this problem wouldn't exist, as the hand after the pass is the legitimate dealer. 3rd hand has opened OOT, without any excuse, and we start from there. Now if opponents disallow that 1C opening, all penalties would apply, partner barred and all this sort of things. However, there would be no lead penalty due to the retracted 1D bid, because 1st hand could have been misled by the pass. Best regards Alain From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Mar 25 12:41:03 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:41:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <01a801c88a1a$aa9ae5c0$575b9951@stefanie> Message-ID: <000b01c88e6d$1fa0caf0$5ee260d0$@com> [RH] However, Law 23 does not bar better bids that you discover after the fact, known as "rub of the green". For example, if you make an insufficient bid which cannot be untangled, so partner must call an enforced pass, and you choose a rational guess of punting 3NT, you keep your top if the field has had a scientific auction to 6NT failing by one trick due to a 5-0 break. [RH] "...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..." [DALB] What is truth, and what is fable? Where is Ruth, and where is Mabel? David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 25 13:17:40 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:17:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: <014401c88e5e$62b22050$281660f0$@nl> References: <014401c88e5e$62b22050$281660f0$@nl> Message-ID: <47E8ED64.7080303@ulb.ac.be> Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > West opens 2H on > > T5 > KJT42 > AJ53 > 92 > > Alerted and explained as weak with both majors. Auction continues, with NS > bidding 4S, making 12 tricks. NS now claim that had they known they could > have bid 6. > > TD investigates, and finds convention card of EW also stating weak with both > majors. According to EW they play together for 5 years with this system, and > West was temporarily confused. > > Is there anything the TD needs to investigate, or is this the end with table > result standing? > Apparently, the explanation coincides with the pair's notes. That's enough evidence. This could well have happened to some Belgian players, who play this with some, Dutch two-suiters (or Polish) with others. Now, if this pair made the same error several times, this would be another story, as is the case with any systemic error. Best regards Alain From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Mar 25 09:08:15 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:08:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560803222240o8244a6fyb6e02422b487e244@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Reg Busch: (a) Under 27B1(a) the IB is exempt from Law 16D and is AI. Under 27B1(b) this exemption does not apply. So I presume that in allowing a change under 27B1(b), the TD should warn the side that the IB is UI, and that I may adjust under either Law 16D or Law 27D. ton: It is my personal opinion that also in L 27B1b L16D does not apply. I agree that the wording makes life (also mine) difficult. Upgrade Your Email - Click here! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080325/42abb660/attachment.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 25 14:04:23 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:04:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9680CCB9-FA73-441E-B269-F1A02E2CF5A7@starpower.net> On Mar 24, 2008, at 5:33 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Reg Busch: > >> I'm still busy trying to master some bread and butter issues with the >> new Law 27. My apologies if they have already been discussed and I've >> missed them. >> >> (a) Under 27B1(a) the IB is exempt from Law 16D and is AI. Under >> 27B1(b) this exemption does not apply. So I presume that in >> allowing a >> change under 27B1(b), the TD should warn the side that the IB is UI, >> and that I may adjust under either Law 16D or Law 27D. > > Richard Hills: > > No. Because a replacement call valid under 27B1(b) either has the > same > meaning as the insufficient bid or a more precise meaning than the > insufficient bid, zero unauthorised information has been created. Law > 27D in this case is relevant only if the Director later determines > that > their initial Law 27B1(b) ruling of validity was erroneous. I disagree with that last sentence. A player who has made an IB may legally (and sensibly) choose to make a replacement call that satisfies L27B1(b) but does not correctly describe his hand, taking a chance of recovering from the misdescription later in the auction, rather than guessing a final contract and barring his partner. Absent the IB, he might have been able to corrrectly describe his hand with a different call, but given the IB could not make that call without barring his partner and playing there. Thus the TD's finding that L27B1(b) applied may have been correct but "the outcome of the board could well have been different" [L27D]. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 25 15:03:33 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:03:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B24F3C6-59B0-4893-B6C8-53BADCC0B323@starpower.net> On Mar 24, 2008, at 8:25 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > David Burn: > >>> Are you serious? Having bid an insufficient 1H, I am now allowed to >>> respond to partner's opening bid of 1H with a natural *and >>> forcing* 2H? > > Ton Kooijman: > >> Yes you are, now, in the past and in the near (coming 10 years) >> future. > > Richard Hills: > > Ton's answer is incorrect, due to a hermanic error of taking the > 2008 Law > 27B1(a) out of context of the full Lawbook. > > In the past treating partner's non-forcing 2H raise as forcing was an > infraction of the 1997 Law 27B1(b). In the future treating partner's > non-forcing 2H raise as forcing will be an infraction of the 2008 Law > 27D. There is no such thing as "an infraction of... L27D". L27D contains no prescription or prohibition for a player to "infract". It is strictly an instruction to the director, defining the proper procedure for dealing with a violation of L18. Partner may legitimately choose to treat 2H however he wants (L10C3); the opponents remain protected from any potential damage by L27D. Of course, treating 2H as forcing would infract L16D, but L16D explicitly does not apply here. > In both cases partner has infracted Law 23, since partner "could have > been aware" that an insufficient bid of 1H, when holding opening > values, > followed by a sufficient raise to a theoretically non-forcing 2H might > gain bidding space by providing a cheaper game raise with heart > support > than would otherwise be available in the partnership system. A player cannot be held to have been potentially aware that "his irregularity... could well damage the NOS" unless his irregularity actually could damage the NOS. As L27D precludes any such potential damage, that is not the case here. L23 applies in situations where the OS realizes an advantage from their infraction even after the infraction has been "rectified" according to the prescribed procedure in TFLB for doing so. > So, if I was the insufficient bidder of 1H (when holding opening > values) > in this example, and if the 2008 Law 27B1(b) did not apply in my > methods, > I would guess between a partner-barring 4H and a partner-barring 6H. It remains an unanswered question whether opener is entitled to the knowledge that responder thought he was opening in third seat, but even if not, there is nothing in the new (or old) laws that prevents him from guessing that to have been the case and acting accordingly, at his own risk. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 25 15:44:58 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:44:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] English quiz In-Reply-To: <004e01c88e10$9dd2fbd0$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <001601c88d9c$f021a310$d064e930$@com> <004e01c88e10$9dd2fbd0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <91C685AC-4510-4315-B4B8-0E4C13474A39@starpower.net> On Mar 24, 2008, at 8:38 PM, John ((MadDog)) Probst wrote: >> [TK] >> >> You read the following sentence: >> >> 'If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid >> in the >> same denomination and in the director's opinion both the >> insuffiient bid >> and >> the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction >> proceeds >> without further rectification.' > > It means what my mother meant in the 1950's when, over tea and > cucumber > sandwiches, she would say "Make it good dearie". The table would > also agree > that if someone didn't treat the made good bid as the only bid > which had > been made by this player in this auction at this point then it > would be > reasonable to assign an agreed score. Mother was right then; she'd > be right > today too. Mother and her cucumber crunching cronies had a b****y > good idea > of UI, and she taught me about it even then. There is NO QUESTION > IMO that > the withdrawn call is UI. Nothing in this Law says it isn't Except for "the auction proceeds without further rectification", and "Law 16D does not apply". > and there's > plenty of other laws which say it is. There may be a few such laws that apply in specific circumstances, but only L16D, which explicitly does not apply here (not that I would fault the tea-and-cucumber set for overlooking such esoteric explicit exclusions), addresses the general case of information from a withdrawn call. > The law tells us to get on with the > auction once the bid has been made good. Nothing else. In addition to the phrases quoted above, it should be noted that the original, now superceded, version of the 2008 incarnation of L27 was even more explicit: "the auction and play continues with the information arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both sides" [non-Law 27C1]. Neither anything in the reworded version nor anything that has appeared in this forum suggests that the writers intended to repudiate that principle when they reworded the law. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 25 16:15:30 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:15:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] English quiz In-Reply-To: <91C685AC-4510-4315-B4B8-0E4C13474A39@starpower.net> References: <001601c88d9c$f021a310$d064e930$@com> <004e01c88e10$9dd2fbd0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <91C685AC-4510-4315-B4B8-0E4C13474A39@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47E91712.1060102@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > There may be a few such laws that apply in specific circumstances, > but only L16D, which explicitly does not apply here (not that I would > fault the tea-and-cucumber set for overlooking such esoteric explicit > exclusions), addresses the general case of information from a > withdrawn call. > > >> The law tells us to get on with the >> auction once the bid has been made good. Nothing else. >> > > In addition to the phrases quoted above, it should be noted that the > original, now superceded, version of the 2008 incarnation of L27 was > even more explicit: "the auction and play continues with the > information arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both > sides" [non-Law 27C1]. Neither anything in the reworded version nor > anything that has appeared in this forum suggests that the writers > intended to repudiate that principle when they reworded the law. > > AG : there is, however, a problem with letting the bidding go with AI. Assume you don't use IMR or any other form of forcing raises in a minor. I know many pairs who don't. Partner opens 1D. You respond 1D. You're told it's insufficient, and they disallow the call, so you correct to 2D, with additional information that you hold an opening bid. This means you're better placed than without the infraction (where you would probably have had to manufacture a false 2C bid). This is apparently covered by the Laws, but you tell us that there can't be any penalty. 1) How do you intend to extricate yourself of this contradiction ? 2) If the answer is that the "better placed after the infraction" proviso takes preceedence (as I would like it to), this means the final decision of correcting or not would depend on the pair's system (if they played 1D-2D forcing, there is nothing gained through the infraction). Do the Laws allow thisr ? 3) And do we have to check the pair's system in detail, after we made a "let it go through" L27 ruling ? Best regards Alain From john at asimere.com Tue Mar 25 18:15:23 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:15:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] There they're References: <000101c88bc7$8a36d060$9ea47120$@com> <47E8BB8A.1070809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002801c88e9b$d010b4d0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 8:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] There they're David Burn a ?crit : > This has nothing to do with the Laws of bridge at all. But I would be > grateful for any response, though you do not have to bother. > > In a report of an international basketball game between the newly-founded > People's Republic of Myunklstan and the strongly-fancied Allovia, the > following sentences appear: > > Myunklstan played superbly. [blank1] defended particularly well, and all > of > [blank2] players contributed to the victory. > > Would you, if you were writing the report, replace [blank1] by "It" or by > "They"? Would you replace [blank2] by "its" or by "their"? Having made > your > choice, would you consider the alternative: (a) perfectly acceptable; (b) > wrong but not objectionably so; (c) illiterate? > >As a purist, I claim that (b) doesn't exist. Alain, I will come clean. Despite my penchant for using my local argot, my parents insisted that I used number correctly. Examples; It is common in computing to say "the data is" and in a computing sense this is acceptable. To me it feels wrong as "data" is a plural noun and so I routinely used "The data are" in my computing career. On the other hand my daughter, a classicist, uses "Data are" as part of her normal speech. I was castigated for "None are .." and to this day use "None is .." etc In David's Brit. Eng.example above I am consciously aware that the subject of the sentence is a singular implied noun (the team) and I naturally use the correct number when conjugating. My local argot would use the plural form, as indeed would most of those who feel an evening well spent involves swilling Eurofizz and watching their team cavort across a sports arena. I am in a minority, without doubt, amongst Brits. It means I won't split an infinitive; to me "to boldly go" is symptomatic of use of a language where the users have no concept of the etymological origins, ancestry nor antiquity of the language. When we start translating it becomes a minefield; the frogs, for example, and no doubt all the Romance speakers as well as, I think, the Chinese use their possessive not to indicate to whom ownership is referred but the gender of the friggin noun. As I'm a Brit you'll understand that I care neither a fig nor Victoria plum for the gender of the noun, since most nouns don't have one, but the clarity is enhanced if the possessive links back to the subject. "She's his wife" translates into French as: "She's her wife", so to speak. Ye Gods, I always knew the frogs were bent. Now there's no problem with American English; Kojak uses it with awesome power - some of his mots justes raise the hair on the back of my neck, but I choose to speak British English - we have little else left of which to be proud. The interpretation of bridge Law should be undertaken from a British English pov imo as the copyright is vested in The Portland Club, a most British Institution. Peace Kojak, Grattan's the Brit. cheers John >When I had courses on English stylistics (of which I forgot a huge part, >as you might notice), there was a strong insistance on the fact that, in >such occirrences, English uses the plural form, contrary to French >(especially in the second example). >In general, in many such cases, French sticks to grammaticality >(singular subject), while. English puts more emphasis on sense (the >players are plural, aren't they ?) ; that's called a syllepsis. Yep, I'd noticed this a lot with my French friends how the grammar is much more important than the sense. We were, however, absolutely delighted when, to our mutual satisfaction, we translated "dickhead" as "tete de nuss" :) >Best tegards > Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Tue Mar 25 18:27:40 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:27:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 References: Message-ID: <004501c88e9d$874bca80$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: ton To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] More queries on Law 27 Reg Busch: (a) Under 27B1(a) the IB is exempt from Law 16D and is AI. Under 27B1(b) this exemption does not apply. So I presume that in allowing a change under 27B1(b), the TD should warn the side that the IB is UI, and that I may adjust under either Law 16D or Law 27D. ton: It is my personal opinion that also in L 27B1b L16D does not apply. I agree that the wording makes life (also mine) difficult. Hmm, another minefield. I explain that it makes most sense to treat the substituted call as if it were the only call seen on the basis that the side will not then be open to an adjustment under 27D. I am strongly of the opinion that the purpose of 27b1 is to let the auction continue "normally" but subject to adjustment if use is made of the UI inherent in the original call. Per se the substitution is not subject to 16, but "withdrawn calls" contain UI however we look at it. I do not believe that f2f one can have 1H (P) 1H corrected to 2H without being totally aware of what the substituted 1H call purported to indicate. John _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 25 18:37:34 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:37:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <47E85F60.80101@nhcc.net> References: <200803051816.m25IGFkV024245@cfa.harvard.edu> <47E85F60.80101@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <8D386C82-3B04-4CA3-8123-A5E73F0155E5@starpower.net> On Mar 24, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "David Burn" >> If North says "I thought it was my deal", or "I thought South >> opened 1C", >> then this gives UI (Unincorporated Information) to South, > > I think it's not clear how to treat this. The obvious, literal way is > UI under L16, but I'm afraid that will be too complicated. A simpler > way is, as I think David is suggesting, to treat "information conveyed > by the IB" as including the additional information about why the IB > was > made. > >> This is why I think it may be better not to ask North why he made the >> IB; just ask him what the RC means, and whether it is consistent >> with some >> hand that would have made the IB if sufficient in some auctions. > > This seems exactly right to me. Absent some indication from North, > there is no way to know why he made the IB except from the logic of > the > auction. Most likely an insufficient 1C was intended as an opening > bid, > but 1C-1S-1H could have been intended either as an opening bid or a > response to 1C. Perhaps other things as well. In my view, the TD > should avoid revealing which is the actual case unless North has > already > blurted it out. > > From: Herman De Wael >> Now, the original intent >> becomes important every time, and the TD needs to know it before he >> can rule which, if any, calls will be allowed "unpunished". > > No; the TD only needs to know the _union_ of all possible original > intents. > > From: Eric Landau >> I don't see anything that requires the TD to limit his ruling to only >> one possibility, but nor do I see anything that says that the TD must >> determine "the possible meanings of the IB" without any prior >> investigation either. The law leaves the determination of "the >> possible meanings" to the TD; presumably that determination is >> subject to the same investigation of the facts as any other. > > Of course. All I'm claiming is that the investigation should be > limited > to facts such as system in use and remarks made or not made. > There's no > need to judge the IBer's state of mind. > >> The >> bidder's stated intention will presumably be relevant to that >> determination > > Only if the bidder has revealed what that intent was. > >> But if you allow the "possible meanings" to be >> limited (potentially to the IBer's advantage) if and when the IBer >> prematurely exposes his intentions prior to the director's arrival, >> you must offer the same opportunity to the IBer who has properly kept >> quiet until the director arrives, lest he be disadvantaged by having >> followed correct procedure. > > In general, the more possible meanings there are, the wider the > range of > possible replacement calls will be. So it should normally be to > IBer's > advantage not to reveal his intention. I can't immediately > construct a > case where it would be advantageous to the IBer to reveal his > intention > unless he intends to silence partner, but that's dealt with under L23. > >> Nothing in L27 stops you from asking, and IMO you should. > > Why? I can't see any possible advantage in asking. > > From: >> For the Director >> it does matter what the player thought he was doing when he made >> the IB. > > Again, why? This seems contrary to the plain language, and I can't > see > any advantage of adopting such an interpretation (though no doubt > doing > so is within the authority of RAs). > > Of course the NOS should be asked whether IBer has revealed his > intention, whether explicitly or by any hint. If so, the TD will need > to take that into account. But I don't see any reason the TD should > investigate the actual intention if it's otherwise unknown. > >> +=+ Failure to mention Law 26 in B1 may possibly mean >> that it was considered to be included in the statement >> "without further rectification". It all depends whether a >> 'restriction' is a 'rectification' (defined as 'the remedial >> provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come >> to the Director's attention'). > > I can't see how what we used to call "lead penalties" could be > considered other than rectification. The question is whether such a > rectification applies. It seems logically it should not. In > 27B1a, the > denomination was "specified in the legal auction," so there's no > problem > there. In 27B1b, the IB conveys no information not conveyed by the > RC, > so there's no logical reason for lead penalties. Despite that, the > language is sufficiently ambiguous that it could be interpreted either > way. I suggest the DSC issue the sensible interpretation. > > In contrast, in L27B2 and B3, there is some information conveyed and > therefore a logical justification for lead penalties. (Pardon me. I > need to get used to writing "rectification.") > >> From: "David Burn" >> ...a pair playing >> four-card majors may bid 1H-2NT (Jacoby) having previously bid 1H-1H, >> because both the second 1H call and the replacement 2NT show >> opening values >> with 4+ hearts. > > OK. > >> But a pair playing five-card majors may not make this >> replacement, because the second 1H call shows at least five hearts >> while the >> replacement 2NT shows at least four (and is therefore less precise >> - there >> are more hands with at least four hearts than with at least five). >> >> That seems a bit silly. But... > > Why does it seem silly? If you know the 1H IB _was intended as an > opening_, then this seems completely straightforward. The fifth heart > was revealed by the IB, not the RC. In general, though, you will know > nothing of the sort. Why couldn't 1H have been intended as a response > to a 1m (probably 1D) opening? In that case, it shows (typically) 4+ > hearts and 6+ points, and 2NT will be allowed. This illustrates the > advantage to IBer of not making his intention known. I wonder whether Steve has fallen into the error of interpreting L27B1 (b) "backwards", as some of his conclusions suggest that he may have. To the question of whether the IBer's "intent" (i.e. what he thought the auction to be at the point he made the IB) is to be revealed, there are three possible viewpoints: (1) The TD does not need it, and it is UI to the IBer's partner. In Steve's words, "the TD only needs to know the _union_ of all possible original intents"; he interprets "the possible meanings of the IB" [L27B1(b)] not as the possible meanings of the intended IB but as the union of all the possible meanings of all the possibly intended IBs, and applies L27B1(b) to that set. The former set will be disjoint only in a very few rare cases; the latter, if indeed there is more than one possibility (surely if there is only one possible "meaning of the IB", that can't be UI!), will be disjoint most of the time, as it is in this example. Given a disjoint set, L27B1(b) can never apply (there can be no call that simultaneously has "the same... or a more precise meaning than" both 13+ HCP and 6-10 HCP). Even in the special case where the set turns out not to be disjoint, there will be far fewer opportunities for L27B1(b) corrections under this interpretation, as it will still be significantly larger. Given that TPTB just rewrote L27B1 to make it applicable far more widely than would have been the (presumably unintended) case under the replaced wording, it seems wrong to interpret what we have to reduce the number of cases to which it would apply, relatively speaking, to nearly zero. Moreover, when Steve carries this interpretation forward, he discovers that "the bidder's stated intention will... be relevant to that determination only if the bidder has revealed what that intent was". But for it to be relevant would be taking a totally unprecedented view of how we handle UI. The presence of UI should not be able to affect the rectification of a non-UI infraction other than by imposing the L16 restrictions on the use of the UI; it would seem awfully peculiar for it to interact directly with the applicability of the criteria in L27B1, which have nothing to do with UI. Steve does not see this as a problem, because he believes that "it should normally be to IBer's advantage not to reveal his intention" (he goes on to say, "I can't immediately construct a case where it would be advantageous to the IBer to reveal his intention unless he intends to silence partner"). But that is reading L27B1(b) backwards. If when the "IBer has revealed his intention... the TD will... take that into account", then the IBer, by revealing his intention, may make a prospective replacement call available without penalty under L27B1(b) where it would otherwise not have been. (2) The TD must ascertain it in order to apply L27 correctly, but if revealed by the IBer is (still) UI to the IBer's partner. Yesterday I asked whether L10C1 entitled an IBer to be informed by the TD as to what his L27B1(b)-compliant options are. I believe it does, and I argue that if it does, then this interpretation becomes untenable. For starters, it would create immense practical difficulties. To avoid creating the UI himself, the TD would not be able to conduct his inquiry at the table. It may be OK to walk a player a few tables away to ask a quick question or two, but we're talking here about a much more extensive inquiry which could potentially disrupt play at nearby tables for several minutes; it would be incumbent upon the TD to conduct his investigation -- in real time -- outside of the playing area altogether. His eventual ruling will depend on what he learns of not only the IBer's intent but also the IBer's bidding agreements, and when he communicates his ruling to the table, it may be possible for the IBer's partner to deduce the IBer's intent *from the ruling* (even if he only communicates the final choice made by the IBer (which may not be legal), it may still be possible to deduce the ruling, and thence the finding). The information thus deduced "arises from [the OS's] own withdrawn action" [L16D2], would normally be UI, but is AI due to the explicit inapplicability of L16D when L27B1 has been applied -- even if it might otherwise be deemed UI by L16B1(a). When we put this all together, we discover that whether the meaning of the IB is AI or UI to the IBer's partner may well depend not on anything the IBer has done or said, but on the partnership's bidding agreements! That would seem extraordinarily odd, and rather unfair. (3) The TD must ascertain it in order to apply L27 correctly, and the IBer's partner is entitled to it. Or, in Steve's words, "treat 'information conveyed by the IB' as including the additional information about why the IB was made". Given that L16D prevents the IBer's side from ever obtaining a better result than they might have absent the IB, whether or not the IBer's partner "uses" the information as the meaning of the IB, I see no problem with letting him have it and do what he will with it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Tue Mar 25 18:18:30 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:18:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? References: <014401c88e5e$62b22050$281660f0$@nl> Message-ID: <003101c88e9c$3f30e330$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans van Staveren" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:55 AM Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? > West opens 2H on > > T5 > KJT42 > AJ53 > 92 > > Alerted and explained as weak with both majors. Auction continues, with NS > bidding 4S, making 12 tricks. NS now claim that had they known they could > have bid 6. > > TD investigates, and finds convention card of EW also stating weak with > both > majors. According to EW they play together for 5 years with this system, > and > West was temporarily confused. > > Is there anything the TD needs to investigate, or is this the end with > table > result standing? "Has this temporary confusion occured before and recently in your partnership?" John > > Hans > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 25 18:51:06 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:51:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] multiple infractions in the auction In-Reply-To: <001901c88e27$05df7b20$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <001901c88e27$05df7b20$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:19 PM, John ((MadDog)) Probst wrote: > So I arrive at the table today and I can see 1C [3rd seat] (P) 1D > and am > about to be mildly dismissive, but the table is in hysterics so I > diligently > apply my Spanish Inquisition techniques. The auction has actually > proceeded: > > S W N E (South dealer) > . . . . P > . . . 1C > 1D > > Pass in 4th; followed by 1C in 3rd followed by 1D in 1st. The calls > are not > remotely simultaneous > > 4th seat volunteers that the Pass card was left over from the > previous hand. > 3rd seat (a blmler) asks does her 1C condone the POOT (if indeed it > was a > POOT). 1st seat volunteers he looked up from having sorted his hand > to see > 1C (P) and responded 1D. The table is creased up laughing (they do > it just > to annoy, I think) I know all of them well and they assure me this > _really > really_ has happened. It won't be a wind up. > > Your go :) S is barred from the auction, W's turn on P-, lead restriction on N (for diamonds) if E-W declare. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 25 19:05:12 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:05:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <902E3608-3AB8-49E0-8CE5-6D27899FE170@starpower.net> On Mar 25, 2008, at 2:10 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > > [snip] > >> BTW, there are partnerships where one player always overbids and >> the other always underbids. How would you deal with them ? > > Law 40B2(a): > > "...the general requirement that the meaning of a call or play > shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by > whom it is made[] (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method)." If chronic overbidding or underbidding isn't a matter of style rather than method, what is? The distinction must mean something. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 25 19:18:17 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:18:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: <014401c88e5e$62b22050$281660f0$@nl> References: <014401c88e5e$62b22050$281660f0$@nl> Message-ID: <120C9603-8C51-4CD2-ADB7-4F0BB672AA3B@starpower.net> On Mar 25, 2008, at 5:55 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > West opens 2H on > > T5 > KJT42 > AJ53 > 92 > > Alerted and explained as weak with both majors. Auction continues, > with NS > bidding 4S, making 12 tricks. NS now claim that had they known they > could > have bid 6. > > TD investigates, and finds convention card of EW also stating weak > with both > majors. According to EW they play together for 5 years with this > system, and > West was temporarily confused. > > Is there anything the TD needs to investigate, or is this the end > with table > result standing? The TD should verify that there is no gross inconsistency between East's explanation (both majors) and his subsequent actions (auction and play) -- which seems nearly certain in this perfectly honest- sounding scenario -- then, the end with table result standing. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 25 19:56:59 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:56:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: <000b01c88e6d$1fa0caf0$5ee260d0$@com> References: <01a801c88a1a$aa9ae5c0$575b9951@stefanie> <000b01c88e6d$1fa0caf0$5ee260d0$@com> Message-ID: On Mar 25, 2008, at 7:41 AM, David Burn wrote: > [RH] > > However, Law 23 does not bar better bids that you discover after > the fact, > known as "rub of the green". > > For example, if you make an insufficient bid which cannot be > untangled, so > partner must call an enforced pass, and you choose a rational guess of > punting 3NT, you keep your top if the field has had a scientific > auction to > 6NT failing by one trick due to a 5-0 break. > > [RH] > > "...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..." > > [DALB] > > What is truth, and what is fable? Where is Ruth, and where is Mabel? It is all truth; the fable is where we fut our cards. Ruth is in the expectation, where 6NT is superior to 3NT; Mabel is in the actuality, where 3NT is superior to 6NT. The law-writers are to be commended for making it unambiguously clear that it is Ruth, not Mabel, that counts here, by including the reference to "expectation" (cited by Richard above) in the new L12. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Mar 25 20:12:39 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:12:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <01a801c88a1a$aa9ae5c0$575b9951@stefanie> <000b01c88e6d$1fa0caf0$5ee260d0$@com> Message-ID: <001c01c88eac$34cf2950$9e6d7bf0$@com> [EL] On Mar 25, 2008, at 7:41 AM, David Burn wrote: > [RH] > However, Law 23 does not bar better bids that you discover after > the fact, known as "rub of the green". > For example, if you make an insufficient bid which cannot be untangled, so > partner must call an enforced pass, and you choose a rational guess of > punting 3NT, you keep your top if the field has had a scientific > auction to 6NT failing by one trick due to a 5-0 break. > [RH] > "...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..." > [DALB] > What is truth, and what is fable? Where is Ruth, and where is Mabel? It is all truth; the fable is where we fut our cards. Ruth is in the expectation, where 6NT is superior to 3NT; Mabel is in the actuality, where 3NT is superior to 6NT. The law-writers are to be commended for making it unambiguously clear that it is Ruth, not Mabel, that counts here, by including the reference to "expectation" (cited by Richard above) in the new L12. [DALB] It is not clear to me whether you would then adjust the score to 6NT down one, which was the expectation had the infraction not occurred, or leave it at 3NT making five, the actual table result. Richard seems to me to consider on the one hand that the 3NT bidders keep their top, and on the other that the innocent side has suffered damage and is entitled to redress. One would expect the Australian answer to "Where is Ruth and where is Mabel?" to be "Drinking - strewth! Under the table." David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 25 21:26:28 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:26:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] English quiz In-Reply-To: <47E91712.1060102@ulb.ac.be> References: <001601c88d9c$f021a310$d064e930$@com> <004e01c88e10$9dd2fbd0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <91C685AC-4510-4315-B4B8-0E4C13474A39@starpower.net> <47E91712.1060102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6263FB54-D6A8-4AF1-A548-1BB5CBCE7E1D@starpower.net> On Mar 25, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> There may be a few such laws that apply in specific circumstances, >> but only L16D, which explicitly does not apply here (not that I would >> fault the tea-and-cucumber set for overlooking such esoteric explicit >> exclusions), addresses the general case of information from a >> withdrawn call. >> >>> The law tells us to get on with the >>> auction once the bid has been made good. Nothing else. >> >> In addition to the phrases quoted above, it should be noted that the >> original, now superceded, version of the 2008 incarnation of L27 was >> even more explicit: "the auction and play continues with the >> information arising from the withdrawn bid authorized for both >> sides" [non-Law 27C1]. Neither anything in the reworded version nor >> anything that has appeared in this forum suggests that the writers >> intended to repudiate that principle when they reworded the law. > > AG : there is, however, a problem with letting the bidding go with AI. > > Assume you don't use IMR or any other form of forcing raises in a > minor. > I know many pairs who don't. > > Partner opens 1D. You respond 1D. You're told it's insufficient, and > they disallow the call, so you correct to 2D, with additional > information that you hold an opening bid. > This means you're better placed than without the infraction (where you > would probably have had to manufacture a false 2C bid). This is > apparently covered by the Laws, but you tell us that there can't be > any > penalty. I (actually TFLB) have said that "the auction proceeds without further rectification" [L27B1], so there can be no further penalty (in the auction, at least, but that's another thread) once L27B1 is held to apply. I (actually TFLB) have also said that "Law 16D does not apply" [ibid], so there can be no penalty imposed under L16D. If indeed the information is authorized, as L27B1 suggests and "non-Law 27C1" explicitly states, using it can neither be an infraction nor incur a penalty. But L27B1 does not make the original infraction -- the IB itself -- unhappen, and it remains explicitly subject to rectification under L27D ("but see D following"). I'll let the semanticists worry about whether it's proper to call that a "penalty". > 1) How do you intend to extricate yourself of this contradiction ? By enforcing L27D. An IBer may be "better placed than without the infraction" for reaching a superior contract, but L27D insures that he cannot be "better placed" for getting a better score even if so, so there's really no contradiction involved. > 2) If the answer is that the "better placed after the infraction" > proviso takes preceedence (as I would like it to), this means the > final > decision of correcting or not would depend on the pair's system (if > they > played 1D-2D forcing, there is nothing gained through the infraction). > Do the Laws allow thisr ? It doesn't matter where one is "placed after the infraction"; L27D is concerned only with whether "the [ultimate] outcome of the board could... have been different" from "the probable outcome of the board had the IB not occurred". Nevertheless, it remains true, as Alain says, that "the final decision of correcting or not [] depend[s] on the pair's system". If, for example, opener treats responder's systemically weak 2D raise as forcing based on the knowledge that partner attempted to open the bidding, and, as a result, reaches the same contract that he would have reached absent the IB after his partner made some different, systemically correct, forcing response that he couldn't make after the IB without barring him, L27D mandates that the result stand. Only if his system might not have gotten him to the same (or a better) contract without having made the IB in the first place do we adjust. > 3) And do we have to check the pair's system in detail, after we > made a > "let it go through" L27 ruling ? The way I read the combination of L27B1 and L10C1, we may well have to check the pair's system in detail *before* we can make a "let it go through" L27 ruling. From a purely practical perspective, I worry that this may be the 800-pound gorilla that slipped into the room unnoticed when the new L27 arrived. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Mar 25 21:37:06 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:37:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] multiple infractions in the auction In-Reply-To: <001901c88e27$05df7b20$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <956268.46453.qm@web86115.mail.ird.yahoo.com> West was actually dealer and South is the one who passed first. though in the explanation you have got it right. I don't think South said the Pass was left over; I certainly saw him put it on the table. What he said was that the table was so crowded with things like Bobby's pint that he couldn't see anything properly. Cheers Stefanie --- "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > So I arrive at the table today and I can see 1C [3rd > seat] (P) 1D and am > about to be mildly dismissive, but the table is in > hysterics so I diligently > apply my Spanish Inquisition techniques. The auction > has actually proceeded: > > S W N E (South dealer) > . . . . P > . . . 1C > 1D > > Pass in 4th; followed by 1C in 3rd followed by 1D in > 1st. The calls are not > remotely simultaneous > > 4th seat volunteers that the Pass card was left over > from the previous hand. > 3rd seat (a blmler) asks does her 1C condone the > POOT (if indeed it was a > POOT). 1st seat volunteers he looked up from having > sorted his hand to see > 1C (P) and responded 1D. The table is creased up > laughing (they do it just > to annoy, I think) I know all of them well and they > assure me this _really > really_ has happened. It won't be a wind up. > > Your go :) John > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Mar 25 21:39:08 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:39:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <813386.34320.qm@web86105.mail.ird.yahoo.com> --- Eric Landau wrote: > On Mar 23, 2008, at 8:12 AM, > wrote: > > > +=+ It seems to me, Kojak, that the (all too > frequent) differences > > of opinion on the laws between Ton and myself stem > mainly from > > the difference between the ways in which > respectively we read the > > language, both in the law book and in our e-mails. > Occasionally > > perhaps, we increase the problem by careless > attention to exactly > > what is written. Fortunately it is only what is > agreed corporately > > that truly counts. It occurs to me that > differences of understanding > > were almost certainly not always revealed in the > course of writing > > the laws and in this it matters what others of us > understand. > > Will the WBF never learn that that is what > inevitably happens when a > group of writers working on a single product refuse > to subject their > work to independent outside review before they > declare it final and > untouchable? > Perhaps not. It seems to me that what "truly counts" is the meaning the rank-and-file directors arrive at when they try to read and apply a Law. Certainly nothing other than the lawbook ever filters down to them. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Mar 25 21:46:22 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:46:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] multiple infractions in the auction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <847102.66198.qm@web86101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Let me clear this up. It was West's deal. South passed, East opened 1C, and West, seeing a normal-looking auction, responded 1D. --- Eric Landau wrote: > On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:19 PM, John ((MadDog)) Probst > wrote: > > > So I arrive at the table today and I can see 1C > [3rd seat] (P) 1D > > and am > > about to be mildly dismissive, but the table is in > hysterics so I > > diligently > > apply my Spanish Inquisition techniques. The > auction has actually > > proceeded: > > > > S W N E (South dealer) > > . . . . P > > . . . 1C > > 1D > > > > Pass in 4th; followed by 1C in 3rd followed by 1D > in 1st. The calls > > are not > > remotely simultaneous > > > > 4th seat volunteers that the Pass card was left > over from the > > previous hand. > > 3rd seat (a blmler) asks does her 1C condone the > POOT (if indeed it > > was a > > POOT). 1st seat volunteers he looked up from > having sorted his hand > > to see > > 1C (P) and responded 1D. The table is creased up > laughing (they do > > it just > > to annoy, I think) I know all of them well and > they assure me this > > _really > > really_ has happened. It won't be a wind up. > > > > Your go :) > > S is barred from the auction, W's turn on P-, lead > restriction on N > (for diamonds) if E-W declare. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Tue Mar 25 21:51:30 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:51:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] multiple infractions in the auction In-Reply-To: <47E8C097.90606@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <357723.85017.qm@web86108.mail.ird.yahoo.com> > The left-over pass isn't a call on the current deal, > therefore not a POOT. I was not aware of this claim at the time, but it is not true. We were all sorting our cards on this deal, and then the Pass was placed on the table. I was there, and should know, but in any case the problem is more interesting that way anyhow. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 25 22:08:00 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:08:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: <001c01c88eac$34cf2950$9e6d7bf0$@com> References: <01a801c88a1a$aa9ae5c0$575b9951@stefanie> <000b01c88e6d$1fa0caf0$5ee260d0$@com> <001c01c88eac$34cf2950$9e6d7bf0$@com> Message-ID: <3B8FC902-F660-4C4F-9C9E-31B3D22157E7@starpower.net> On Mar 25, 2008, at 3:12 PM, David Burn wrote: > [EL] > > On Mar 25, 2008, at 7:41 AM, David Burn wrote: > >> [RH] > >> However, Law 23 does not bar better bids that you discover after >> the fact, known as "rub of the green". > >> For example, if you make an insufficient bid which cannot be >> untangled, so >> partner must call an enforced pass, and you choose a rational >> guess of >> punting 3NT, you keep your top if the field has had a scientific >> auction to 6NT failing by one trick due to a 5-0 break. > >> [RH] > >> "...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..." > >> [DALB] > >> What is truth, and what is fable? Where is Ruth, and where is Mabel? > > It is all truth; the fable is where we fut our cards. Ruth is in the > expectation, where 6NT is superior to 3NT; Mabel is in the > actuality, where > 3NT is superior to 6NT. > > The law-writers are to be commended for making it unambiguously > clear that > it is Ruth, not Mabel, that counts here, by including the reference to > "expectation" (cited by Richard above) in the new L12. > > [DALB] > > It is not clear to me whether you would then adjust the score to > 6NT down > one, which was the expectation had the infraction not occurred, or > leave it > at 3NT making five, the actual table result. Richard seems to me to > consider > on the one hand that the 3NT bidders keep their top, and on the > other that > the innocent side has suffered damage and is entitled to redress. > > One would expect the Australian answer to "Where is Ruth and where is > Mabel?" to be "Drinking - strewth! Under the table." I let them keep their top. David has convinced me that the citation from L12 (by RH, above) is ambiguous if read literally, as one cannot quantitatively compare an actual "table result" to a probabilistic "expectation". Thus I have been (and will continue) reading "the table result" as "the expected value of the table result at the time of the infraction". Since it was presumably not known at the time of the infraction that the key suit would break 5-0, the expected value of reaching 3NT (consequent to the infraction) is (assuming the one key suit is the only issue, with the OS is NV, and using binomial approximation) roughly 487.5 (15/16 of 490 + 1/16 of 450), whereas the expected value of reaching 6NT (stipuated as likely absent the infraction) is roughly 925. The "rub of the green" principle says that we do not adjust if we determine that the infraction reduced the OS's expected result, regardless of what it did to their actual result. IOW, I rule that the NOS was not damaged by the OS's infraction, since the infraction reduced the OS's expectation below that "had the infraction not occurred". They were admittedly unlucky to be damaged by a 5-0 break in the key suit, but that was not due to anything the OS did. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 25 23:51:05 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:51:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01c88e6d$1fa0caf0$5ee260d0$@com> Message-ID: Richard Hills asserted: >>However, Law 23 does not bar better bids that you discover after the fact, >>known as "rub of the green". >> >>For example, if you make an insufficient bid which cannot be untangled, so >>partner must call an enforced pass, and you choose a rational guess of >>punting 3NT, you keep your top if the field has had a scientific auction >>to 6NT failing by one trick due to a 5-0 break. Richard Hills quoted an extract from the 2007 Law 12B1: >>"...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..." David Burn asked: >What is truth, and what is fable? Where is Ruth, and where is Mabel? Richard Hills notes: It is truth that the 2007 Law 12B1 says "_because_ of an infraction". It is fable that the 2007 Law 12B1 says "_after_ an infraction" or "_after_ a restriction imposed as rectification for an infraction". In a Bridge World editorial discussing the distinction between "consequent" and "subsequent", Edgar Kaplan noted that a bad bridge result was subsequent to the Battle of Waterloo, but was not _because_ of the Battle of Waterloo. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 25 23:59:43 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:59:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000b01c88e6d$1fa0caf0$5ee260d0$@com> Message-ID: <002301c88ecb$eb509050$c1f1b0f0$@com> [RH] It is truth that the 2007 Law 12B1 says "_because_ of an infraction". It is fable that the 2007 Law 12B1 says "_after_ an infraction" or "_after_ a restriction imposed as rectification for an infraction". In a Bridge World editorial discussing the distinction between "consequent" and "subsequent", Edgar Kaplan noted that a bad bridge result was subsequent to the Battle of Waterloo, but was not _because_ of the Battle of Waterloo. [DALB] Indeed. But in the given scenario [North corrects an IB to 3NT, barring South and missing a 95% 6NT that fails] North-South played in 3NT _because_ North committed an infraction; if he had not done so, North-South would have played in 6NT. David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 26 00:50:31 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:50:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <20080325080215.0ED583A@rhubarb.custard.org> References: <00d601c88d9d$1d9cb410$01d2403e@Mildred> <20080325080215.0ED583A@rhubarb.custard.org> Message-ID: <000b01c88ed3$02ba5a30$082f0e90$@no> On Behalf Of ton .................... May I after my quiz draw the conclusion that we need to do something to explain to the savages that in all cases were 27B1 allows the auction to be continued without further rectifications, L26 does not apply (if we agree on that)? ton Please do not confuse me more! Until I read this I was absolutely convinced that L26 never applies in those situations for which we find the words "without further rectification" in L27. If this understanding is not unanimous within WBFLC I shall be really worried. Regards Sven From john at asimere.com Wed Mar 26 02:10:16 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:10:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 References: <00d601c88d9d$1d9cb410$01d2403e@Mildred><20080325080215.0ED583A@rhubarb.custard.org> <000b01c88ed3$02ba5a30$082f0e90$@no> Message-ID: <003b01c88ede$27c699f0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] More queries on Law 27 > On Behalf Of ton > .................... > May I after my quiz draw the conclusion that we need to do something to > explain to the savages that in all cases were 27B1 allows the auction to > be > continued without further rectifications, > L26 does not apply (if we agree on that)? I believe that 26 does not apply when my 1950's mother makes her bid good. ... and it still doesn't today. Correcting 1NT to 2NT does not allow the ban of a suit; correcting 1H to 2H does not allow prohibition of nor insistence on a H. I believe one can interpret the Law to allow these prohibitions, since references are only to the auction, but it seems perverse to do so and the only thing that can be done is at the end of the hand when one can use 72B1 to stop "Probst cheats" from benefitting. The benefit can derive from appreciation of a different hand strength, or a better count of the hand. "Probst cheats" will, by definition, use any artifice. John > > ton > > Please do not confuse me more! > > Until I read this I was absolutely convinced that L26 never applies in > those > situations for which we find the words "without further rectification" in > L27. > > If this understanding is not unanimous within WBFLC I shall be really > worried. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 26 04:53:02 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:53:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: <3B8FC902-F660-4C4F-9C9E-31B3D22157E7@starpower.net> References: <01a801c88a1a$aa9ae5c0$575b9951@stefanie> <000b01c88e6d$1fa0caf0$5ee260d0$@com> <001c01c88eac$34cf2950$9e6d7bf0$@com> <3B8FC902-F660-4C4F-9C9E-31B3D22157E7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001901c88ef4$e414c530$ac3e4f90$@com> [EL] I rule [in a scenario where North has barred South by correcting an IB to 3NT, which makes five for a top because the field goes down in 6NT due to a very unlucky lie] that the NOS was not damaged by the OS's infraction, since the infraction reduced the OS's expectation below that "had the infraction not occurred". They were admittedly unlucky to be damaged by a 5-0 break in the key suit, but that was not due to anything the OS did. [DALB] Indeed, but that is no longer the question. The Director is supposed to use the (stupid) meta-Laws such as L27D to "rectify" the position to what it would in his best judgement have been "had the infraction not occurred". At least, that is what he is supposed to do in the case of insufficient bids, if I understand Kojak aright. Well, if this infraction had not occurred, North-South would have played 6NT down one. They played 3NT making five because North committed an infraction. He could not have known that it would benefit his side, so no application of some other (stupid) meta-Law such as L23 will avail. Why let the table result stand? I know that the NOS was "damaged by" the 5-0 break, but it was "damaged because of" the infraction in a manner so direct that Kaplan's arguments about the Battle of Waterloo are irrelevant. But even that is no longer the question. The new L12B1 says this: 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. The term "expectation" is not defined within the Laws. It has, of course, a particular and precise significance in game theory; it has also a general connotation that has little or nothing to do with the mathematical one. Eric uses the mathematical definition of "expectation" in his arguments, but it is very far from clear to me that this is what was intended. I wonder how it has been translated into Japanese, and how the Japanese would be translated back into English by someone other than Robert Geller. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 26 07:27:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:27:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901c88ef4$e414c530$ac3e4f90$@com> Message-ID: David Burn: [snip] >The new L12B1 says this: > >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. > >The term "expectation" is not defined within the Laws. It has, of course, a >particular and precise significance in game theory; it has also a general >connotation that has little or nothing to do with the mathematical one. >Eric uses the mathematical definition of "expectation" in his arguments, >but it is very far from clear to me that this is what was intended. I >wonder how it has been translated into Japanese, and how the Japanese would >be translated back into English by someone other than Robert Geller. The new Law 12C1(c): "In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results." Richard Hills: I would expectantly expect "expectation" to have the intended meaning of "the weighted probabilities of a number of potential results". Note that the weightings are of "a posteriori" **results**. Not being weighed in the balance are any "a priori" game theoretical single-dummy analyses. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 sater at xs4all.nl Wed Mar 26 08:32:30 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:32:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: <003101c88e9c$3f30e330$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <014401c88e5e$62b22050$281660f0$@nl> <003101c88e9c$3f30e330$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <016c01c88f13$8e82b360$ab881a20$@nl> Sequel: the TD investigated, asking the sort of questions suggested by repliers. East bid normally. Director let table result stand. NS went to the tournament AC. That ruled: The explanation of 2H coincides with the convention card but not with West's hand, so it must be the case that EW do not have a firm agreement. Therefore the explanation is wrong. However they do not think it likely that NS would bid 6, so again table result stands. EW do not agree on principle, and are thinking of going to the national appeal committee. What do you think their chances are? Hans van Staveren ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans van Staveren" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:55 AM Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? > West opens 2H on > > T5 > KJT42 > AJ53 > 92 > > Alerted and explained as weak with both majors. Auction continues, with NS > bidding 4S, making 12 tricks. NS now claim that had they known they could > have bid 6. > > TD investigates, and finds convention card of EW also stating weak with > both > majors. According to EW they play together for 5 years with this system, > and > West was temporarily confused. > > Is there anything the TD needs to investigate, or is this the end with > table > result standing? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Mar 26 09:02:05 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:02:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: <016c01c88f13$8e82b360$ab881a20$@nl> References: <014401c88e5e$62b22050$281660f0$@nl> <003101c88e9c$3f30e330$0901a8c0@JOHN> <016c01c88f13$8e82b360$ab881a20$@nl> Message-ID: On 26/03/2008, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Sequel: the TD investigated, asking the sort of questions suggested by > repliers. East bid normally. Director let table result stand. > > NS went to the tournament AC. That ruled: > The explanation of 2H coincides with the convention card but not with West's > hand, so it must be the case that EW do not have a firm agreement. Therefore > the explanation is wrong. However they do not think it likely that NS would > bid 6, so again table result stands. > > EW do not agree on principle, and are thinking of going to the national > appeal committee. What do you think their chances are? > The decision by the AC seem ridiculous to me. So I agree with taking the case to the NA on principles. I'm pretty sure our LC would reinstall the TDs ruling here. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > Hans van Staveren > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hans van Staveren" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:55 AM > Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? > > > > West opens 2H on > > > > T5 > > KJT42 > > AJ53 > > 92 > > > > Alerted and explained as weak with both majors. Auction continues, with NS > > bidding 4S, making 12 tricks. NS now claim that had they known they could > > have bid 6. > > > > TD investigates, and finds convention card of EW also stating weak with > > both > > majors. According to EW they play together for 5 years with this system, > > and > > West was temporarily confused. > > > > Is there anything the TD needs to investigate, or is this the end with > > table > > result standing? > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 26 10:20:27 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:20:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] There they're In-Reply-To: <002801c88e9b$d010b4d0$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <000101c88bc7$8a36d060$9ea47120$@com> <47E8BB8A.1070809@ulb.ac.be> <002801c88e9b$d010b4d0$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <47EA155B.9080105@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > > Examples; It is common in computing to say "the data is" and in a computing > sense this is acceptable. To me it feels wrong as "data" is a plural noun > and so I routinely used "The data are" in my computing career. On the other > hand my daughter, a classicist, uses "Data are" as part of her normal > speech. I don't feel any difference. You're right, "data" is -etymologically- a plural. However, this doesn't prove anything : try saying "the quorum are" ... Yet, "quorum" is a plural (of "whose" or "of which" in latin : those.whose presence was requested) "Data", can perhaps be seen as a collective, a set, and therefore a singular, as is the case of "media" in French. > When we start translating it becomes a minefield; the frogs, for example, > and no doubt all the Romance speakers as well as, I think, the Chinese use > their possessive not to indicate to whom ownership is referred but the > gender of the friggin noun. Not quite. Spanish doesn't make any difference. "su" = "his, her, its". And Chinese doesn't have any gender markers. >> When I had courses on English stylistics (of which I forgot a huge part, >> as you might notice), there was a strong insistance on the fact that, in >> such occirrences, English uses the plural form, contrary to French >> (especially in the second example). >> In general, in many such cases, French sticks to grammaticality >> (singular subject), while. English puts more emphasis on sense (the >> players are plural, aren't they ?) ; that's called a syllepsis. >> > > Yep, I'd noticed this a lot with my French friends how the grammar is much > more important than the sense. We were, however, absolutely delighted when, > to our mutual satisfaction, we translated "dickhead" as "tete de nuss" :) > I don't understand this ayt all. The latter word isn't French. Another singularity, so to speak, is than after "plus d'un" (more than one), one should use the singular form, because the verb comes after "one". Anyway, to come back to our original problem, translating bridge laws : building correct phrases will of course be more important than translating word-by-word. That's what translators are payed for, after all. And French ultra-grammaticality will make things simpler : for example, no need to use indefinite pronouns fort designating "le mort" (dummy) ; since "le mort" is masculine, only "il" (he) should be used. No, we don't speak of "la morte" when dummy happens to be a lady. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 26 10:35:50 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:35:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: <016c01c88f13$8e82b360$ab881a20$@nl> References: <014401c88e5e$62b22050$281660f0$@nl> <003101c88e9c$3f30e330$0901a8c0@JOHN> <016c01c88f13$8e82b360$ab881a20$@nl> Message-ID: <47EA18F6.5020701@ulb.ac.be> Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > Sequel: the TD investigated, asking the sort of questions suggested by > repliers. East bid normally. Director let table result stand. > > NS went to the tournament AC. That ruled: > The explanation of 2H coincides with the convention card but not with West's > hand, so it must be the case that EW do not have a firm agreement. Therefore > the explanation is wrong. However they do not think it likely that NS would > bid 6, so again table result stands. > > EW do not agree on principle, and are thinking of going to the national > appeal committee. What do you think their chances are? > If we follow the AC, this will mean that *everytime* a player errs in one's system, the decision will be "no firm agreement". I'd say this is ridiculous enough to appeal further, and ask the NAC to take a firm stand about this kind of situations, in general. Best regards Alain From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Mar 26 11:33:47 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:33:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: <47EA18F6.5020701@ulb.ac.be> References: <014401c88e5e$62b22050$281660f0$@nl> <003101c88e9c$3f30e330$0901a8c0@JOHN> <016c01c88f13$8e82b360$ab881a20$@nl> <47EA18F6.5020701@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <017a01c88f2c$e0b79600$a226c200$@nl> Forgive me father, for I have sinned. Actually the AC that gave this ruling was our Dutch national AC. So your chances in appeal are actually zero. As some of you might know we have this continuing battle in the Netherlands where our NAC has their own idea about what the rules should be. For reasons I cannot understand they still have not been fired. I just quit as a Dutch national TD because I cannot justify working for a bridge league that allows this to happen. Hans van Staveren -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner Sent: woensdag 26 maart 2008 10:36 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > Sequel: the TD investigated, asking the sort of questions suggested by > repliers. East bid normally. Director let table result stand. > > NS went to the tournament AC. That ruled: > The explanation of 2H coincides with the convention card but not with West's > hand, so it must be the case that EW do not have a firm agreement. Therefore > the explanation is wrong. However they do not think it likely that NS would > bid 6, so again table result stands. > > EW do not agree on principle, and are thinking of going to the national > appeal committee. What do you think their chances are? > If we follow the AC, this will mean that *everytime* a player errs in one's system, the decision will be "no firm agreement". I'd say this is ridiculous enough to appeal further, and ask the NAC to take a firm stand about this kind of situations, in general. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 26 10:25:27 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:25:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] English quiz In-Reply-To: <6263FB54-D6A8-4AF1-A548-1BB5CBCE7E1D@starpower.net> References: <001601c88d9c$f021a310$d064e930$@com> <004e01c88e10$9dd2fbd0$0901a8c0@JOHN> <91C685AC-4510-4315-B4B8-0E4C13474A39@starpower.net> <47E91712.1060102@ulb.ac.be> <6263FB54-D6A8-4AF1-A548-1BB5CBCE7E1D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <47EA1687.7030000@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > > The way I read the combination of L27B1 and L10C1, we may well have > to check the pair's system in detail *before* we can make a "let it > go through" L27 ruling. From a purely practical perspective, I worry > that this may be the 800-pound gorilla that slipped into the room > unnoticed when the new L27 arrived. > > > I encourage you all to read "gorillas in the midst", an article showing that people concentrating on a specific mental task could indeed let gorillas slip in unoticed. See for example AIR's website. Best regards Alain From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 26 13:36:05 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:36:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <001901c88ef4$e414c530$ac3e4f90$@com> Message-ID: <002601c88f3d$f830e4b0$e892ae10$@com> [RH] The new Law 12C1(c): "In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results." I would expectantly expect "expectation" to have the intended meaning of "the weighted probabilities of a number of potential results". [DALB] And what does it mean in places where the Regulating Authority forbids assigning adjusted scores on the basis of a sum of probabilities? Or did it not have any "intended meaning" there? [RH] Note that the weightings are of "a posteriori" **results**. Not being weighed in the balance are any "a priori" game theoretical single-dummy analyses. [DALB] In the scenario you gave, North-South have stopped in 3NT because of (and I use this phrase in full awareness of the difference between "subsequent" and "consequent") an infraction committed by North. This result was a top for North-South, because the field reached 6NT and failed due to a very unfortunate lie of cards. You have said that they should keep their top. But given what you have said above and elsewhere, it is impossible to understand why you think this. Would you please explain, pretending for one moment that you have not been assisting the WBF DSC and are therefore still capable (a) of speaking plain English and (b) of giving a straightforward answer to a straightforward question? David Burn London, England From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 26 14:05:45 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:05:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <20080325153545.EC5CD148011@maildelivery002.isp.belgacom.be> References: <20080325153545.EC5CD148011@maildelivery002.isp.belgacom.be> Message-ID: <47EA4A29.4050000@skynet.be> ton wrote: > > For the time being Ton is pushing his personal opinion of what Law 27B1 > means, not an authorized position of consensus. It is this that Kojak and I > are resisting. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > ton: > This really is plain nonsense. It is my daily job to try to understand what > the laws mean (goodness, this comes dangerously close to religious > behavior). When reading L27B1 once more and discussing it in my country I > found out that it seems to say that the lead penalties apply. > You made that my personal opinion and told me that I am wrong and Kojak > explained to the > world that my underdstanding of English is too poor to understand this law. > > May I after my quiz draw the conclusion that we need to do something to > explain to the savages that in all cases were 27B1 allows the auction to be > continued without further rectifications, > L26 does not apply (if we agree on that)? > > ton > I don't understand the problem. Have we changed the law so that we no longer have that a replacement call with the same meaning implies that although L26 applies, the lead penalties have disappeared? Do we now have cases in which L27 allows the replacement, L26 applies, and the lead penalties have not gone? > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 26 14:07:33 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:07:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: <001901c88ef4$e414c530$ac3e4f90$@com> References: <01a801c88a1a$aa9ae5c0$575b9951@stefanie> <000b01c88e6d$1fa0caf0$5ee260d0$@com> <001c01c88eac$34cf2950$9e6d7bf0$@com> <3B8FC902-F660-4C4F-9C9E-31B3D22157E7@starpower.net> <001901c88ef4$e414c530$ac3e4f90$@com> Message-ID: <9130E509-5944-449E-8CF5-2403F3BF3420@starpower.net> On Mar 25, 2008, at 11:53 PM, David Burn wrote: > [EL] > > I rule [in a scenario where North has barred South by correcting an > IB to > 3NT, which makes five for a top because the field goes down in 6NT > due to a > very unlucky lie] that the NOS was not damaged by the OS's > infraction, since > the infraction reduced the OS's expectation below that "had the > infraction > not occurred". They were admittedly unlucky to be damaged by a 5-0 > break in > the key suit, but that was not due to anything the OS did. > > [DALB] > > Indeed, but that is no longer the question. The Director is > supposed to use > the (stupid) meta-Laws such as L27D to "rectify" the position to > what it > would in his best judgement have been "had the infraction not > occurred". At > least, that is what he is supposed to do in the case of > insufficient bids, > if I understand Kojak aright. > > Well, if this infraction had not occurred, North-South would have > played 6NT > down one. They played 3NT making five because North committed an > infraction. > He could not have known that it would benefit his side, so no > application of > some other (stupid) meta-Law such as L23 will avail. Why let the table > result stand? I know that the NOS was "damaged by" the 5-0 break, > but it was > "damaged because of" the infraction in a manner so direct that > Kaplan's > arguments about the Battle of Waterloo are irrelevant. > > But even that is no longer the question. The new L12B1 says this: > > 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. > > The term "expectation" is not defined within the Laws. It has, of > course, a > particular and precise significance in game theory; it has also a > general > connotation that has little or nothing to do with the mathematical > one. Eric > uses the mathematical definition of "expectation" in his arguments, > but it > is very far from clear to me that this is what was intended. I > wonder how it > has been translated into Japanese, and how the Japanese would be > translated > back into English by someone other than Robert Geller. The thing about using actual results rather than some probabalistic expected value -- I doubt that David would call it a "problem" -- is that it means that a player who has committed an infraction is doomed perforce to getting a bad score, since any good score whatsoever, no matter how lucky, will be adjusted away. The sentimental softies who wrote TFLB apparently believed that a player who committed an infraction should be allowed an opportunity to recover from it, provided he is able to do so without any possibility of his having gained any advantage by virtue of his infraction. The result is the well-precedented doctrine we refer to as "rub of the green", which says that a lucky result in an inferior contract is not considered "consequent" damage. "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction" [L12B1]. "Consequent damage" is gain resulting from an "advantage" conferred by the infraction, not any gain whatsoever. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 26 14:09:15 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:09:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: <47E8ED64.7080303@ulb.ac.be> References: <014401c88e5e$62b22050$281660f0$@nl> <47E8ED64.7080303@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47EA4AFB.5030800@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Hans van Staveren a ?crit : >> West opens 2H on >> >> T5 >> KJT42 >> AJ53 >> 92 >> >> Alerted and explained as weak with both majors. Auction continues, with NS >> bidding 4S, making 12 tricks. NS now claim that had they known they could >> have bid 6. >> >> TD investigates, and finds convention card of EW also stating weak with both >> majors. According to EW they play together for 5 years with this system, and >> West was temporarily confused. >> >> Is there anything the TD needs to investigate, or is this the end with table >> result standing? >> > Apparently, the explanation coincides with the pair's notes. That's > enough evidence. > > This could well have happened to some Belgian players, who play this > with some, Dutch two-suiters (or Polish) with others. > > Now, if this pair made the same error several times, this would be > another story, as is the case with any systemic error. > I don't like the repeated error argument. The TD is never to know if the error has occured before or not. I would rule that in this case the opponents are entitled to the information "this shows the majors, but partner may occasionally be mistaken, because he plays Muyderberg with most partners". However, considering that opponents did manage to get to 4Sp, they must have realised this as well, so I would probably rule "no misinformation". > Best regards > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Wed Mar 26 15:24:25 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:24:25 +0000 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47EA5C99.8050306@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] I would expectantly expect "expectation" to have the intended meaning of "the weighted probabilities of a number of potential results". Note that the weightings are of "a posteriori" **results**. Not being weighed in the balance are any "a priori" game theoretical single-dummy analyses. [Nige1] Once again, BLML shows that neither law-makers nor directors agree about the meaning of Bridge law; but Richard is certainly correct that the law-makers would choose a complex and sophisticated interpretation. Their intention appears to be to maximise variance in director rulings. The more cross-references, considerations, options, statistical determinations, and assessments of intent, the greater the scope for incomprehension, inconsistent judgements, and unfairness :) or "Equity", to use the WBFLC term :) From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 26 10:33:14 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:33:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47EA185A.90803@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > The new Law 12C1(c): > > "In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an > assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a > number of potential results." > > Richard Hills: > > I would expectantly expect "expectation" to have the intended meaning of > "the weighted probabilities of a number of potential results". > > Correct IMOBO. > Note that the weightings are of "a posteriori" **results**. Not being > weighed in the balance are any "a priori" game theoretical single-dummy > analyses. > > Now I don't understand this. Results that weren't achieved at any table should occasionnally be taken into account, and how do you ascertain their possibility, if not by theoretical analysis ? Say the contract is an exotic 2HX. Every other declarer playing in 3NT and making 6. If trying to restore equity (after, for example, an undue hesitation from a honorless defender - excuse the pun), you might want to give both sides 65% of the score for guessing the crucial Queen right (570), and 35% of the score for not doing so (470). If all other declarers scored 490, that's 65% for declarer's side. Now nobody ever had any chance to score either 470 or 570. Surely we'll need some analysis to tell 470 and 570 are the possible scores ? Best regards Alain From mustikka at charter.net Wed Mar 26 18:21:21 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:21:21 -0700 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? References: <014401c88e5e$62b22050$281660f0$@nl><003101c88e9c$3f30e330$0901a8c0@JOHN> <016c01c88f13$8e82b360$ab881a20$@nl> Message-ID: <000901c88f65$cff46b70$81155e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans van Staveren" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? > Sequel: the TD investigated, asking the sort of questions suggested by > repliers. East bid normally. Director let table result stand. > > NS went to the tournament AC. That ruled: > The explanation of 2H coincides with the convention card but not with > West's > hand, so it must be the case that EW do not have a firm agreement. > Therefore > the explanation is wrong. However they do not think it likely that NS > would > bid 6, so again table result stands. > > EW do not agree on principle, and are thinking of going to the national > appeal committee. What do you think their chances are? Is it possible that the AC is aware of repeated forgets by this pair 9while TD is not) and the AC used this knowledge for the basis of the ruling? It wasn't discussed here if there was history, how frequent, how recent, or how pervasive (meaning: other bids were also often forgotten). > > Hans van Staveren > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hans van Staveren" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:55 AM > Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? > > >> West opens 2H on >> >> T5 >> KJT42 >> AJ53 >> 92 >> >> Alerted and explained as weak with both majors. Auction continues, with >> NS >> bidding 4S, making 12 tricks. NS now claim that had they known they could >> have bid 6. >> >> TD investigates, and finds convention card of EW also stating weak with >> both >> majors. According to EW they play together for 5 years with this system, >> and >> West was temporarily confused. >> >> Is there anything the TD needs to investigate, or is this the end with >> table >> result standing? > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 26 18:45:52 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:45:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 References: <00d601c88d9d$1d9cb410$01d2403e@Mildred><20080325080215.0ED583A@rhubarb.custard.org> <000b01c88ed3$02ba5a30$082f0e90$@no> Message-ID: <004b01c88f69$ebb031b0$d0cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] More queries on Law 27 > On Behalf Of ton > .................... > May I after my quiz draw the conclusion that we need to do something to > explain to the savages that in all cases were 27B1 allows the auction to > be > continued without further rectifications, > L26 does not apply (if we agree on that)? > > ton > > Please do not confuse me more! > > Until I read this I was absolutely convinced that L26 never applies in > those > situations for which we find the words "without further rectification" in > L27. > > If this understanding is not unanimous within WBFLC I shall be really > worried. > > Regards Sven > +=+ Like Kojak and Ton, I can only express personal opinion here and now. Like Kojak I believe that the whole law must be examined when seeking to construe the statement in 27B1. Like Kojak I see that in subsequent sections the inclusion of Law 26 restrictions where they apply is explicit. Common practice in such situations in my (British) experience is that if clause by clause you specify inclusions for some parts of the procedure, and then conspicuously omit them in other clauses the omission signifies and exclusion may be assumed. I go beyond this, however, to add that my personal understanding (also British) of the words "without further rectification" as they appear in 27B1 has them open ended so that they do not stop at the boundary of the auction period. The infraction is an infraction in the auction and application of Law 26 would be a rectification in reference to an infraction in the auction period. One may look at words in Law 25A4 for comparison. As for unanimity, you must not think the drafting sub- committee so docile that unanimity has been everywhere the order of the day. However, its members are adult and we have worked our disagreements to a consensus, and will no doubt continue to do so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Mar 26 19:02:51 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:02:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: <47EA4AFB.5030800@skynet.be> References: <014401c88e5e$62b22050$281660f0$@nl> <47E8ED64.7080303@ulb.ac.be> <47EA4AFB.5030800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0803261102w74812909pb1417508806166d4@mail.gmail.com> [Herman] > > I don't like the repeated error argument. The TD is never to know if > the error has occured before or not. Probably no one considers the repeated-error argument a panacea, but how can you as a director proceed without it? I.e., what do you put in its place? Also, do you really think that information of the form "It should be X, but sometimes partner forgets" fixes the situation completely? I am not convinced that phrases such as "but sometimes partner forgets" fully protect the other side. For example, what agreements do you have in place with your partners when the opponents say that? Imagine, for example, the worst case, where the opponents say it every time. By the way, I cannot recall Grattan ever suggesting a phrase such as this in an explanation. Perhaps he is against it as well. I might even suggest, as a working hypothesis, that the issue of whether or not such a phrase is good or bad information is a major rift in the MS. Jerry Fusselman From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Mar 26 19:08:44 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:08:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: <000901c88f65$cff46b70$81155e47@DFYXB361> References: <014401c88e5e$62b22050$281660f0$@nl><003101c88e9c$3f30e330$0901a8c0@JOHN> <016c01c88f13$8e82b360$ab881a20$@nl> <000901c88f65$cff46b70$81155e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <018e01c88f6c$6e9d1f50$4bd75df0$@nl> You are very kind to the AC. But no, the TD knew the players, the AC did not. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of raija Sent: woensdag 26 maart 2008 18:21 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans van Staveren" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? > Sequel: the TD investigated, asking the sort of questions suggested by > repliers. East bid normally. Director let table result stand. > > NS went to the tournament AC. That ruled: > The explanation of 2H coincides with the convention card but not with > West's > hand, so it must be the case that EW do not have a firm agreement. > Therefore > the explanation is wrong. However they do not think it likely that NS > would > bid 6, so again table result stands. > > EW do not agree on principle, and are thinking of going to the national > appeal committee. What do you think their chances are? Is it possible that the AC is aware of repeated forgets by this pair 9while TD is not) and the AC used this knowledge for the basis of the ruling? It wasn't discussed here if there was history, how frequent, how recent, or how pervasive (meaning: other bids were also often forgotten). > > Hans van Staveren > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hans van Staveren" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:55 AM > Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? > > >> West opens 2H on >> >> T5 >> KJT42 >> AJ53 >> 92 >> >> Alerted and explained as weak with both majors. Auction continues, with >> NS >> bidding 4S, making 12 tricks. NS now claim that had they known they could >> have bid 6. >> >> TD investigates, and finds convention card of EW also stating weak with >> both >> majors. According to EW they play together for 5 years with this system, >> and >> West was temporarily confused. >> >> Is there anything the TD needs to investigate, or is this the end with >> table >> result standing? > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mustikka at charter.net Wed Mar 26 20:12:01 2008 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:12:01 -0700 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? References: <014401c88e5e$62b22050$281660f0$@nl><003101c88e9c$3f30e330$0901a8c0@JOHN> <016c01c88f13$8e82b360$ab881a20$@nl><000901c88f65$cff46b70$81155e47@DFYXB361> <018e01c88f6c$6e9d1f50$4bd75df0$@nl> Message-ID: <000501c88f75$458b93e0$81155e47@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans van Staveren" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? > You are very kind to the AC. > But no, the TD knew the players, the AC did not. > > Hans Was just giving the AC the benefit of a doubt. Now, it is clear (to me) that the AC made a mistake. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 26 23:25:05 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:25:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47EA5C99.8050306@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Once again, BLML shows that neither law-makers nor directors agree >about the meaning of Bridge law; Richard Hills: Why pick only on bridge law? What about citizenship law, such as the Dred Scott ruling of 1857? (When the US Supreme Court ruled that property rights were so sacred that slaves could never become citizens.) Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 26 23:43:35 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:43:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <015e01c88f92$d3a285e0$575b9951@stefanie> > Nigel Guthrie: > >>Once again, BLML shows that neither law-makers nor directors agree >>about the meaning of Bridge law; > > Richard Hills: > > Why pick only on bridge law? What about citizenship law, such as > the Dred Scott ruling of 1857? (When the US Supreme Court ruled > that property rights were so sacred that slaves could never become > citizens.) Gosh, I don't know, that is a toughie. Wait, wait, I have got it! Maybe because this is a mailing list about bridge law, and that is the topic of discussion here! Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 26 23:45:36 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:45:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47EA5C99.8050306@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <016401c88f93$1c0938b0$575b9951@stefanie> > [Nige1] > > [The lawmakers'] intention appears to be to maximise variance in director > rulings. > Let us not be so cynical as to assume that this is their intention. Though they have certainly achieved this. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 26 23:54:42 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:54:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002601c88f3d$f830e4b0$e892ae10$@com> Message-ID: [RH] The new Law 12C1(c): "In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results." I would expectantly expect "expectation" to have the intended meaning of "the weighted probabilities of a number of potential results". [DALB] And what does it mean in places where the Regulating Authority forbids assigning adjusted scores on the basis of a sum of probabilities? Or did it not have any "intended meaning" there? [RH] For ACBL-land, where the 2007 Law 12C1(e) will apply, "expectation" for the non-offending side I expectantly expect to have the intended meaning of "the most favourable result that was likely". 2007 Law 12C1(e)(i) For ACBL-land, where the 2007 Law 12C1(e) will apply, "expectation" for the offending side I expectantly expect to have the intended meaning of "the most unfavourable result that is at all probable". 2007 Law 12C1(e)(ii). What's the problem? Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 27 00:39:56 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:39:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47EA185A.90803@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Note that the weightings are of "a posteriori" **results**. Not being >>weighed in the balance are any "a priori" game theoretical single-dummy >>analyses. Alain Gottcheiner: >Now I don't understand this. Results that weren't achieved at any table >should occasionally be taken into account, and how do you ascertain >their possibility, if not by theoretical analysis ? Richard Hills: To clarify, the key adjective I used was "single-dummy". If single- dummy 6NT is a 95% chance, but a 5-0 break at the table means that this is one of those 5% of deals in which 6NT is doomed, then one does not award a weighted score of 95% of 6NT making. But I do agree that analyses of plausible contracts not reached at any other table should occasionally be taken into account in a 2007 Law 12C1(c) weighted ruling. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 27 00:53:34 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:53:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: <200803251512.m2PFCwGK003197@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200803251512.m2PFCwGK003197@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47EAE1FE.6060909@nhcc.net> > From: "Hans van Staveren" > West opens 2H... > Alerted and explained as weak with both majors. (which West doesn't > have) > Is there anything the TD needs to investigate, While I don't disagree with what others have written, it's well to focus on the question to be answered, which is "What is the true agreement?" Relevant evidence to consider is, of course, EW's system card, notes if any, and statements but also followup methods (Any systemic way to recover from a possible misbid?) and East's actions subsequent to the bid in question. (Was there "fielding?") I personally would give little if any weight to partnership history, but some will think it important. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 27 01:02:48 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:02:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47EA4AFB.5030800@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >However, considering that opponents did manage to get to 4Sp, >they must have realised this as well, so I would probably rule >"no misinformation". Richard Hills: In my opinion, in the stem case of this thread the balance of probabilities suggest that Herman is correct to rule "no misinformation". However, if (for the sake of argument): (a) the player did give misinformation, and (b) the opponents did not believe the misinformation, then (c) it is correct to rule "no damage", not (d) "no misinformation", because (e) giving misinformation is an infraction whether or not the opponents are gullibly damaged, furthermore (f) a non-damaging infraction still leaves the infractor liable to the possibility of a Law 90 procedural penalty. Ergo, in my opinion, Herman chose the right ruling for the wrong reason. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 27 01:09:08 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:09:08 -0400 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: <200803251913.m2PJDej9007827@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200803251913.m2PJDej9007827@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47EAE5A4.2040904@nhcc.net> >>For example, if you make an insufficient bid which cannot be >>untangled, so >>partner must call an enforced pass, and you choose a rational guess of >>punting 3NT, you keep your top if the field has had a scientific >>auction to >>6NT failing by one trick due to a 5-0 break. I've lost who posted this, but the conclusion was correct under the old Laws. As will appear below, I believe the new Laws change it. >>"...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..." > From: Eric Landau > Ruth is in the > expectation, where 6NT is superior to 3NT; Mabel is in the actuality, > where 3NT is superior to 6NT. Eric here seems to be basing "expectation" only on the partnership's 26 cards. If, however, you look at all 52, presumably the expectation absent the IB will be 6NT-1. I don't see how L27D combined with L12B allows the table score to stand. Even if the NOS commit a "serious error," the OS score will still be the "expectation." I can't read anything else into L27D, where "could have known" does not appear. This represents a major change from past practice. Perhaps it was considered a tradeoff for the much more greater ability to correct IBs without barring partner. The OS is more likely to get its "proper" score but is barred from a windfall, no matter how unpredictable. If this is not what the new Laws are supposed to mean, we need an interpretation. (Personally I don't much like the change, but my opinion doesn't count.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 27 02:16:12 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:16:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <017a01c88f2c$e0b79600$a226c200$@nl> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>If we follow the AC, this will mean that *everytime* a player errs >>in one's system, the decision will be "no firm agreement". >> >>I'd say this is ridiculous enough to appeal further, and ask the NAC >>to take a firm stand about this kind of situations, in general. Hans van Staveren >Forgive me father, for I have sinned. > >Actually the AC that gave this ruling was our Dutch national AC. So >your chances in appeal are actually zero. > >As some of you might know we have this continuing battle in the >Netherlands where our NAC has their own idea about what the rules >should be. > >For reasons I cannot understand they still have not been fired. > >I just quit as a Dutch national TD because I cannot justify working >for a bridge league that allows this to happen. Richard Hills: When this Dutch national AC was excoriated on a blml thread last year the 1997 Lawbook was in effect, so their arbitrary rulings that misbids never happen were technically legal findings of fact. But under the 2007 Lawbook the Dutch national AC's arbitrary rulings infract the new Law 85A1: "In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 27 02:45:27 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:45:27 +1100 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002601c88f3d$f830e4b0$e892ae10$@com> Message-ID: David Burn asked: >In the scenario you gave, North-South have stopped in 3NT because of (and I >use this phrase in full awareness of the difference between "subsequent" >and "consequent") an infraction committed by North. This result was a top >for North-South, because the field reached 6NT and failed due to a very >unfortunate lie of cards. > >You have said that they should keep their top. But given what you have >said above and elsewhere, it is impossible to understand why you think >this. Would you please explain, pretending for one moment that you have not >been assisting the WBF DSC and are therefore still capable (a) of speaking >plain English and (b) of giving a straightforward answer to a >straightforward question? Richard Hills plain English straightforward answer: North-South have stopped in 3NT because of an imposed **rectification** upon South (pass throughout) after an infraction (insufficient bid) committed by North. 2007 Law 12B2: "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the **rectification** provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side." 2007 Law 10C4: "Subject to Law 16D2, after **rectification** of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50)." 2008 Law 27B2: "except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23." Note that the general power to award an adjusted score after an insufficient bid - 2008 Law 27D - does not apply in this case, since the initial phrase of 2008 Law 27D is "If following the application of B1", while the Law employed in this case is instead 2008 Law 27B2. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 27 03:07:36 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:07:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <200803251821.m2PILelk017036@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200803251821.m2PILelk017036@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47EB0168.5060408@nhcc.net> > From: Eric Landau > I wonder whether Steve has fallen into the error of interpreting L27B1 > (b) "backwards", as some of his conclusions suggest that he may > have. I don't think so, and I can't see anything I've written that would indicate so. If the IBer's intent is known, there are only certain hands he can have, and any RC has to conform _only_ to those hands. If the intent is unknown, IBer can have many more different hands, and a wide range of RCs will be allowed. Thus it's to IBer's advantage _not_ to indicate intent (unless wishing to silence partner). > To the question of whether the IBer's "intent" (i.e. what he > thought the auction to be at the point he made the IB) is to be > revealed, there are three possible viewpoints: > > (1) The TD does not need it, and it is UI to the IBer's partner. A possible interpretation, though of course the TD needs to find out whether it has been revealed to deal with possible UI restrictions. > The [possible meanings of the IB] will be > disjoint only in a very few rare cases; I don't know if the cases will be rare, but there's no problem dealing with them. I think Eric has confused himself about when L27B1b applies. Consider 2NT-P-2H. It might have been intended to show spades (transfer over 1NT) or hearts (some natural bid). Depending on details, RCs showing hearts and RCs showing spades might be allowed. > But for [bidders's intent] to be relevant would be taking a totally > unprecedented view of how we handle UI. The presence of UI should > not be able to affect the rectification of a non-UI infraction other > than by imposing the L16 restrictions on the use of the UI; Yes, this is definitely a new view. It has the merit of being practical to apply and in apparent accord with the intent of the new L27 but as I wrote before doesn't seem in strict conformity with the literal text. To be fair, past WBFLC "interpretations" have shown departures from the literal text at least as great as this one. > If when the "IBer has revealed his intention... the TD > will... take that into account", then the IBer, by revealing his > intention, may make a prospective replacement call available without > penalty under L27B1(b) where it would otherwise not have been. Nope, that's backwards. See above example. If bidder indicates he meant either hearts or spades, only RCs that show the same suit will be allowed. If he doesn't indicate which, he can show either suit. Of course in this simple example, there's likely only one suit he will wish to show, but the general point always applies: the less information IBer has given, the more RCs will be allowed without rectification. > (2) The TD must ascertain it in order to apply L27 correctly, but if > revealed by the IBer is (still) UI to the IBer's partner. Yesterday > I asked whether L10C1 entitled an IBer to be informed by the TD as to > what his L27B1(b)-compliant options are. I believe it does, and I > argue that if it does, then this interpretation becomes untenable. I agree this interpretation is untenable for both practical and theoretical reasons. > (3) The TD must ascertain it in order to apply L27 correctly, and the > IBer's partner is entitled to it. Or, in Steve's words, "treat > 'information conveyed by the IB' as including the additional > information about why the IB was made". I think my phrase was directed more at (1), but never mind. This is the "mind reading" scenario. Regular readers will know what I think of that. It seems to me that trying to find IBer's intent is fundamentally hopeless, but that's not a bad thing at all. It merely means many more RCs will be allowed without rectification. Presumably the IBer will choose the one closest to fitting his actual hand. The only real question to me is what to do if that intent is revealed. One possibility is to rule L27 independent of that knowledge, then adjust for UI afterwards if necessary. The other is to include the intent -- but only if known to the table -- in the L27 ruling. There are arguments for both views, but I know which one is easier to rule. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 27 03:59:25 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:59:25 +1100 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <015e01c88f92$d3a285e0$575b9951@stefanie> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Why pick only on bridge law? What about citizenship law, such as >>the Dred Scott ruling of 1857? (When the US Supreme Court ruled >>that property rights were so sacred that slaves could never become >>citizens.) Stefanie Rohan: >Gosh, I don't know, that is a toughie. Wait, wait, I have got it! >Maybe because this is a mailing list about bridge law, and that is >the topic of discussion here! Richard Hills: If every other legal system has flawed rules and idiosyncratic interpretations, is it reasonable to expect the Bridge Laws to be the only legal system enjoying dead perfection? Indeed, is dead perfection desirable? After all, one of the attractions bridge has over chess is that perfect play might randomly lead to an imperfect result, so I have no problem with a perfect Director's ruling which might randomly lead to an imperfect result. Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809-1892), "Maud": Faultily faultless, icily regular, splendidly null, Dead perfection, no more Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Thu Mar 27 04:45:33 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 03:45:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? References: <014401c88e5e$62b22050$281660f0$@nl><003101c88e9c$3f30e330$0901a8c0@JOHN> <016c01c88f13$8e82b360$ab881a20$@nl><000901c88f65$cff46b70$81155e47@DFYXB361><018e01c88f6c$6e9d1f50$4bd75df0$@nl> <000501c88f75$458b93e0$81155e47@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <007501c88fbd$02ca4360$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hans van Staveren" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:08 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? > > >> You are very kind to the AC. >> But no, the TD knew the players, the AC did not. >> >> Hans > > Was just giving the AC the benefit of a doubt. Now, it is clear (to me) > that the AC made a mistake. Looks like a vist to the sports court in geneva is on the cards :) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 27 04:49:24 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:49:24 +1100 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004b01c88f69$ebb031b0$d0cf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Like Kojak and Ton, I can only express personal opinion >here and now. Like Kojak I believe that the whole law must >be examined when seeking to construe the statement in 27B1. >Like Kojak I see that in subsequent sections the inclusion of >Law 26 restrictions where they apply is explicit. Common >practice in such situations in my (British) experience is that >if clause by clause you specify inclusions for some parts of >the procedure, and then conspicuously omit them in other >clauses the omission signifies and exclusion may be assumed. Richard Hills: Unfortunately this common practice has been specifically over-ruled by a clause in the 2007 Introduction: "...do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference..." If a mathematical logician was to be a member of the 2017 drafting sub-committee, she would argue that if the above clause in the Introduction was unchanged, then the only 2017 cross-references needed in the main body of the Laws would be *negative* cross-references (Law xx does *not* apply). Grattan Endicott: > I go beyond this, however, to add that my personal >understanding (also British) of the words "without further >rectification" as they appear in 27B1 has them open ended so >that they do not stop at the boundary of the auction period. >The infraction is an infraction in the auction and >application of Law 26 would be a rectification in reference >to an infraction in the auction period. One may look at >words in Law 25A4 for comparison. Richard Hills: The Law 25A4 wording is "There is no further rectification." The Law 27B1(a) and 27B1(b) wording is "...the auction proceeds without further rectification..." So the question is whether this Law 27B1 wording should be interpreted as identical in meaning to "The auction proceeds. There is no further rectification." Is the intended meaning of a phrase good enough, or must one interpret according to the actual meaning of that phrase? King Charles spoke half an hour after his head was cut off. King Charles spoke. Half an hour after his head was cut off. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 27 06:16:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:16:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47E8C1CB.10008@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Law 40B2(a): >>"...the general requirement that the meaning of a call or play >>shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by >>whom it is made..." Alain Gottcheiner: >The meaning does not alter if someone over/underbids. [snip] >is rather covered by matters of style (which are explicitly >allowed) than by matters of meaning. > >Take any bidding quiz and see the responses of long-standing >partnerships. Richard Hills: North-South notionally have an agreement to play a 15-17 1NT. North always has 14-16 hcp when opening 1NT. South always has 16-18 hcp when opening 1NT. Is this a legal difference in style or an illegal difference in meaning? Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 27 06:37:07 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:37:07 +1100 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9680CCB9-FA73-441E-B269-F1A02E2CF5A7@starpower.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Law 27D in this case is relevant only if the Director later >>determines that their initial Law 27B1(b) ruling of validity was >>erroneous. Eric Landau: >I disagree with that last sentence. A player who has made an IB >may legally (and sensibly) choose to make a replacement call that >satisfies L27B1(b) but does not correctly describe his hand, >taking a chance of recovering from the misdescription later in >the auction, rather than guessing a final contract and barring >his partner. > >Absent the IB, he might have been able to correctly describe his >hand with a different call, but given the IB could not make that >call without barring his partner and playing there. Thus the >TD's finding that L27B1(b) applied may have been correct but "the >outcome of the board could well have been different" [L27D]. Richard Hills: I disagree with Eric's disagreement. Law 40A3 and Law 40C1 permit a player to deviate from their methods, provided zero explicit nor implicit partnership understandings. Law 27D has as a criterion "assistance gained", but the player has _lost_ assistance, due to their possible sensible calls being narrowed in range to only psychic calls. Of course, an insufficient bid followed by a psychic replacement call could well fall foul of Law 23. Plus, due to the memorable circumstances, an implicit partnership understanding would be immediately established, rendering the tactic void after one use. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 sater at xs4all.nl Thu Mar 27 07:54:04 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:54:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: <007501c88fbd$02ca4360$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <014401c88e5e$62b22050$281660f0$@nl><003101c88e9c$3f30e330$0901a8c0@JOHN> <016c01c88f13$8e82b360$ab881a20$@nl><000901c88f65$cff46b70$81155e47@DFYXB361><018e01c88f6c$6e9d1f50$4bd75df0$@nl> <000501c88f75$458b93e0$81155e47@DFYXB361> <007501c88fbd$02ca4360$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <01a001c88fd7$5cea03c0$16be0b40$@nl> I'll quit after this message, because this silly nonsense has taken far too much time already, but I see qualifications as "a mistake from the AC". I think you can only say mistake if it was done without deliberation, as an error in the thought process. This NAC does it by design; they know it is illegal, but they don't care. Hans From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Mar 27 09:15:39 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:15:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: I would expectantly expect "expectation" to have the intended meaning of "the weighted probabilities of a number of potential results". Best wishes ton: Long ago I considered myself to have reasonable expertise in this field but decades do erode that quality. What does 'weighted probabilities' mean. It seems to be an improvement of what the drafting committee has done (suggestions we of course encourage you to make), but I fail to understand this. ton From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 27 11:06:04 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:06:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0803261102w74812909pb1417508806166d4@mail.gmail.com> References: <014401c88e5e$62b22050$281660f0$@nl> <47E8ED64.7080303@ulb.ac.be> <47EA4AFB.5030800@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0803261102w74812909pb1417508806166d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47EB718C.507@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Herman] >> I don't like the repeated error argument. The TD is never to know if >> the error has occured before or not. > > Probably no one considers the repeated-error argument a panacea, but > how can you as a director proceed without it? I.e., what do you put > in its place? > The -if it happens once, it may be a single occurence of something more general- argument. Careful analysis of the type of error can often lead to generalisations that do not need to be based on "it has happened before". > Also, do you really think that information of the form "It should be > X, but sometimes partner forgets" fixes the situation completely? I > am not convinced that phrases such as "but sometimes partner forgets" > fully protect the other side. For example, what agreements do you > have in place with your partners when the opponents say that? > Imagine, for example, the worst case, where the opponents say it every > time. > I understand what you mean, but we are searching for ways to not let the possible offenders "off the hook". So we are talking about cases where the sentence is NOT said. Also, we are talking about cases where the explanation turns out to be true. My advice when opponents say "but he may be mistaken" is to treat it as if the explanation is the system, and go on from there. Only when it becomes obvious that there must have been a mistake does the "but he often forgets" come into the picture. > By the way, I cannot recall Grattan ever suggesting a phrase such as > this in an explanation. Perhaps he is against it as well. I might > even suggest, as a working hypothesis, that the issue of whether or > not such a phrase is good or bad information is a major rift in the > MS. > > Jerry Fusselman > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 27 11:11:02 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:11:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: <004b01c88f69$ebb031b0$d0cf403e@Mildred> References: <00d601c88d9d$1d9cb410$01d2403e@Mildred><20080325080215.0ED583A@rhubarb.custard.org> <000b01c88ed3$02ba5a30$082f0e90$@no> <004b01c88f69$ebb031b0$d0cf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000901c88ff2$dd074d40$9715e7c0$@no> On Behalf Of gesta at tiscali.co.uk ............... > +=+ Like Kojak and Ton, I can only express personal opinion > here and now. Like Kojak I believe that the whole law must > be examined when seeking to construe the statement in 27B1. > Like Kojak I see that in subsequent sections the inclusion of > Law 26 restrictions where they apply is explicit. Common > practice in such situations in my (British) experience is that if > clause by clause you specify inclusions for some parts of the > procedure, and then conspicuously omit them in other clauses > the omission signifies and exclusion may be assumed. > I go beyond this, however, to add that my personal > understanding (also British) of the words "without further > rectification" as they appear in 27B1 has them open ended so > that they do not stop at the boundary of the auction period. > The infraction is an infraction in the auction and application of > Law 26 would be a rectification in reference to an infraction > in the auction period. One may look at words in Law 25A4 > for comparison. > As for unanimity, you must not think the drafting sub- > committee so docile that unanimity has been everywhere the > order of the day. However, its members are adult and we > have worked our disagreements to a consensus, and will no > doubt continue to do so. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I have a feeling that this is fully consistent with my own understanding and expectations. Once we have applied Law 27B1 allowing the auction to continue "without further rectification" the actual irregularity will be reconsidered under Law 27D (alone) after the end of the play. This does not exclude rectifications for subsequent irregularities during the same auction. As for unanimity, I am fully aware that any committee will usually include members with different views on particular matters, but I expect WBFLC to eventually having reached an agreement on the law text that all their members accept? Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 27 19:17:29 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:17:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] More queries on Law 27 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C138D17-F77A-458D-8935-C6B5C317545D@starpower.net> On Mar 27, 2008, at 1:37 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > >>> Law 27D in this case is relevant only if the Director later >>> determines that their initial Law 27B1(b) ruling of validity was >>> erroneous. > > Eric Landau: > >> I disagree with that last sentence. A player who has made an IB >> may legally (and sensibly) choose to make a replacement call that >> satisfies L27B1(b) but does not correctly describe his hand, >> taking a chance of recovering from the misdescription later in >> the auction, rather than guessing a final contract and barring >> his partner. >> >> Absent the IB, he might have been able to correctly describe his >> hand with a different call, but given the IB could not make that >> call without barring his partner and playing there. Thus the >> TD's finding that L27B1(b) applied may have been correct but "the >> outcome of the board could well have been different" [L27D]. > > Richard Hills: > > I disagree with Eric's disagreement. Law 40A3 and Law 40C1 > permit a player to deviate from their methods, provided zero > explicit nor implicit partnership understandings. Law 27D has as > a criterion "assistance gained", but the player has _lost_ > assistance, due to their possible sensible calls being narrowed > in range to only psychic calls. > > Of course, an insufficient bid followed by a psychic replacement > call could well fall foul of Law 23. Plus, due to the memorable > circumstances, an implicit partnership understanding would be > immediately established, rendering the tactic void after one use. Richard and I seem to have very different views of how L27B is likely to work at the table. If "a player who has made an IB... legally (and sensibly) choose[s] to make a replacement call that satisfies L27B1(b) but does not correctly describe his hand, taking a chance of recovering from the misdescription later in the auction, rather than guessing a final contract and barring his partner", Richard would, if I understand him correctly, treat that as a psych (hence redressable by L23, but not by L27D). In my view, ordinary common sense and "bridge logic" dictate that it is simply a call whose meaning has been manifestly altered by its being made subject to the provisions of L27B. Not only is a player in this position permitted to "vary his agreements", it will (in the general case) be transparently to his advantage to do so -- we don't expect a player to give a correct systemic description of his hand when his partner is barred from the auction, and we don't call it a "psych" when he doesn't. He knows the position L27B has put him in, his partner knows it, his opponents know it, and we (the prospective adjudicators) will tie ourselves in knots if, in order to make L27B rulings, we have to pretend it ain't so. The results would not be pretty. They would, in fact, come straight out of the ACBL's "we can't tell you what it is but you'd better not do it again" school, in which manifesting the ability to reach an obvious conclusion by plain common sense and ordinary logic creates an "implicit partnership agreement" that somehow makes it illegal to recognize the unavoidably obvious the next time one encounters the same situation with the same partner. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 27 14:58:54 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:58:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] 40B3, etc. In-Reply-To: <47EAE5A4.2040904@nhcc.net> References: <200803251913.m2PJDej9007827@cfa.harvard.edu> <47EAE5A4.2040904@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <9A229AF1-0972-44FA-A1D1-49E84CC57E3E@starpower.net> On Mar 26, 2008, at 8:09 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >>> For example, if you make an insufficient bid which cannot be >>> untangled, so >>> partner must call an enforced pass, and you choose a rational >>> guess of >>> punting 3NT, you keep your top if the field has had a scientific >>> auction to >>> 6NT failing by one trick due to a 5-0 break. > > I've lost who posted this, but the conclusion was correct under the > old > Laws. As will appear below, I believe the new Laws change it. > >>> "...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..." > >> From: Eric Landau >> Ruth is in the >> expectation, where 6NT is superior to 3NT; Mabel is in the actuality, >> where 3NT is superior to 6NT. > > Eric here seems to be basing "expectation" only on the > partnership's 26 > cards. If, however, you look at all 52, presumably the expectation > absent the IB will be 6NT-1. I was indeed. The context of that remark, however, was a discussion of the language of L12. The "rub of the green" (RooG) doctrine is well precedented and established in practice. Although L12 has been significantly rewritten from 1997, and is sufficiently ambiguous to be interpreted so as to eliminate RooG, it doesn't read, IMO, as though that was the authors' intention. > I don't see how L27D combined with L12B allows the table score to > stand. > Even if the NOS commit a "serious error," the OS score will still be > the "expectation." I can't read anything else into L27D, where "could > have known" does not appear. This represents a major change from past > practice. Perhaps it was considered a tradeoff for the much more > greater ability to correct IBs without barring partner. The OS is > more > likely to get its "proper" score but is barred from a windfall, no > matter how unpredictable. > > If this is not what the new Laws are supposed to mean, we need an > interpretation. (Personally I don't much like the change, but my > opinion doesn't count.) L27D is a brand new kettle of fish, and one for which we do not have precedent. It appears to offer a different kind of redress, designed to protect the NOS not from the consequences of an infraction per se, but from the consequences of legal actions taken to redress a prior infraction (it is triggered by L27B, not L18). Although it cross- references L12B1, it goes on to direct us to recover "the probable outcome of the board had the IB not occurred", rather than "the expectation had the infraction not occurred" (there is no mention of "expectation" in L27D). I agree with Steve that the words of L27D do not leave room for RooG, although I seriously doubt that that was the authors' intention. The larger question is whether L27D merely serves as a "bridge" to L12, or requires a different procedure which may lead to a different adjustment. I would argue the latter, as otherwise there would be no need to have L27D at all, and L27B could reference L12C1 directly. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Thu Mar 27 17:14:30 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:14:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47EBC7E6.4080504@NTLworld.com> [Richard Hills] If every other legal system has flawed rules and idiosyncratic interpretations, is it reasonable to expect the Bridge Laws to be the only legal system enjoying dead perfection? Indeed, is dead perfection desirable? After all, one of the attractions bridge has over chess is that perfect play might randomly lead to an imperfect result, so I have no problem with a perfect Director's ruling which might randomly lead to an imperfect result. [Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809-1892), "Maud"] Faultily faultless, icily regular, splendidly null, Dead perfection, no more [Nige1] IMO.... Richard is aware that *Real-life* laws must cope with the complications of external reality. The rules of a *game* can be more arbitrary. Also: elegant variation is attractive in art but repulsive in law. Ideally, the rules of a game should be - - enjoyable. - clear. - unambiguous. - enforceable. - consistently applied. The sophisticated, complex and over-subjective rules of Bridge tend to be incomprehensible to players and directors alike. Frighteningly, Bridge law-makers themselves disagree about the meaning of what they wrote. Their obsession with (so-called) "Equity" is the last straw. It is unrealistic to expect players - - to cope with rules that they don't understand and - to respect rules that are inconsistently applied and - to conform to rules with inadequate deterrents. The WBFLC appear to be attempting triple twisting back-flips before they've learnt how to crawl. Note to David Burn: in this kind of sentence, "they have" seems be more idiomatic than "it has" :) It must be possible to frame simpler more objective rules for Bridge that preserve the important and enjoyable features of the game for *players*. The game might be less challenging for *directors*, but at least there would be a better chance that the game would survive. Formulating such a complete coherent set of simple rules would be a hard enough challenge :( From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 27 22:53:38 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:53:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47EAE1FE.6060909@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >> ... "What is the true agreement?" ... I personally >>would give little if any weight to partnership >>history, but some will think it important ... 2007 Law 40A1(a): "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through **mutual experience or awareness** of the players." Jerry Fusselman: > ... Also, do you really think that information of >the form "It should be X, but sometimes partner >forgets" fixes the situation completely? ... By >the way, I cannot recall Grattan ever suggesting >a phrase such as this in an explanation. Perhaps he >is against it as well. ... 2007 Law 40C1, second sentence: "**Repeated** deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system." Richard Hills: If partner's sometimes forgets means _rarely_ forgets, so that the threshold for an implicit partnership understanding is not reached, then the correct explanation is, "We have an agreement that partner's call means X". If partner's sometimes forgets means _frequently_ forgets, so that the threshold for an implicit partnership understanding is now reached, then the correct explanation is, "We have a two-way agreement that partner's call means X or Y". What's the problem? The problem is that under local regulations "X" may be a legal agreement, but "X or Y" may be an illegal agreement. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 27 23:19:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:19:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3B24F3C6-59B0-4893-B6C8-53BADCC0B323@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >A player cannot be held to have been potentially aware that "his >irregularity ... could well damage the NOS" unless his >irregularity actually could damage the NOS. As L27D precludes >any such potential damage, that is not the case here. Richard Hills: A player cannot be held, under Law 23, to have been potentially aware that "his irregularity ... could well damage the non- offending side" unless his irregularity actually could damage the non-offending side. As Law 23 itself precludes any such potential damage, that is not the case here. If Law 23 applies, the player is innocent of infracting it. But if Law 23 does not apply, then the player is guilty. A paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox! Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 27 23:59:52 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:59:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <47EBC7E6.4080504@NTLworld.com> References: <47EBC7E6.4080504@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <002301c8905e$44664de0$cd32e9a0$@com> [NG] Their obsession with (so-called) "Equity" is the last straw. [DALB] Well, actually it was the first straw. Ever since Kaplan decided that you shouldn't have to play in a cue bid just because you passed it instead of returning to the trump suit, the rules have become increasingly ridiculous. It's not that I mind so much for myself. After all, I play most of my bridge in places where there are Directors of the highest quality and players who, even if they don't know the rules, are prepared to accept the Director's interpretation with good grace. But I represent about 0.0001% of the bridge-playing population. As should be abundantly clear from the discussion of Law 27 in this community, nobody (including the people who made the Law) has any idea what it means. Pity the poor playing Director at the Much-Festering-under-Lyme Bridge Club who has to jump from his seat at table seven to give a ruling when someone at table eleven has bid 1H after 1H (1S), or after 1H (Pass). A few days ago I was playing at the EBU's Easter Festival, and someone at the next table to mine made a (conventional) insufficient bid. The Director who had to deal with the incident did so impeccably. It took ten minutes, and afterwards I was approached by a member of the non-offending side who said "Surely what happened can't be right?" Of course, the WBF DSC does not have to pity that Director, nor even consider her, for the WBF DSC imagines that bridge events the world over are played with screens through which no insufficient bid may pass, under the auspices of Bill Schoder, Max Bavin, Ton Kooijman, Grattan Endicott and the shade of Edgar Kaplan himself. Would that they were, but they are not. David Burn London, England From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Mar 28 00:42:56 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:42:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Phoenix and the Carpet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Richard Hills: > > North-South notionally have an agreement to play a 15-17 1NT. > North always has 14-16 hcp when opening 1NT. > South always has 16-18 hcp when opening 1NT. > > Is this a legal difference in style or an illegal difference in > meaning? Illegal, because their agreement does not correspond to the hands they hold for the bid. If North does not open 1NT with ATxx KQx KJx Axx because it is "too strong" (and he proceeds to bid it as a 15-17 player would bid an 18 count), then N-S do not have an agreement to open a 15-17 1NT. It would be a matter of style if South is a Walrus and North is not. If North does not open 1NT with Ax QJT AQJTx KTx and South does, they can both have an agreement to open on 15-17 HCP and North could judge the hand to be worth 18 HCP. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 28 01:04:20 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:04:20 +1100 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20080327213930.27727DE0159@mailgw2.sgs.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>I would expectantly expect "expectation" to have the intended meaning >>of "the weighted probabilities of a number of potential results". Ton Kooijman:: >Long ago I considered myself to have reasonable expertise in this >field but decades do erode that quality. > >What does 'weighted probabilities' mean. It seems to be an improvement >of what the drafting committee has done (suggestions we of course >encourage you to make), but I fail to understand this. 2007 Law 12C1(c): "In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results." Richard Hills: My _intention_ was merely to paraphrase 2007 Law 12C1(c). But the _actual_ result was a change in meaning. In my _intended_ paraphrase it was the probabilities which were weighted, but in 2007 Law 12C1(c) it was the score which was weighted. As discussed on a parallel thread, problems arise if the _intended_ meaning of a form of words is not congruent with the _actual_ meaning. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 28 01:41:54 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:41:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7B378B4C-40BB-4659-9262-A6699BB8EA0F@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau asked: [snip] >A player makes an IB. The TD is called. He arrives at the table >and reads out L27. The IBer responds with, "I didn't understand >all that; could you please just tell me what calls I'm allowed to >make now without barring my partner from the bidding?" Is he >entitled to an answer from the TD? Or must he work it out on his >own? Richard Hills: Yes and no. The TD must explain the options, but the TD must not poison the deal with UI by giving hand-specific tactical advice. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 28 03:23:11 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:23:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <7B378B4C-40BB-4659-9262-A6699BB8EA0F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002401c8907a$abe2da80$03a88f80$@com> Eric Landau asked: [snip] >A player makes an IB. The TD is called. He arrives at the table >and reads out L27. The IBer responds with, "I didn't understand >all that; could you please just tell me what calls I'm allowed to >make now without barring my partner from the bidding?" Is he >entitled to an answer from the TD? Or must he work it out on his >own? Richard Hills: Yes and no. The TD must explain the options, but the TD must not poison the deal with UI by giving hand-specific tactical advice. [DALB] And you expect people to play bridge at their local clubs in these "yes and no" circumstances? Do you expect them to enjoy it? How do you expect anyone to be able to direct it? It grieves me to say it, but the answer above leads to only one conclusion: Richard Hills has gone over to the Dark Side of the Force. David Burn London, England From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Mar 28 23:55:23 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:55:23 -0700 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002401c8907a$abe2da80$03a88f80$@com> References: <7B378B4C-40BB-4659-9262-A6699BB8EA0F@starpower.net> <002401c8907a$abe2da80$03a88f80$@com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080328155244.039edec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 07:23 PM 27/03/2008, you wrote: >Eric Landau asked: > >[snip] > > >A player makes an IB. The TD is called. He arrives at the table > >and reads out L27. The IBer responds with, "I didn't understand > >all that; could you please just tell me what calls I'm allowed to > >make now without barring my partner from the bidding?" Is he > >entitled to an answer from the TD? Or must he work it out on his > >own? > >Richard Hills: > >Yes and no. The TD must explain the options, but the TD must not >poison the deal with UI by giving hand-specific tactical advice. > >[DALB] > >And you expect people to play bridge at their local clubs in these "yes and >no" circumstances? Do you expect them to enjoy it? How do you expect anyone >to be able to direct it? > >It grieves me to say it, but the answer above leads to only one conclusion: >Richard Hills has gone over to the Dark Side of the Force. Exactly. If the player is of sufficient sophistication to want to play a Michael's cue bid, a TWERB or even a negative double after he has IBed, then he can take me away from the table and explain L27 to me and he had better have a Venn diagram and extensive system notes to prove it. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Mar 28 07:00:54 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:00:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080328155244.039edec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <7B378B4C-40BB-4659-9262-A6699BB8EA0F@starpower.net> <002401c8907a$abe2da80$03a88f80$@com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080328155244.039edec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <002501c89099$15f59070$41e0b150$@com> I have a dream today. Law 1. The Pack. Law 2. After anything untoward, play ceases. The outcome of the deal will be determined by the Tournament Director, from whose lips justice shall roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. I have a dream today. Law 3. No poofters. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 28 07:40:17 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:40:17 +1100 Subject: [blml] My object all sublime [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: W.S. Gilbert "The billiard sharp who any one catches, His doom's extremely hard - He's made to dwell In a dungeon cell On a spot that's always barred. And there he plays extravagant matches In fitless finger-stalls On a cloth untrue With a twisted cue And elliptical billiard balls!" Eric Landau: >The "rub of the green" (RooG) doctrine is well >precedented and established in practice. > >Although L12 has been significantly rewritten >from 1997, and is sufficiently ambiguous to be >interpreted so as to eliminate RooG, it doesn't >read, IMO, as though that was the authors' >intention. >..... >I agree with Steve that the words of L27D do not >leave room for RooG, although I seriously doubt >that that was the authors' intention. Michael Quinion: "The origin is the ancient game of bowls (which Americans may know as lawn bowling; nothing to do with tenpin bowling). A rub is some fault in the surface of the green that stops a bowl or diverts it from its intended direction. The term is recorded first a few years before Shakespeare's time and is still in use. It appears, too, in golf, in the expression rub of the green, which refers to an accident that stops a ball in play - hitting an obstacle or a bystander perhaps - and for which no relief is allowed under the rules." Richard Hills: In my personal opinion, the Rub of the Green concept has been narrowly circumscribed for decades by the Laws of Bridge. For example, ever since the insertion of Law 64C into the Lawbook (in 1975?), Rub of the Green has not applied to revokes. Ergo, I would argue that under the 1997 and 2007 Lawbooks it is only a player's lucky guess after partner's enforced pass which can be defined as Rub of the Green. If so, Eric's qualms about Law 27D abolishing Rub of the Green are baseless, since Law 27D itself states that it does not apply when the partner of the insufficient bidder is compelled to pass. (But, of course, Law 23 may apply.) W.S Gilbert: "My object all sublime I shall achieve in time - To let the punishment fit the crime - The punishment fit the crime; And make each prisoner pent Unwillingly represent A source of innocent merriment! Of innocent merriment!" Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 28 08:30:51 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:30:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Pathos of Paddy, as rendered by Boucicault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002601c890a5$a6c4fb70$f44ef250$@com> Saint Patrick's Day no more we'll keep, his colour can't be seen, For there's a cruel law agin the wearin' o' the Green. [RH] Ergo, I would argue that under the 1997 and 2007 Lawbooks it is only a player's lucky guess after partner's enforced pass which can be defined as Rub of the Green. If so, Eric's qualms about Law 27D abolishing Rub of the Green are baseless, since Law 27D itself states that it does not apply when the partner of the insufficient bidder is compelled to pass. (But, of course, Law 23 may apply.) [DALB] Well, suppose a pair sits down at the wrong table in a pairs event and is the only East-West pair to bid a slam that makes. They are hustled away from the wrong table before they can play the second board of the round, but as I understand the rules, their opponents are stuck with their bottom for the board actually played at their table. Rub of the Green? Or something else? Leech from these elements all that is soluble, Toss in a lump of the valueless voluble, Set it to simmer and keep it in kegs, And the Laws of Two Thousand and Eight are the dregs. David Burn London, England From schoderb at msn.com Fri Mar 28 03:12:44 2008 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:12:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: For Richard Hills: ---------- Amen! Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Eric Landau asked: [snip] >A player makes an IB. The TD is called. He arrives at the table >and reads out L27. The IBer responds with, "I didn't understand >all that; could you please just tell me what calls I'm allowed to >make now without barring my partner from the bidding?" Is he >entitled to an answer from the TD? Or must he work it out on his >own? Richard Hills: Yes and no. The TD must explain the options, but the TD must not poison the deal with UI by giving hand-specific tactical advice. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080327/43903e28/attachment-0001.htm From jkljkl at gmx.de Fri Mar 28 11:05:41 2008 From: jkljkl at gmx.de (Stefan Filonardi) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:05:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002301c8905e$44664de0$cd32e9a0$@com> References: <47EBC7E6.4080504@NTLworld.com> <002301c8905e$44664de0$cd32e9a0$@com> Message-ID: <47ECC2F5.3080006@gmx.de> Hello, David Burn schrieb: > [NG] > > Their obsession with (so-called) "Equity" is the last straw. > > [DALB] > > Well, actually it was the first straw. Ever since Kaplan decided that you > shouldn't have to play in a cue bid just because you passed it instead of > returning to the trump suit, the rules have become increasingly ridiculous. > > It's not that I mind so much for myself. After all, I play most of my bridge > in places where there are Directors of the highest quality and players who, > even if they don't know the rules, are prepared to accept the Director's > interpretation with good grace. > > But I represent about 0.0001% of the bridge-playing population. As should be > abundantly clear from the discussion of Law 27 in this community, nobody > (including the people who made the Law) has any idea what it means. Pity the > poor playing Director at the Much-Festering-under-Lyme Bridge Club who has > to jump from his seat at table seven to give a ruling when someone at table > eleven has bid 1H after 1H (1S), or after 1H (Pass). A few days ago I was > playing at the EBU's Easter Festival, and someone at the next table to mine > made a (conventional) insufficient bid. The Director who had to deal with > the incident did so impeccably. It took ten minutes, and afterwards I was > approached by a member of the non-offending side who said "Surely what > happened can't be right?" > > Of course, the WBF DSC does not have to pity that Director, nor even > consider her, for the WBF DSC imagines that bridge events the world over are > played with screens through which no insufficient bid may pass, under the > auspices of Bill Schoder, Max Bavin, Ton Kooijman, Grattan Endicott and the > shade of Edgar Kaplan himself. Would that they were, but they are not. I apologize for having only a rant. Well, they do not imagine. They are sure of it as they state in the preface of the new laws: "Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the increased responsibilities given to them." When I read that, and could stop laughing, I knew that a further step had been taken to tear apart the world of top bridge and the game at the club. I wish that this break up would be acknowledged and I could play under "David's Bridge Rules for clubs" ciao stefan germany From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 28 11:31:15 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:31:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: <47EAE1FE.6060909@nhcc.net> References: <200803251512.m2PFCwGK003197@cfa.harvard.edu> <47EAE1FE.6060909@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <47ECC8F3.3010103@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : >> From: "Hans van Staveren" >> West opens 2H... >> Alerted and explained as weak with both majors. (which West doesn't >> > > have) > > >> Is there anything the TD needs to investigate, >> > > While I don't disagree with what others have written, it's well to focus > on the question to be answered, which is "What is the true agreement?" > Relevant evidence to consider is, of course, EW's system card, notes if > any, and statements but also followup methods (Any systemic way to > recover from a possible misbid?) I don't understand this. Are such "ways" allowed ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 28 11:31:15 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:31:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is investigation needed after this incident? In-Reply-To: <47EAE1FE.6060909@nhcc.net> References: <200803251512.m2PFCwGK003197@cfa.harvard.edu> <47EAE1FE.6060909@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <47ECC8F3.3010103@ulb.ac.be> Steve Willner a ?crit : >> From: "Hans van Staveren" >> West opens 2H... >> Alerted and explained as weak with both majors. (which West doesn't >> > > have) > > >> Is there anything the TD needs to investigate, >> > > While I don't disagree with what others have written, it's well to focus > on the question to be answered, which is "What is the true agreement?" > Relevant evidence to consider is, of course, EW's system card, notes if > any, and statements but also followup methods (Any systemic way to > recover from a possible misbid?) I don't understand this. Are such "ways" allowed ? From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 28 11:49:33 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:49:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47EBC7E6.4080504@NTLworld.com> <002301c8905e$44664de0$cd32e9a0$@com> Message-ID: <00f901c890c1$6d42ee90$a5cf403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [DALB] > But I represent about 0.0001% of the bridge-playing population. As should be abundantly clear from the discussion of Law 27 in this community, nobody (including the people who made the Law) has any idea what it means. < +=+ Actually, they all 'know' what it means. They just think it means different things. ~ G ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 28 12:45:09 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:45:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] how probable is impossible ? Message-ID: <47ECDA45.9070600@ulb.ac.be> Matchpoints, none vul, sitting South, you hold : K852 8 --- AK865432 And this was hand-dealt ... You open 1C and the bidding goes : S W N E 1C 2C 2H 2S Opponents play together for 22 years, albeit irregularly. Partner asked about the 2C bid, and was told it was natural. Now this is a wee bit suspect, because West is an occasional teammate of yours, and is known to play, in some other partnerships, 2C to show Diamonds and a Major. What do you bid ? Do you ask more questions before doing so ? Best regards Alain From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 28 17:07:59 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:07:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47C6898B10D256E2@mail-12-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-12.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <002501c890f1$5d5133e0$53cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard Hills: > > I would expectantly expect "expectation" to have the intended meaning of > "the weighted probabilities of a number of potential results". > > Best wishes > > ton: > > Long ago I considered myself to have reasonable expertise in this field > but > decades do erode that quality. > > What does 'weighted probabilities' mean. It seems to be an improvement of > what the drafting committee has done (suggestions we of course encourage > you > to make), but I fail to understand this. > > ton > +=+ I would think that sensibly Richard's phrase is to be taken as shorthand for what Law 12C1(c) provides. ~ G ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 28 17:26:29 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:26:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47EBC7E6.4080504@NTLworld.com> <002301c8905e$44664de0$cd32e9a0$@com> Message-ID: <002601c890f1$72434b30$53cd403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Of course, the WBF DSC does not have to pity that > Director, nor even consider her, for the WBF DSC > imagines that bridge events the world over are played > with screens through which no insufficient bid may pass, > under the auspices of Bill Schoder, Max Bavin, Ton > Kooijman, Grattan Endicott and the shade of Edgar > Kaplan himself. Would that they were, but they are not. > +=+ As I read, the 2007 laws provide that any irregularity that passes through the screen is subject to the normal laws. Law 80B2(e) allows of variation only of rectification "of actions not transmitted through the screen" (sic). ~ G ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Fri Mar 28 20:00:01 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:00:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <7B378B4C-40BB-4659-9262-A6699BB8EA0F@starpower.net> <002401c8907a$abe2da80$03a88f80$@com><6.1.0.6.2.20080328155244.039edec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> <002501c89099$15f59070$41e0b150$@com> Message-ID: <004801c89105$ed085770$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 6:00 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >I have a dream today. > > Law 1. The Pack. Sorry, the Deck. apart from that it's an ok Law > > Law 2. After anything untoward, play ceases. The outcome of the deal will > be > determined by the Tournament Director, from whose lips justice shall roll > down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. I have a dream > today. perfectly sensible. > > Law 3. No poofters. > Now you're infringing my human rights :) > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Mar 29 18:08:07 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:08:07 -0700 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002301c8905e$44664de0$cd32e9a0$@com> References: <47EBC7E6.4080504@NTLworld.com> <002301c8905e$44664de0$cd32e9a0$@com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080329095820.039edec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> > DALB: >. A few days ago I was >playing at the EBU's Easter Festival, and someone at the next table to mine >made a (conventional) insufficient bid. The Director who had to deal with >the incident did so impeccably. It took ten minutes, and afterwards I was >approached by a member of the non-offending side who said "Surely what >happened can't be right?" I assume from this that the director was applying the 2008 Law, and presumably he allowed a change to a sufficient conventional bid, which caused the consternation of the non-offending side. In Australia we do not officially change over until later this year, so I may be the only one attempting to apply the new laws at my 4 clubs. I am concerned that we have on sale copies of the 2007 laws with the old L27. There has been no official pronouncement as far as I am aware, that there has been a late change, so presumably lots of Oz directors are still trying to get their heads around the wrong L27. Good luck Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Mar 29 03:17:33 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:17:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <7B378B4C-40BB-4659-9262-A6699BB8EA0F@starpower.net><002401c8907a$abe2da80$03a88f80$@com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080328155244.039edec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <009d01c89143$0cc25d80$1910a256@stefanie> >>Eric Landau asked: >> >>[snip] >> >> >A player makes an IB. The TD is called. He arrives at the table >> >and reads out L27. The IBer responds with, "I didn't understand >> >all that; could you please just tell me what calls I'm allowed to >> >make now without barring my partner from the bidding?" Is he >> >entitled to an answer from the TD? Or must he work it out on his >> >own? >> >>Richard Hills: >> >>Yes and no. The TD must explain the options, but the TD must not >>poison the deal with UI by giving hand-specific tactical advice. Well, the player will most likely have some questions: "Can I bid X?" and the TD will have to explore what the bid means, etc. But I think we are all assuming that this process will take place away from the table. >> >>[DALB] >> >>And you expect people to play bridge at their local clubs in these "yes >>and >>no" circumstances? Do you expect them to enjoy it? How do you expect >>anyone >>to be able to direct it? Indeed. Many of us here have spent hours reading and writing emails; imagine a club director opening up the Law Book and reading, for the first time, the new Law 27 and being required to rule based on it. >> >>It grieves me to say it, but the answer above leads to only one >>conclusion: >>Richard Hills has gone over to the Dark Side of the Force. > > Exactly. If the player is of sufficient sophistication to want to play a > Michael's cue > bid, a TWERB or even a negative double after he has IBed, then he can take > me > away from the table and explain L27 to me and he had better have a Venn > diagram > and extensive system notes to prove it. Indeed. And this, of course, assumes that we can assign a "meaning" to the IB in the first place. In fact, this will often have to be done after the fact. To wit: Suppose the auction goes 1S-P-1H at both Table A and Table B. IBer A thought he was responding to 1 of a minor, and IBer B thought he was opening the bidding. Let us say that in both systems, a hand that would respond 2H to partner's 1S is fully contained in the hands that would respond 1H to partner's one of a minor, and that neither partnership has a bid that shows an opening hand with hearts opposite a 1S opening. So A gets his penalty-free correction, and naturally so does B; but neither B nor the director might be aware that they can "change" the 1H insufficient opening to a 1H insufficient response. So B might get a different ruling than A. How is this to be prevented? I know that this example is trivial, since "making the bid good" is now to be permitted willy-nilly. But perhaps someone who sees what I am getting at can construct a better example. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Mar 29 03:48:54 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:48:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Good news References: Message-ID: <00ce01c89147$6dddff30$1910a256@stefanie> > 2007 Law 40C1, second sentence: > > "**Repeated** deviations lead to implicit > understandings which then form part of the > partnership's methods and must be disclosed in > accordance with the regulations governing > disclosure of system I assume that this means that Orange Book 3 B 10 (not permitted to disclose partner's tendency to forget) will be officially illegal with the new Laws? > Richard Hills: > What's the problem? > > The problem is that under local regulations "X" > may be a legal agreement, but "X or Y" may be an > illegal agreement. > Well, the partnership will receive -3 IMPs (or equivalent) for every board affected, and be disallowed from playing the convention in future. Of course, this is pretty hard to enforce. So then maybe the solution is to penalise 3 IMPs for every board they have so far played in the event in question while the convention was listed on their card. This should improve their memories and/or their decisions on what agreements to play. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Mar 29 03:58:56 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:58:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47EBC7E6.4080504@NTLworld.com><002301c8905e$44664de0$cd32e9a0$@com> <00f901c890c1$6d42ee90$a5cf403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <00ee01c89148$d8482a20$1910a256@stefanie> >> [DALB] >> > But I represent about 0.0001% of the bridge-playing > population. As should be abundantly clear from the > discussion of Law 27 in this community, nobody > (including the people who made the Law) has any > idea what it means. [GE] > +=+ Actually, they all 'know' what it means. They > just think it means different things. > ~ G ~ +=+ If only this were a joke or an exaggeration. Since it is the actual state of things, I do not believe that the 2007 Laws can be implemented this year. Or, better yet, ever. Sorry, Grattan, but I think that the DSC should be sacked and replaced and the job done over. Not just because of Law 27. There are even worse ones (61B3 comes to mind). Stefanie Rohan London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Mar 29 04:40:44 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 03:40:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00ee01c89148$d8482a20$1910a256@stefanie> References: <47EBC7E6.4080504@NTLworld.com><002301c8905e$44664de0$cd32e9a0$@com> <00f901c890c1$6d42ee90$a5cf403e@Mildred> <00ee01c89148$d8482a20$1910a256@stefanie> Message-ID: <000501c8914e$abd5eee0$0381cca0$@com> [SR] I do not believe that the 2007 Laws can be implemented this year. [DALB] Nor do I. The reason may at first seem obvious, but... David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Mar 29 05:15:50 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:15:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20080329095820.039edec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <47EBC7E6.4080504@NTLworld.com> <002301c8905e$44664de0$cd32e9a0$@com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080329095820.039edec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000601c89153$92b4ba90$b81e2fb0$@com> [DALB] >A few days ago I was playing at the EBU's Easter Festival, and someone at the next table to mine made a (conventional) insufficient bid. The Director who had to deal with the incident did so impeccably. It took ten minutes, and afterwards I was approached by a member of the non-offending side who said "Surely what happened can't be right?" [TM] I assume from this that the director was applying the 2008 Law [DALB] No, he wasn't. To the best of my knowledge and belief, England will adopt the new Laws on August 1st 2008. The Director was attempting to impose the 1997 Law relating to insufficient bids. He read it out several times; he said on several occasions "this means that you can do so-and-so without penalty or so-and-so and then there will be a penalty". Nobody at the table understood a word of it. Eventually, perhaps in part because the TD did not wish to "poison the deal by giving UI", he said "I've told you the rules - you can exercise your options." The IBer's side played in a ridiculous contract. One of the NOS asked me afterwards whether the IBer's side had to play in that ridiculous contract. "No", I said. "But I can see why they felt legally obliged to do so." David Burn London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Mar 29 05:53:44 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:53:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47EBC7E6.4080504@NTLworld.com> <002301c8905e$44664de0$cd32e9a0$@com><6.1.0.6.2.20080329095820.039edec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000601c89153$92b4ba90$b81e2fb0$@com> Message-ID: <02af01c89158$de3a2040$1910a256@stefanie> > [DALB] > > No, he wasn't. To the best of my knowledge and belief, England will adopt > the new Laws on August 1st 2008. The Director was attempting to impose the > 1997 Law relating to insufficient bids. He read it out several times; he > said on several occasions "this means that you can do so-and-so without > penalty or so-and-so and then there will be a penalty". Nobody at the > table > understood a word of it. It will be interesting to see the hilarity that will ensue when the new, much more complicated law is read out. > > Eventually, perhaps in part because the TD did not wish to "poison the > deal > by giving UI", he said "I've told you the rules - you can exercise your > options." The IBer's side played in a ridiculous contract. One of the NOS > asked me afterwards whether the IBer's side had to play in that ridiculous > contract. "No", I said. "But I can see why they felt legally obliged to do > so." Well, now the options will be different in every case, and will be determined by an away-from-the-table conference between the IBer and the director. And then by the committee, when the OS get a better result, or when the NOS say that the bid should not have been eligible for a penalty-free correction... in the ACBL I am sure they will say the hell with it and will score A+/A-... I am beginning to think that this might actually be better than the mess we have now. Stefanie Rohan London, England From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Sat Mar 29 05:54:34 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:54:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47EBC7E6.4080504@NTLworld.com><002301c8905e$44664de0$cd32e9a0$@com> <00f901c890c1$6d42ee90$a5cf403e@Mildred><00ee01c89148$d8482a20$1910a256@stefanie> <000501c8914e$abd5eee0$0381cca0$@com> Message-ID: <02b501c89158$fc240df0$1910a256@stefanie> > [SR] > > I do not believe that the 2007 Laws can be implemented this year. > > [DALB] > > Nor do I. The reason may at first seem obvious, but... Don't be a silly goose, David. They *are* the 2007 Laws, no matter what year it is now. From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Mar 29 17:45:14 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:45:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] how probable is impossible ? In-Reply-To: <47ECDA45.9070600@ulb.ac.be> References: <47ECDA45.9070600@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <47EE721A.9060804@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Matchpoints, none vul, sitting South, you hold : > > K852 > 8 > --- > AK865432 > > And this was hand-dealt ... > > You open 1C and the bidding goes : > > S W N E > 1C 2C 2H 2S > > Opponents play together for 22 years, albeit irregularly. Partner asked > about the 2C bid, and was told it was natural. > Now this is a wee bit suspect, because West is an occasional teammate of > yours, and is known to play, in some other partnerships, 2C to show > Diamonds and a Major. > > What do you bid ? Do you ask more questions before doing so ? > I would say that the TD will probably not accept from you a demand for a ruling based on misinformation - you know that you have been misinformed and should not expect the TD to correct for this. However, your partner does not know he has been misinformed, and he may well misinterpret your next bid - that would be damage caused by the MI. I don't think you are allowed to ask questions trying to reveal the misunderstanding, as such would be more for partner's benefit, and trying to get opponents to have UI. So I would not accept that you ask more questions. As to what to bid - I don't see anything except pass, but then I'm not very imaginative. Probably both pairs have a misfit, and if you do happen to have a club fit, partner will call the TD for that. > > Best regards > > > Alain > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Mar 29 20:23:06 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:23:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Expectation In-Reply-To: <200803271336.m2RDaquD005290@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200803271336.m2RDaquD005290@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <47EE971A.3080904@nhcc.net> > From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Note that the general power to award an adjusted score after an > insufficient bid - 2008 Law 27D - does not apply [after 27B2], since the > initial phrase of 2008 Law 27D is "If following the application of B1", I confess I completely overlooked this. Please ignore my previous comments on this subject. If a player makes an IB, thereby bars partner, and then makes a lucky guess, the score stands unless L23 ("could have known") applies. This is the same as before. There are still questions about when L27B1 applies and when to use 27D, but at least 27B2 seems clear now. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sat Mar 29 23:46:17 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 22:46:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47EBC7E6.4080504@NTLworld.com> <002301c8905e$44664de0$cd32e9a0$@com><6.1.0.6.2.20080329095820.039edec0@mail.optusnet.com.au><000601c89153$92b4ba90$b81e2fb0$@com> <02af01c89158$de3a2040$1910a256@stefanie> Message-ID: <001001c891f8$66dd3870$83d0403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 4:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > in the ACBL I am sure they will say the hell with > it and will score A+/A-... > +=+ Citing Law 12C1(d) perhaps? +=+ From Guthrie at NTLworld.com Sun Mar 30 01:48:22 2008 From: Guthrie at NTLworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:48:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] how probable is impossible ? In-Reply-To: <47EE721A.9060804@skynet.be> References: <47ECDA45.9070600@ulb.ac.be> <47EE721A.9060804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <47EEE356.9070305@NTLworld.com> [Alain Gottcheiner] Matchpoints, none vul, sitting South, you hold S:K852 H:8 D- C:AK865432 And this was hand-dealt. You open 1C and the bidding goes : _S _W _N _E 1C 2C 2H 2S Opponents play together for 22 years, albeit irregularly. Partner asked about the 2C bid, and was told it was natural. Now this is a wee bit suspect, because West is an occasional team mate of yours, and is known to play, in some other partnerships, 2C to show Diamonds and a Major. What do you bid ? Do you ask more questions before doing so? [Herman De Wael] I would say that the TD will probably not accept from you a demand for a ruling based on misinformation - you know that you have been misinformed and should not expect the TD to correct for this. However, your partner does not know he has been misinformed, and he may well misinterpret your next bid - that would be damage caused by the MI. I don't think you are allowed to ask questions trying to reveal the misunderstanding, as such would be more for partner's benefit, and trying to get opponents to have UI. So I would not accept that you ask more questions. As to what to bid - I don't see anything except pass, but then I'm not very imaginative. Probably both pairs have a misfit, and if you do happen to have a club fit, partner will call the TD for that. [nige1] I hope Herman is wrong: IMO, even if you are pretty sure that an opponent has misinformed you about their agreements, you can still suffer damage and the director should provide appropriate redress. I suppose LHO could have the remaining clubs but otherwise this may well be a case in point. I agree with Herman, however, that you should not question opponents in an attempt to tell partner what you suspect has happened; also I agree with Herman that, in the circumstances, pass seems best. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 30 12:07:42 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:07:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Pathos of Paddy, as rendered by Boucicault References: <002601c890a5$a6c4fb70$f44ef250$@com> Message-ID: <000201c89252$b39ccb30$46ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 8:30 AM Subject: [blml] Pathos of Paddy, as rendered by Boucicault Leech from these elements all that is soluble, Toss in a lump of the valueless voluble, Set it to simmer and keep it in kegs, And the Laws of Two Thousand and Eight are the dregs. +=+ Burn describes closely the art of 'coordination'. It allies the science of the navigator with the intuition of the personal relationships counsellor to find the achievable. What is sure is that if the decisions had been placed in the hands of any one among us the outcome would have been different - with, in a number of things, no two solutions matching each other. The 'dregs' are the ultimate condensation of what was consensual. There can be no suggestion that acquiescence, at least - and mostly agreement, was obtained before the words were set. into the pages. I have in the computer before me hundreds and hundreds of emails conducting the process (and I could start more arguments by disclosing them), but there is no kind of future in that. The practising Directors among us believe they can work with the 2007 laws, the lawyers and language brokers are reconciled to the choices of words. So, to change the metaphor, the ship has now sailed and it is for the crew to steer it clear of icebergs and typhoons. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Mar 30 13:29:29 2008 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:29:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] how probable is impossible ? In-Reply-To: <47EEE356.9070305@NTLworld.com> References: <47ECDA45.9070600@ulb.ac.be> <47EE721A.9060804@skynet.be> <47EEE356.9070305@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47EF7999.20409@skynet.be> Guthrie wrote: > [Alain Gottcheiner] > Matchpoints, none vul, sitting South, you hold S:K852 H:8 D- C:AK865432 > And this was hand-dealt. You open 1C and the bidding goes : > _S _W _N _E > 1C 2C 2H 2S > Opponents play together for 22 years, albeit irregularly. Partner asked > about the 2C bid, and was told it was natural. Now this is a wee bit > suspect, because West is an occasional team mate of yours, and is known > to play, in some other partnerships, 2C to show Diamonds and a Major. > What do you bid ? Do you ask more questions before doing so? > > [Herman De Wael] > I would say that the TD will probably not accept from you a demand for > a ruling based on misinformation - you know that you have been > misinformed and should not expect the TD to correct for this. > > However, your partner does not know he has been misinformed, and he > may well misinterpret your next bid - that would be damage caused by > the MI. > > I don't think you are allowed to ask questions trying to reveal the > misunderstanding, as such would be more for partner's benefit, and > trying to get opponents to have UI. > > So I would not accept that you ask more questions. > > As to what to bid - I don't see anything except pass, but then I'm not > very imaginative. Probably both pairs have a misfit, and if you do > happen to have a club fit, partner will call the TD for that. > > [nige1] > I hope Herman is wrong: IMO, even if you are pretty sure that an > opponent has misinformed you about their agreements, you can still > suffer damage and the director should provide appropriate redress. I > suppose LHO could have the remaining clubs but otherwise this may well > be a case in point. As I clearly stated above, you may have no redress, but partner may still have. I do not want people coming to me as TD and saying, "I know my opponent better than his partner, so I know what he meant, but I still went and followed the spoken explanation." Of course, your partner does not know the opponent, nor is he watching at an eight-card suit, so he may well still be damaged. And of course I realise that means you are damaged also. But only as a pair, not as a player. > > I agree with Herman, however, that you should not question opponents in > an attempt to tell partner what you suspect has happened; also I agree > with Herman that, in the circumstances, pass seems best. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 30 13:57:27 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:57:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] how probable is impossible ? References: <47ECDA45.9070600@ulb.ac.be> <47EE721A.9060804@skynet.be> <47EEE356.9070305@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <002501c8925d$41c9fef0$46ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] how probable is impossible ? > > I don't think you are allowed to ask questions trying to reveal the > misunderstanding, as such would be more for partner's benefit, and > trying to get opponents to have UI. > > So I would not accept that you ask more questions. > > As to what to bid - I don't see anything except pass, but then I'm not > very imaginative. Probably both pairs have a misfit, and if you do > happen to have a club fit, partner will call the TD for that. > > [nige1] > I hope Herman is wrong: IMO, even if you are pretty sure that an > opponent has misinformed you about their agreements, you can still > suffer damage and the director should provide appropriate redress. I > suppose LHO could have the remaining clubs but otherwise this may > well be a case in point. > +=+ The Director may determine that you are damaged, if the circumstances are such. He has to decide that you have a fair case and are not just 'trying it on'. +=+ < > I agree with Herman, however, that you should not question opponents in > an attempt to tell partner what you suspect has happened; also I agree > with Herman that, in the circumstances, pass seems best. > +=+ Law 20G1: "It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 30 14:01:11 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:01:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Pathos of Paddy, as rendered by Boucicault Message-ID: <002b01c8925d$c25ba960$46ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 8:30 AM > Subject: [blml] Pathos of Paddy, as rendered by Boucicault > > > > Leech from these elements all that is soluble, > Toss in a lump of the valueless voluble, > Set it to simmer and keep it in kegs, > And the Laws of Two Thousand and Eight are the dregs. > > +=+ Burn describes closely the art of 'coordination'. It > allies the science of the navigator with the intuition of the > personal relationships counsellor to find the achievable. > What is sure is that if the decisions had been placed in the > hands of any one among us the outcome would have been > different - with, in a number of things, no two solutions > matching each other. > The 'dregs' are the ultimate condensation of what was > consensual. There can be no suggestion that acquiescence, > at least - and mostly agreement, was not obtained before > the words were set. into the pages. I have in the computer > before me hundreds and hundreds of emails conducting the > process (and I could start more arguments by disclosing > them), but there is no kind of future in that. The practising > Directors among us believe they can work with the 2007 > laws, the lawyers and language brokers are reconciled to > the choices of words. So, to change the metaphor, the ship > has now sailed and it is for the crew to steer it clear of > icebergs and typhoons. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 30 14:01:11 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:01:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Pathos of Paddy, as rendered by Boucicault Message-ID: <002b01c8925d$c25ba960$46ce403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 8:30 AM > Subject: [blml] Pathos of Paddy, as rendered by Boucicault > > > > Leech from these elements all that is soluble, > Toss in a lump of the valueless voluble, > Set it to simmer and keep it in kegs, > And the Laws of Two Thousand and Eight are the dregs. > > +=+ Burn describes closely the art of 'coordination'. It > allies the science of the navigator with the intuition of the > personal relationships counsellor to find the achievable. > What is sure is that if the decisions had been placed in the > hands of any one among us the outcome would have been > different - with, in a number of things, no two solutions > matching each other. > The 'dregs' are the ultimate condensation of what was > consensual. There can be no suggestion that acquiescence, > at least - and mostly agreement, was not obtained before > the words were set. into the pages. I have in the computer > before me hundreds and hundreds of emails conducting the > process (and I could start more arguments by disclosing > them), but there is no kind of future in that. The practising > Directors among us believe they can work with the 2007 > laws, the lawyers and language brokers are reconciled to > the choices of words. So, to change the metaphor, the ship > has now sailed and it is for the crew to steer it clear of > icebergs and typhoons. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sun Mar 30 21:03:03 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:03:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002601c890f1$72434b30$53cd403e@Mildred> Message-ID: > +=+ As I read, the 2007 laws provide that any irregularity that passes through the screen is subject to the normal laws. Law 80B2(e) allows of variation only of rectification "of actions not transmitted through the screen" (sic). ~ G ~ +=+ ton: the word 'only' is essential for the opinion of Grattan to be right. It does not appear in law 80B2(e). An interesting law can be read just two lines lower (80B2f): to announce regulations supplementary to but not in conflict with these laws. Which makes the variation described in 80B2e peculiar. But if I remember well Grattan can explain that. ton From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 31 01:51:39 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:51:39 +1100 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002401c8907a$abe2da80$03a88f80$@com> Message-ID: Eric Landau asked: [snip] >>>A player makes an IB. The TD is called. He arrives at the table >>>and reads out L27. The IBer responds with, "I didn't understand >>>all that; could you please just tell me what calls I'm allowed to >>>make now without barring my partner from the bidding?" Is he >>>entitled to an answer from the TD? Or must he work it out on his >>>own? Richard Hills: >>Yes and no. The TD must explain the options, but the TD must not >>poison the deal with UI by giving hand-specific tactical advice. David Burn: >And you expect people to play bridge at their local clubs in these >"yes and no" circumstances? Do you expect them to enjoy it? How do >you expect anyone to be able to direct it? > >It grieves me to say it, but the answer above leads to only one >conclusion: Richard Hills has gone over to the Dark Side of the >Force. Darth Vader asks: A player makes an Opening Lead Out Of Turn. The TD is called. She arrives at the table and reads out Law 54's five options. Declarer responds with, "I didn't understand all that. Director, have a look at my hand and tell me which option you would choose." Is declarer entitled to an answer from TD Leia? Or must Han Solo work out his hand solo? Best wishes Anakin Skywalker Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 31 02:26:14 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:26:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47EBC7E6.4080504@NTLworld.com> <002301c8905e$44664de0$cd32e9a0$@com><6.1.0.6.2.20080329095820.039edec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> <000601c89153$92b4ba90$b81e2fb0$@com> Message-ID: <002e01c892c5$d41bbf60$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 5:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [DALB] > >>A few days ago I was playing at the EBU's Easter Festival, and someone at > the next table to mine made a (conventional) insufficient bid. The > Director > who had to deal with the incident did so impeccably. It took ten minutes, > and afterwards I was approached by a member of the non-offending side who > said "Surely what happened can't be right?" > > [TM] > > I assume from this that the director was applying the 2008 Law > > [DALB] > > No, he wasn't. To the best of my knowledge and belief, England will adopt > the new Laws on August 1st 2008. The Director was attempting to impose the > 1997 Law relating to insufficient bids. He read it out several times; he > said on several occasions "this means that you can do so-and-so without > penalty or so-and-so and then there will be a penalty". Nobody at the > table > understood a word of it. > > Eventually, perhaps in part because the TD did not wish to "poison the > deal > by giving UI", he said "I've told you the rules - you can exercise your > options." The IBer's side played in a ridiculous contract. One of the NOS > asked me afterwards whether the IBer's side had to play in that ridiculous > contract. "No", I said. "But I can see why they felt legally obliged to do > so." It is very sad and very true that even a trivial IB causes pain. I can only think of 4 or 5 uk TDs who can rule this and actually get close to what the LawMakers intended. I count myself as one such; and only that because my mother used to use the phrase "Make it good dearie". The level of paraphrase required (and I believe I am obliged to explain the intent as well as the letter of the Law) is staggering. Reading the law to the players is like p****g into a force 8. You need to do a LOT more. John > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Mar 31 02:27:17 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:27:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <002401c8907a$abe2da80$03a88f80$@com> Message-ID: <000501c892c5$f9dcd130$ed967390$@com> [DALB] And you expect people to play bridge at their local clubs in these yes and no" circumstances? Do you expect them to enjoy it? How do you expect anyone to be able to direct it? It grieves me to say it, but the answer above leads to only one conclusion: Richard Hills has gone over to the Dark Side of the Force. [RH] Darth Vader asks: A player makes an Opening Lead Out Of Turn. The TD is called. She arrives at the table and reads out Law 54's five options. Declarer responds with, "I didn't understand all that. Director, have a look at my hand and tell me which option you would choose." Is declarer entitled to an answer from TD Leia? Or must Han Solo work out his hand solo? [DALB] The evidence for Richard's defection to the Dark Side grows by the minute. Here is a Law (54) that is unnecessarily complicated and stupid, and Richard adduces it *in support* of the notion that we should have another Law (27) that is also unnecessarily complicated and stupid. The extent to which one needs to be steeped in Doublethink in order to do this is... well, we will charitably call it "bewildering" for the time being. But let us not despair entirely - at least the 1997 Law 25B, which was unnecessarily complicated and stupid, has been expunged from the latest Code. Maybe someday we will start to remember what a game is, and why it has rules at all. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 31 02:59:50 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:59:50 +1100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT MINUTES OF THE ACBL LAWS COMMISSION MARRIOTT HOTEL, DETROIT, MI MARCH 8, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chip Martel, Chairperson Dan Morse Adam Wildavsky, Vice-Chair Matt Smith Alan Falk John Solodar Robb Gordon Eric Rodwell Georgia Heth ALSO PRESENT: Rick Beye Joan Gerard Gary Blaiss Olin Hubert The meeting was called to order at approximately 9:45 AM. The minutes of the San Francisco meeting were approved. Dan Morse communicated the appointments to the Laws Commission. Chip Martel and Jeff Polisner were re-appointed to five-year terms. Chris Compton was appointed to a five-year term. The Laws Commission extends its thanks to Ray Raskin for his service while a member of Laws Commission. Since Dan Morse and Mildred Breed resigned their seats on the Commission, Peter Boyd and Howard Weinstein were appointed to complete the terms (expiring in 2011). It was noted that the ACBL Board of Directors accepted the recommendations of the Commission regarding "elections" by a Zonal Authority and the implementation date of September 8, 2008 was approved. A review of some of the revisions in the Laws that may require some added interpretation by the commission was commenced: 1. [law 12 C 2] The ACBL may continue to use its current method of calculating the score for a contestant that receives an average minus instances where the opponent receives more than 60% for the average plus because the contestant?s session score was greater than 60%. 2. [law 25 A 1 and 45 E 4 (b)] Defining "pause for thought" was continued since a decision is not crucially necessary and the commission has ruled on 45 E 4 (b) previously. 3. [law 40] Robb Gordon will circulate a proposal to address misinformation and misbid concerns of forgetting one's methods in instances where the confusion caused by forgetting causes more damage to non-forgetters rather than the forgetters. 4. [law 45 D] After the time within which an incorrect card played by dummy is past, must means "must be corrected and otherwise may not be corrected". 5. [64 B 7] The commission affirmed that this law definitely requires that the revokes by each side are offsetting even when one revoke is a two-trick rectification and the other is a one- trick rectification. The director applies law 64 C. 6. [69 B] This limit is not set by the law based upon time; therefore, there is no reason to ensure that the amount of time be the same from board to board. 7. [70 E] The procedures specified should be viewed as default guidelines that may be disregarded based upon mitigating circumstances. 8. [93 B 3] Once a committee renders its decision, it may not elect to meet to reconsider the decision unless the director has determined that the decision is illegal and does not accept the decision. The drafting committee sent a revised law 27. The draft will be distributed and approved by e-mail discussion and vote. Chip Martel explained that the previous draft had been worded incorrectly. The intent of the drafters was to allow the correction without penalty when the meaning of the sufficient call was essentially the same or showed a subset of the hands shown by the insufficient bid. For example, if the insufficient bid had a range of 10-16 and the sufficient bid had a range of 13-15, the correction would be permitted without penalty. However, if the insufficient bid had a range of 12-15 and the sufficient bid had a range of 15-16 or 10-18, a rectification is imposed. Adam will submit for the Las Vegas agenda an item to address concerns in UI rulings of whether to treat the hesitation (an irregularity) as part of the infraction when the partner acts on the hesitation. The meeting was adjourned at noon. Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mar 31 04:38:03 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:38:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] Situation normal, all... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005c01c88bb9$82658100$81ce403e@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ In a paper I have submitted to the Laws Drafting >>Subcommittee the following appears: [snip] >>(iii) If creation of unauthorized information by partner is >>inadvertent or a by-product of compliance with law, this is not >>an offence. In other circumstances refer to Law 73B1. [Max >>Bavin: "Accidentally giving UI is not an infraction. Bridge is >>a thinking game; when we think it is often possible to diagnose >>what it was we were thinking about. The infraction is when this >>unauthorized information is used."] >>> [snip] ACBL LC Detroit minutes: [snip] >Adam will submit for the Las Vegas agenda an item to address >concerns in UI rulings of whether to treat the hesitation (an >irregularity) as part of the infraction when the partner acts >on the hesitation. Richard Hills asks: Can a player's hesitation, which Max Bavin rules is "not an infraction", still be what Adam Wildavsky rules is "an irregularity"? 2007 Definitions: "Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player." "Infraction - a player's breach of Law or of Lawful regulation." Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 Mon Mar 31 23:17:13 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:17:13 -0700 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <002401c8907a$abe2da80$03a88f80$@com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20080331141445.0c7fed30@mail.optusnet.com.au> [RJH] >Darth Vader asks: > >A player makes an Opening Lead Out Of Turn. The TD is called. >She arrives at the table and reads out Law 54's five options. >Declarer responds with, "I didn't understand all that. Director, >have a look at my hand and tell me which option you would choose." > >Is declarer entitled to an answer from TD Leia? >Or must Han Solo work out his hand solo? I get this all the time. I suggest that they should always accept the lead from someone who doesn't know whose turn it is to lead, and they also get to let the better player play the hand. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 31 08:32:58 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:32:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000501c892c5$f9dcd130$ed967390$@com> Message-ID: Darth Vader: >>Director, have a look at my hand and tell me which option you would >>choose." >> >>Is declarer entitled to an answer from TD Leia? >>Or must Han Solo work out his hand solo? R2-DALB: >The evidence for Richard's defection to the Dark Side grows by the >minute. Here is a Law (54) that is unnecessarily complicated and >stupid, and Richard adduces it *in support* of the notion that we >should have another Law (27) that is also unnecessarily complicated >and stupid. Law 10C2, as amended in a galaxy far, far away: "If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner (but he may instead ask the Director if, for example, it is the percentage action to accept an insufficient bid and then splinter)." Best wishes Richard James Hills Graduates and Developmental Training Section Department of Immigration and Citizenship Telephone: 02 6223 9067 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 sater at xs4all.nl Mon Mar 31 08:49:13 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:49:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <009001c892fb$572fdbe0$058f93a0$@nl> [RH] DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT MINUTES OF THE ACBL LAWS COMMISSION MARRIOTT HOTEL, DETROIT, MI MARCH 8, 2008 3. [law 40] Robb Gordon will circulate a proposal to address misinformation and misbid concerns of forgetting one's methods in instances where the confusion caused by forgetting causes more damage to non-forgetters rather than the forgetters. 8. [93 B 3] Once a committee renders its decision, it may not elect to meet to reconsider the decision unless the director has determined that the decision is illegal and does not accept the decision. [HvS] Given the current state of affairs in the Netherlands I am very interested in both these points. As for [3], is this supposed to mean a method where forgetting the method works out best for the forgetters in general, or on one particular hand? If the first I definitely want to play these methods :-), if the second would that not be contrary to the principle that an isolated misbid will never cause a score change? Anyhow, any further on this is very welcome. As for [8], I am interested that the point that the TD can refuse an AC decision is apparently a well known phenomenon in the ACBL. It pops up its head in my country now too, because of the ways of our NAC. Hans van Staveren From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Mar 31 09:24:12 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:24:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000501c892c5$f9dcd130$ed967390$@com> Message-ID: <000501c89300$385f9390$a91ebab0$@com> [RH] Law 10C2, as amended in a galaxy far, far away: "If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner (but he may instead ask the Director if, for example, it is the percentage action to accept an insufficient bid and then splinter)." [DALB] If a player wants to use 3H as a splinter after 1S (1H), he ought to be allowed to do so by partnership agreement. If the Law says that he cannot, then... Remember when you're feeling very small and insecure How amazingly unlikely is your birth, And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space, Because there's bugger all down here on Earth. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Mar 31 10:13:58 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:13:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009001c892fb$572fdbe0$058f93a0$@nl> References: <009001c892fb$572fdbe0$058f93a0$@nl> Message-ID: <000601c89307$2bd829a0$83887ce0$@com> [HvS] 3. [law 40] Robb Gordon will circulate a proposal to address misinformation and misbid concerns of forgetting one's methods in instances where the confusion caused by forgetting causes more damage to non-forgetters rather than the forgetters. [DALB] I am not sure what progress is likely to be made here. Suppose one proposed to address misbidding and misplaying concerns in instances where the confusion caused by mangling the auction and the play caused more damage to the non-manglers than to the manglers. For example, North-South cannot remember how (or cannot be bothered) to ask for the queen of trumps, so they reach a grand slam with this by way of a trump suit: A943 KJ62 North cashes the ace, finesses the jack, and makes his grand slam when East has Q105. Of course, North ought to have led low towards the jack in case East had the singleton queen, but... Now, is this damage caused to East-West by North-South forgetting their methods and being generally clueless? Yes, of course it is (arguments about the Battle of Waterloo notwithstanding). What does Robb Gordon propose to do about it? Nothing, I most sincerely hope. If on the other hand Mr Gordon proposes to do something about situations in which (a) a pair forgets its methods and (b) it thereby tells the opponents lies about what its methods actually are, and perhaps (c) it appears to weasel out of the consequences of having forgotten by taking some pusillanimous action, then more power to Mr Gordon's elbow. There was a case not long ago (it might even have been Hans van Staveren who raised it) where some chap opened 2H to "show" both majors on a 2=5=4=2 shape. Apparently he had "forgotten", and luckily his partner did not bid 4S and go nine down doubled; instead, the opponents could have made more spades (six) than they actually bid (four). Well, if the chap could substantiate that the "actual partnership agreement" was that 2H showed hearts and spades, fair enough - just about, though it still stinks. If he opened 2H intending this as Muiderberg and then connived at some pretence that it showed hearts and spades, I would... well, I would see Robb Gordon's point if what he wanted to do was have the man executed. If you're going to play complicated stuff, you should know what it is you're playing; there really isn't much of an excuse for making the wrong opening bid. David Burn London, England From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Mar 31 11:34:27 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:34:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c89307$2bd829a0$83887ce0$@com> References: <009001c892fb$572fdbe0$058f93a0$@nl> <000601c89307$2bd829a0$83887ce0$@com> Message-ID: <00a501c89312$6a3f0af0$3ebd20d0$@nl> [DALB] I am not sure what progress is likely to be made here. Suppose one proposed to address misbidding and misplaying concerns in instances where the confusion caused by mangling the auction and the play caused more damage to the non-manglers than to the manglers. [...] If on the other hand Mr Gordon proposes to do something about situations in which (a) a pair forgets its methods and (b) it thereby tells the opponents lies about what its methods actually are, and perhaps (c) it appears to weasel out of the consequences of having forgotten by taking some pusillanimous action, then more power to Mr Gordon's elbow. There was a case not long ago (it might even have been Hans van Staveren who raised it) where some chap opened 2H to "show" both majors on a 2=5=4=2 shape. Apparently he had "forgotten", and luckily his partner did not bid 4S and go nine down doubled; instead, the opponents could have made more spades (six) than they actually bid (four). Well, if the chap could substantiate that the "actual partnership agreement" was that 2H showed hearts and spades, fair enough - just about, though it still stinks. If he opened 2H intending this as Muiderberg and then connived at some pretence that it showed hearts and spades, I would... well, I would see Robb Gordon's point if what he wanted to do was have the man executed. If you're going to play complicated stuff, you should know what it is you're playing; there really isn't much of an excuse for making the wrong opening bid. [HvS] Good, to the heart of the matter. Luckily I am more likely to get reason out of David than the whole of the Dutch NAC. Let us start with his last paragraph. I could not agree more. If indeed their partnership agreements are dodgy, and they are trying to wriggle out, you could have them shot for all I care. However, as human beings are human beings the following could also happen: EW are a 5 year partnership. Their system is stable. 2H is weak in majors or some strong. However, for whatever reason (tiredness, lack of attention because of personal problems, general absent mindedness) West opens 2H with a Muiderberg. Now at this point in general EW are at a disadvantage. East will bid as if partner has at least 4 spades. West can never run from any high doubled spade contract because there is a good director present(and he is also a moral player). It just so happens that EW gain some (in this case slight) advantage, because of the lie of the cards. Now in this case, according to me it is according to standing law and practice, and furthermore reasonable, that the score should stand. You are allowed to get lucky every now and then. You could argue that the next year, anytime this particular West opens 2H in this partnership, his partner should press salt into his wounds by adding to his system explanation that partner has a history(1x) of forgetting. I am still interested in any reasonable discussion about this subject, because it clearly rouses emotions. In an ideal world people would not forget their own agreements. But just look around you, it is not getting any better.... Hans From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 31 13:31:37 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:31:37 +0200 Subject: [blml] how probable is impossible ? In-Reply-To: <47EEE356.9070305@NTLworld.com> References: <47ECDA45.9070600@ulb.ac.be> <47EE721A.9060804@skynet.be> <47EEE356.9070305@NTLworld.com> Message-ID: <47F0CB99.4000005@ulb.ac.be> Guthrie a ?crit : > [Alain Gottcheiner] > Matchpoints, none vul, sitting South, you hold S:K852 H:8 D- C:AK865432 > And this was hand-dealt. You open 1C and the bidding goes : > _S _W _N _E > 1C 2C 2H 2S > Opponents play together for 22 years, albeit irregularly. Partner asked > about the 2C bid, and was told it was natural. Now this is a wee bit > suspect, because West is an occasional team mate of yours, and is known > to play, in some other partnerships, 2C to show Diamonds and a Major. > What do you bid ? Do you ask more questions before doing so? > > [Herman De Wael] > I would say that the TD will probably not accept from you a demand for > a ruling based on misinformation - you know that you have been > misinformed and should not expect the TD to correct for this. > > However, your partner does not know he has been misinformed, and he > may well misinterpret your next bid - that would be damage caused by > the MI. > > I don't think you are allowed to ask questions trying to reveal the > misunderstanding, as such would be more for partner's benefit, and > trying to get opponents to have UI. > > So I would not accept that you ask more questions. > > As to what to bid - I don't see anything except pass, but then I'm not > very imaginative. Probably both pairs have a misfit, and if you do > happen to have a club fit, partner will call the TD for that. > > [nige1] > I hope Herman is wrong: IMO, even if you are pretty sure that an > opponent has misinformed you about their agreements, you can still > suffer damage and the director should provide appropriate redress. I > suppose LHO could have the remaining clubs but otherwise this may well > be a case in point. > > I agree with Herman, however, that you should not question opponents in > an attempt to tell partner what you suspect has happened; also I agree > with Herman that, in the circumstances, pass seems best. > > I'm a bit surprised that both of you tackled the issue of misinformation vs genuine bid. Couldn't it be misbid vs genuine bid ? Consider the problem the player with the club hand faces. 1) You consider 2C as genuine, so you don't bid your clubs, but pass or double 2S. You end in any silly contract, while you could have made 5 or 6C. Now EW prove the explanation was correct (for example, by producing their system notes). The TD says you get no redress, and everybody ridicules you because you should have known it was impossible for W to hold a genuine overcall. 2) You know 2C is wrong, either misbid or misexplanation, and, fearing the issue above, you bid 5C, what you would have done without the overcall. Now everybody laughs at you because you are in a grotesque contract, and "they warned you" clubs were 8-5-0-0. Of course, a diamond-heart hand in West's hand is much more probable that the remaining 5 clubs. BTA the probability that West has made a risky overcall is much greater that the probability that he erred in his system. At least when West is your humble servant. So the effects more or less compensate eachother. Perhaps the fault is in the principle that you shan't get any redress after a misbid ? For the record, I had clubs, of course : A - QJx - Qxxx - QJ1097. Too bad for those who said 'you know you've been misinformed'. At the table, South bid 5C, got doubled, then counterattacked by saying I couldn't make such a bid on just a 5-card suit. The kibitzer ostensibly counted on her fingers and told him he should have known. But she knows about my style Best regards Alain. From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 31 13:38:04 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:38:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <009001c892fb$572fdbe0$058f93a0$@nl><000601c89307$2bd829a0$83887ce0$@com> <00a501c89312$6a3f0af0$3ebd20d0$@nl> Message-ID: <002801c89323$aed0b130$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans van Staveren" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [DALB] > > I am not sure what progress is likely to be made here. Suppose one > proposed > to address misbidding and misplaying concerns in instances where the > confusion caused by mangling the auction and the play caused more damage > to > the non-manglers than to the manglers. > snip > [HvS] > > Good, to the heart of the matter. Luckily I am more likely to get reason > out > of David than the whole of the Dutch NAC. > > Let us start with his last paragraph. I could not agree more. If indeed > their partnership agreements are dodgy, and they are trying to wriggle > out, > you could have them shot for all I care. > > However, as human beings are human beings the following could also happen: > > EW are a 5 year partnership. Their system is stable. 2H is weak in majors > or > some strong. However, for whatever reason (tiredness, lack of attention > because of personal problems, general absent mindedness) West opens 2H > with > a Muiderberg. Now at this point in general EW are at a disadvantage. East > will bid as if partner has at least 4 spades. West can never run from any > high doubled spade contract because there is a good director present(and > he > is also a moral player). It just so happens that EW gain some (in this > case > slight) advantage, because of the lie of the cards. snip Look guys; why don't you read law 40? "Why did you bid 2H?" 1) "I psyched" 2) "I pulled the wrong bid" 3)" I was playing Muiderberg this morning with someone else" 4) "The opponents are arseholes and I decided to wind them up" 5) "We needed a swing/top" Take your pick. So friggin what? Intent is irrelevant. It's different if he says 6) "I do this quite often and we have a CPU", see "Yes" below "Have you made this misbid in this partnership recently?" "No" - score stands (make a report to a recorder file, or better still get pissed with the other TDs now and then which is how we do it in the UK.) "Yes" - I'd better investigate further. Maybe I'll adjust; maybe I'll issue a PP. Maybe I'll eject him. -*THIS IS NOT HARD!*_ John > Hans > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Mar 31 14:16:58 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:16:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002801c89323$aed0b130$0901a8c0@JOHN> References: <009001c892fb$572fdbe0$058f93a0$@nl><000601c89307$2bd829a0$83887ce0$@com> <00a501c89312$6a3f0af0$3ebd20d0$@nl> <002801c89323$aed0b130$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <00a901c89329$1e9124f0$5bb36ed0$@nl> [JP] Look guys; why don't you read law 40? "Why did you bid 2H?" 1) "I psyched" 2) "I pulled the wrong bid" 3)" I was playing Muiderberg this morning with someone else" 4) "The opponents are arseholes and I decided to wind them up" 5) "We needed a swing/top" Take your pick. So friggin what? Intent is irrelevant. It's different if he says 6) "I do this quite often and we have a CPU", see "Yes" below "Have you made this misbid in this partnership recently?" "No" - score stands (make a report to a recorder file, or better still get pissed with the other TDs now and then which is how we do it in the UK.) "Yes" - I'd better investigate further. Maybe I'll adjust; maybe I'll issue a PP. Maybe I'll eject him. -*THIS IS NOT HARD!*_ John [HvS] Technically this is even very easy, both under old and new laws. However, the Dutch NAC does it wrong. David Burn gets at least partly excited about it, *and I understand this*. As a player I have difficulty being cool after I got blasted away by a pair that misbid and landed on his feet. Of course, looking back, I can understand that usually it goes wrong. If I score +1400 I try to be a nice guy, and not laugh at them after they ended up in a 5-1 split doubled. But human beings have different memories for good things and bad things. Especially appeal committee members get a very strange view of life, since they only see the ones that succeed. Bridge players say that they would prefer these sort of things not to happen. So I understand if players want to write memos about how these things can be handled better. I am just interested in seeing these memos, because I cannot think of a better way of handling it than the way current in the laws. BTW: if you ask any bridge player(that actually wants to win) whether he prefers his opponents to know their system or not, he will of course say not. Hans From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 31 15:07:10 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:07:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00a901c89329$1e9124f0$5bb36ed0$@nl> References: <009001c892fb$572fdbe0$058f93a0$@nl><000601c89307$2bd829a0$83887ce0$@com> <00a501c89312$6a3f0af0$3ebd20d0$@nl> <002801c89323$aed0b130$0901a8c0@JOHN> <00a901c89329$1e9124f0$5bb36ed0$@nl> Message-ID: <47F0E1FE.6000102@ulb.ac.be> Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > [JP] > > Look guys; why don't you read law 40? "Why did you bid 2H?" > > 1) "I psyched" > 2) "I pulled the wrong bid" > 3)" I was playing Muiderberg this morning with someone else" > 4) "The opponents are arseholes and I decided to wind them up" > 5) "We needed a swing/top" > > 6. Well, I know this isn't in my system, but I had taken some time, and didn't want partner to be barred. 7. I put two cliamonds within my spades. 8. I thought RHO hand opened 1NT, don't ask me why. Perhaps because of that fuss about the 1NT bid at the next table. 9. I should have four spades ? Those little square things ? I got them. 10. I can't get rid of that headache. > > But human beings have different memories for good things and bad things. > Especially appeal committee members get a very strange view of life, since > they only see the ones that succeed. The well-known umbrella effect : you don't remember of the occurrences when you forgot your umbrella and it *didn't* rain. > So I understand if players want to write memos about how these things can be > handled better. I am just interested in seeing these memos, because I cannot > think of a better way of handling it than the way current in the laws. > To my knowledge, goals or trials scored on a lucky deflection aren't voided. Neither should be lucky misbids. Even if, as you'll see in my last contribution "how probable ...", it can be extremely frustrating on the NOS. Just fancy : at snooker, lucky strikes are *applauded*. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 31 15:07:47 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:07:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 In-Reply-To: <009d01c89143$0cc25d80$1910a256@stefanie> References: <7B378B4C-40BB-4659-9262-A6699BB8EA0F@starpower.net><002401c8907a$abe2da80$03a88f80$@com> <6.1.0.6.2.20080328155244.039edec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> <009d01c89143$0cc25d80$1910a256@stefanie> Message-ID: <351A31AC-A719-4E82-9F0B-66635EA87C63@starpower.net> On Mar 28, 2008, at 10:17 PM, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Indeed. And this, of course, assumes that we can assign a "meaning" > to the > IB in the first place. In fact, this will often have to be done > after the > fact. To wit: > > Suppose the auction goes 1S-P-1H at both Table A and Table B. IBer > A thought > he was responding to 1 of a minor, and IBer B thought he was > opening the > bidding. And that, of course, assumes that we can assign a "meaning" to the IB. Well, we just did; wasn't so hard, was it? In real life, you ask, they tell. > Let us say that in both systems, a hand that would respond 2H to > partner's > 1S is fully contained in the hands that would respond 1H to > partner's one of > a minor, and that neither partnership has a bid that shows an > opening hand > with hearts opposite a 1S opening. So A gets his penalty-free > correction, > and naturally so does B; Why "naturally"? Why at all? Unnatural or not, L27B1(b) (we are ignoring L27B1(a) for this discussion) allows A to make a penalty- free correction, but does not allow B the same option. > but neither B nor the director might be aware that > they can "change" the 1H insufficient opening to a 1H insufficient > response. Only if they are blatant cheaters prepared to lie outright to the director. > So B might get a different ruling than A. How is this to be prevented? Why do we want to prevent it? The facts and circumstances of the two cases are quite different, so there's no reason the rulings shouldn't differ. We pay our directors to sort out the facts and circumstances. > I know that this example is trivial, since "making the bid good" is > now to > be permitted willy-nilly. But perhaps someone who sees what I am > getting at > can construct a better example. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 31 15:34:41 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:34:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54464DD1-EF7F-4B10-BE38-63A167A17201@starpower.net> On Mar 30, 2008, at 7:51 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau asked: > > [snip] > >>>> A player makes an IB. The TD is called. He arrives at the table >>>> and reads out L27. The IBer responds with, "I didn't understand >>>> all that; could you please just tell me what calls I'm allowed to >>>> make now without barring my partner from the bidding?" Is he >>>> entitled to an answer from the TD? Or must he work it out on his >>>> own? > > Richard Hills: > >>> Yes and no. The TD must explain the options, but the TD must not >>> poison the deal with UI by giving hand-specific tactical advice. > > David Burn: > >> And you expect people to play bridge at their local clubs in these >> "yes and no" circumstances? Do you expect them to enjoy it? How do >> you expect anyone to be able to direct it? >> >> It grieves me to say it, but the answer above leads to only one >> conclusion: Richard Hills has gone over to the Dark Side of the >> Force. > > Darth Vader asks: > > A player makes an Opening Lead Out Of Turn. The TD is called. > She arrives at the table and reads out Law 54's five options. > Declarer responds with, "I didn't understand all that. Director, > have a look at my hand and tell me which option you would choose." > > Is declarer entitled to an answer from TD Leia? > Or must Han Solo work out his hand solo? And this has what to do with the original question? My hypothetical player has simply asked what (if any) penalty he will incur by selecting each of his various options. He has not asked for advice as to which one to choose. I fail to see the analogy. "If I bid 2S now, will my partner be barred from the auction?" Do you (TD) answer yes or no, or do you read L27 again and wish the customer luck working it out for himself? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 31 15:38:26 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:38:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <009001c892fb$572fdbe0$058f93a0$@nl> <000601c89307$2bd829a0$83887ce0$@com> Message-ID: <003901c89334$7f7b2b20$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > If you're going to play complicated stuff, you should know what it is > you're > playing; there really isn't much of an excuse for making the wrong opening > bid. > Look David, provided I'm confident I'm not into CPU territory, or I'm playing with a partner who knows his 75C obligations and ignores the illegal L&E regulation regarding full disclosure, I can open what I like (more or less). My intent is _irrelevant_ and even today I have new bright ideas I fancy trying out (vide a 5-5 maj 5 count 1NT against Binky ar Easter, planning to deny a 4 cM after Stayman). For 20 years at the YC I did this both with you and against you and you never got on your high horse then. What's so different now? It makes no difference whether I'm playing with Proddy, where I know my very complex system; or Ashwin where neither of us has a clue. cheers John > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 31 15:59:38 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:59:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <009001c892fb$572fdbe0$058f93a0$@nl><000601c89307$2bd829a0$83887ce0$@com> <00a501c89312$6a3f0af0$3ebd20d0$@nl> <002801c89323$aed0b130$0901a8c0@JOHN><00a901c89329$1e9124f0$5bb36ed0$@nl> <47F0E1FE.6000102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004201c89337$75cd1cc0$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Alain, perhaps you and I should wear badges that say "We play bridge". It seems a lot of others should sport "We don't play bridge". When I get stuffed by lols or devious gits who're trying it on, I just make a mental note to get even. It won't take long. Most successfully in this category I'm minded of Wonky who somewhat foolishly psyched against me when I was playing with my 14 year old daughter. I picked the psyche off and pressed "Collect". Why do I need a TD? Over the next few weeks I gave him an object lesson in misdirection. A month, 6 different classes of psyche. 6 different partners, 6 tops and 6 TD calls by Wonky later with no adjustments I said I was prepared to call it off and there the matter rested. Wonky hasn't bothered to psyche against me since and I'm content to leave him alone. That's "How do we play bridge." What's it got to do with the TD? John Hans van Staveren a ?crit : > [JP] > > Look guys; why don't you read law 40? "Why did you bid 2H?" > > 1) "I psyched" > 2) "I pulled the wrong bid" > 3)" I was playing Muiderberg this morning with someone else" > 4) "The opponents are arseholes and I decided to wind them up" > 5) "We needed a swing/top" > > 6. Well, I know this isn't in my system, but I had taken some time, and didn't want partner to be barred. 7. I put two cliamonds within my spades. 8. I thought RHO hand opened 1NT, don't ask me why. Perhaps because of that fuss about the 1NT bid at the next table. 9. I should have four spades ? Those little square things ? I got them. 10. I can't get rid of that headache. > > But human beings have different memories for good things and bad things. > Especially appeal committee members get a very strange view of life, since > they only see the ones that succeed. The well-known umbrella effect : you don't remember of the occurrences when you forgot your umbrella and it *didn't* rain. > So I understand if players want to write memos about how these things can > be > handled better. I am just interested in seeing these memos, because I > cannot > think of a better way of handling it than the way current in the laws. > To my knowledge, goals or trials scored on a lucky deflection aren't voided. Neither should be lucky misbids. Even if, as you'll see in my last contribution "how probable ...", it can be extremely frustrating on the NOS. Just fancy : at snooker, lucky strikes are *applauded*. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 31 16:06:11 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:06:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <54464DD1-EF7F-4B10-BE38-63A167A17201@starpower.net> Message-ID: <004901c89338$60076c50$0901a8c0@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Interaction between L27B1 and L10C1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Mar 30, 2008, at 7:51 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Eric Landau asked: >> >> [snip] >> >>>>> A player makes an IB. The TD is called. He arrives at the table >>>>> and reads out L27. The IBer responds with, "I didn't understand >>>>> all that; could you please just tell me what calls I'm allowed to >>>>> make now without barring my partner from the bidding?" Is he >>>>> entitled to an answer from the TD? Or must he work it out on his >>>>> own? snip > > "If I bid 2S now, will my partner be barred from the auction?" Do > you (TD) answer yes or no, or do you read L27 again and wish the > customer luck working it out for himself? > Like I said, it's hard work being a TD. You answer: 1) "Yes" if it's yes 2) "No" if it's no 3) If you don't know then take him away from the table and find out what 2S would mean, apply the Law and then answer per 1) or 2) above once you've returned to the table. It requires immense effort to paraphrase what the Laws says so that the player understands it, and if he doesn't understand it you'd probably better go to 83C (TD Error, IIRC). John From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 31 13:33:48 2008 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:33:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <47EBC7E6.4080504@NTLworld.com> <002301c8905e$44664de0$cd32e9a0$@com><6.1.0.6.2.20080329095820.039edec0@mail.optusnet.com.au><000601c89153$92b4ba90$b81e2fb0$@com> <002e01c892c5$d41bbf60$0901a8c0@JOHN> Message-ID: <000201c89338$8c16b850$59d5403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 1:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Expectation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] << > Reading the law to the players is like > p****g into a force 8. You need to do a LOT more. > John >> +=+ "putting" ? +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 27 18:02:55 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:02:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <47EB0168.5060408@nhcc.net> References: <200803251821.m2PILelk017036@cfa.harvard.edu> <47EB0168.5060408@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <98364439-5009-4CF5-9D28-C2F4AE9CEC39@starpower.net> On Mar 26, 2008, at 10:07 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> I wonder whether Steve has fallen into the error of interpreting >> L27B1 >> (b) "backwards", as some of his conclusions suggest that he may >> have. > > I don't think so, and I can't see anything I've written that would > indicate so. If the IBer's intent is known, there are only certain > hands he can have, and any RC has to conform _only_ to those > hands. If > the intent is unknown, IBer can have many more different hands, and a > wide range of RCs will be allowed. Thus it's to IBer's advantage > _not_ > to indicate intent (unless wishing to silence partner). > >> To the question of whether the IBer's "intent" (i.e. what he >> thought the auction to be at the point he made the IB) is to be >> revealed, there are three possible viewpoints: >> >> (1) The TD does not need it, and it is UI to the IBer's partner. > > A possible interpretation, though of course the TD needs to find out > whether it has been revealed to deal with possible UI restrictions. > >> The [possible meanings of the IB] will be >> disjoint only in a very few rare cases; > > I don't know if the cases will be rare, but there's no problem dealing > with them. I think Eric has confused himself about when L27B1b > applies. > Consider 2NT-P-2H. It might have been intended to show spades > (transfer over 1NT) or hearts (some natural bid). Depending on > details, > RCs showing hearts and RCs showing spades might be allowed. > >> But for [bidders's intent] to be relevant would be taking a totally >> unprecedented view of how we handle UI. The presence of UI should >> not be able to affect the rectification of a non-UI infraction other >> than by imposing the L16 restrictions on the use of the UI; > > Yes, this is definitely a new view. It has the merit of being > practical > to apply and in apparent accord with the intent of the new L27 but > as I > wrote before doesn't seem in strict conformity with the literal text. > To be fair, past WBFLC "interpretations" have shown departures from > the > literal text at least as great as this one. > >> If when the "IBer has revealed his intention... the TD >> will... take that into account", then the IBer, by revealing his >> intention, may make a prospective replacement call available without >> penalty under L27B1(b) where it would otherwise not have been. > > Nope, that's backwards. See above example. If bidder indicates he > meant either hearts or spades, only RCs that show the same suit > will be > allowed. If he doesn't indicate which, he can show either suit. Of > course in this simple example, there's likely only one suit he will > wish > to show, but the general point always applies: the less information > IBer > has given, the more RCs will be allowed without rectification. Steve's very nice exposition has clarified exactly where it is that we differ. My position is that "the meaning of the IB" refers to the IBer's intent, not to his partner's (or the TD's) knowledge of that intent. Here we have a 2H IB that might have been intended to show either hearts or spades. As I read L27B, either 2H means "hearts" or 2H means "spades", regardless of whether or not we know which. As Steve reads it, 2H means "either hearts or spades", notwithstanding that we take that to be the case only because we don't know which was the IBer's actual intent. These lead to diametrically opposite applications of L27B1. With disjoint possibilities, a "meaning... fully contained within the possible meanings of the IB" probably doesn't exist (although we could make up unlikely examples where it might); with the union of the possibilities, such meanings are likely not only to exist, but to proliferate. Note that in Steve's reading, L27B1(b) would allow for not only bids that show hearts and bids that show spades, but also bids that show both, and bids that promise one or the other. >> (2) The TD must ascertain it in order to apply L27 correctly, but if >> revealed by the IBer is (still) UI to the IBer's partner. Yesterday >> I asked whether L10C1 entitled an IBer to be informed by the TD as to >> what his L27B1(b)-compliant options are. I believe it does, and I >> argue that if it does, then this interpretation becomes untenable. > > I agree this interpretation is untenable for both practical and > theoretical reasons. > >> (3) The TD must ascertain it in order to apply L27 correctly, and the >> IBer's partner is entitled to it. Or, in Steve's words, "treat >> 'information conveyed by the IB' as including the additional >> information about why the IB was made". > > I think my phrase was directed more at (1), but never mind. This > is the > "mind reading" scenario. Regular readers will know what I think of > that. My original example was given as 2S-2D, where P-2D would show diamonds and 1S-2D would show hearts. Note the implied stipulation. Sure, we don't know if the IBer was thinking "P-?" or "1S-?" without "reading his mind", but, with no "mind reading" whatsoever, we cannot be sure that it wasn't "1C-?" or "1D-?" or "it's your deal" or even "what was the final contract on board 3?" If we choose to "mind- read", we must ascertain from the IBer what his intent was; if we choose not to, we must take all possibilities into account. It makes no sense to "mind-read but only just a little", ignoring the less likely possibilities but refusing to attempt to resolve the more likely ones. As many others have pointed out, there is no such thing as the objectively determined meaning of an IB. It is an entirely subjective construct that exists solely in the mind of the IBer. So, like it or not, as long as the law requires us to make rulings that are dependent on it, the sort of "mind reading" Steve objects to is unavoidable. Luckily, 99.999% of the time all that's involved in this "mind reading" is a simple question and an honest answer. > It seems to me that trying to find IBer's intent is fundamentally > hopeless, but that's not a bad thing at all. It merely means many > more > RCs will be allowed without rectification. Presumably the IBer will > choose the one closest to fitting his actual hand. > > The only real question to me is what to do if that intent is revealed. > One possibility is to rule L27 independent of that knowledge, then > adjust for UI afterwards if necessary. The other is to include the > intent -- but only if known to the table -- in the L27 ruling. There > are arguments for both views, but I know which one is easier to rule. When a player spontaneously offers UI, we subject his partner to the constraints of L16B, which presumably deals with it appropriately. Nowhere in established law, however, does the presence of UI affect the application of laws designed to rectify other procedural or mechanical errors. There is nothing in L27B to suggest that it operates completely differently, generally making available a different selection of penalty-free corrections, depending on the presence or absence of UI. Steve calls this a "new view", but I would call it simply "an implicitly established view that has not previously had occasion to be expressed". That leaves us with the possibility of applying L27B1 in an invariant manner, without taking the bidders intent into account (whether or not it has been revealed), then dealing with any UI in the usual way (by adjusting afterwards) -- my possibilty (1) above. If we accept Steve's "union" interpretation of "meaning", this works. But if we accept my "disjoint possibilities" interpretation, it is untenable, as it would make L27B1(b) applicable only to a vanishingly small number of rare and esoteric cases. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net